Shakespeare62 - v - a NastyBank

[cymruambyth]

Well done on standing your ground and getting through to the next level.

[means2anend]

yes

 

Presentation is half the battle Mr 'Stevens'

 

Desperate Daniella is out to find case proposition on WHEN service is deemed in the context of the postal service and I shall find somewthing in the CPR Practice Directions that I came across in my research a couple of weeks ago...BUT WELL DUN 4 now!!!!

 

I am about to light and roll up a tobacco ciggy and shall definitely enjoy this one on you!!!

 

There has been so many posts on this I shall have to go back and find out what the issues were.LOL

 

Rgds

 

m2ae:)

[brooooooooooce]

subbing

[summerbreeze]

Great news ! Well done Shakey

[shakespeare62]

BTW their barrister did seem to backtrack when it was clear permission was going to be given for me to instruct an expert - she started saying it may have been a reconstruction. I said she had stated at the previous hearing that it was the original and the judge agreed. no back tracking from here on. So we'll wait and see.

[humbleman]

BTW their barrister did seem to backtrack when it was clear permission was going to be given for me to instruct an expert - she started saying it may have been a reconstruction. I said she had stated at the previous hearing that it was the original and the judge agreed. no back tracking from here on. So we'll wait and see.

 

I think you might find that she got confused with another instruction and this was indeed a reconstruction.

[means2anend]

BTW their barrister did seem to backtrack when it was clear permission was going to be given for me to instruct an expert - she started saying it may have been a reconstruction. I said she had stated at the previous hearing that it was the original and the judge agreed. no back tracking from here on. So we'll wait and see.

 

So it was the SAME barrister.

 

She's gotta lotta work to play catch up then!

 

It appears then she's got her ankles crossed..and is beginning to stumble...8-)

Edited March 8, 2010 by means2anend

[rev.ian]

Well done, not just her ankles crossed

[means2anend]

OMG, you just popped up!

 

Well done.

 

There is an authority about the postal service, and when things are deemed served. I'll find it for you later.

 

Brilliant. I'm now going off to deliver my standard disclosure documents (or most of them). It's taken all weekend and I am in a foul mood. Your news is the first thing to make me smile today.

 

DDxx

 

Yes..in addition to DD look to CPR part 6 and Practice direction part 6..in relation to the various forms of communication and when they are 'deemed to be served'..

 

Once again well done!!... and 'Up 'em Mr Mannering...''

 

m2ae

[brooooooooooce]

Shakey. I've only just picked up your thread today, taken me half the day to take it all in. You are really an inspiration! I couldn't hope to do half of what you've done. Really well done mate.

[JonCris]

BTW their barrister did seem to backtrack when it was clear permission was going to be given for me to instruct an expert - she started saying it may have been a reconstruction. I said she had stated at the previous hearing that it was the original and the judge agreed. no back tracking from here on. So we'll wait and see.

 

 

OMG the barrister said it was an 'original' at the earlier hearing based on what? I do hope she wasn't giving evidence in her own right & was quoting from another's statement of truth otherwise deep do do may ensue

 

PS have PM'd you

[noomill060]

How have I managed to miss this?

 

Good stuff!

[middenmess]

BTW their barrister did seem to backtrack when it was clear permission was going to be given for me to instruct an expert - she started saying it may have been a reconstruction.

 

Did you allow a smile to cross your face when she said that:grin:

 

If she has the slightest doubt in her mind about the authenticity of the document or that she has been instructed without due adhesion to the truth then she must withdraw otherwise it's possible that her career will be less than stellar from here on in!

[Yeats]

Great work Shakey.

They deserve everything they get and you are the one to give it to them.

[means2anend]

OMG the barrister said it was an 'original' at the earlier hearing based on what? I do hope she wasn't giving evidence in her own right & was quoting from another's statement of truth otherwise deep do do may ensue

 

PS have PM'd you

 

Yes

 

I should have thought that her first duty was to the court..

[InformedSearcher]

Well Shakey - compliments to you yet again.

 

I bet the Barrister thought it a simple walkthrough! She never bargained for such professionalism.

 

Michael

[hatesdebt]

Just read right through this. Amazing - well done.

 

If I get in the doo, I'll pay you to act for me s62......

[citizenB]

BTW their barrister did seem to backtrack when it was clear permission was going to be given for me to instruct an expert - she started saying it may have been a reconstruction. I said she had stated at the previous hearing that it was the original and the judge agreed. no back tracking from here on. So we'll wait and see.

 

OMG the barrister said it was an 'original' at the earlier hearing based on what? I do hope she wasn't giving evidence in her own right & was quoting from another's statement of truth otherwise deep do do may ensue

 

PS have PM'd you

 

Excellent news, S62. Oh dear, oh dear.. If you hadnt asked for the Expert, you would never have known that "it may have been a reconstruction".

[foolishgirl]

Excellent news S62, keep up the good work...

[foolishgirl]

Re. service of docs, this may be the info you are looking for - c/o BRW:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1940726.html

[diddydicky]

execellent news

 

 

and was he raising doubts too about using "XX days rather than a specific date, or just the service?

[dp77]

Great stuff -"may have been a reconstruction"!

 

Where is the legality here? For example, if you go and view under CPR what the claimant states is "the original" and it turns out to be a reconstruction is that illegal? Is there an onus on the claimant to make it clear that what is being presented is a reconstruction? Or are claimants allowed to present reconstructions, not say anything and hope the defendant believes the document to be the original?

 

In this case - Shakey's - the Barrister stated in court the document in question was "the original", if the document is subsequently proved to be a reconstruction is that illegal? You cannot lie to a judge can you?

 

Well done again Shakey, I will be very interested to see what the expert has to say. Understatement!

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello CB!

 

Excellent news, S62. Oh dear, oh dear.. If you hadnt asked for the Expert, you would never have known that "it may have been a reconstruction".

More to the point, had Amex got their way today and been granted the use of their own Expert Witness, would we ever have known if it was a reconstruction!

 

They sure have some front. Firstly they introduce this very late (hot off the Press as it were) just ahead of the last Hearing to try and panic S62 into banging out, then they say it's the original in Court, plus their Witness says it's the original in a Witness Statement, then today they fight tooth and claw to make the Court use their Expert Witness instead of S62's, and then, when they don't get their way, they start to snivel that it might have been a reconstruction after all.

 

I do hope the Judge clocked all of that, and is keen to make sure this now proceeds to the point that the dubious nature of the document makes it into the Appeal Judgment.

 

This could be a Lady Diana Memorial Fund moment for Amex, when it dawns on them that their expensive lawyers are superbly capable of making even more expensive mistakes...and charging them for the privilege.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[cab1ne]

well done shakey "BRILLIANT"

 

also if it is any use regarding postal service

 

Under CPR 6.26 First class post (or other service which provides for delivery on the next business day) is deemed to be “served” The second day after it was posted, left with, delivered to or collected by the relevant service provider provided that day is a business day.

 

cab

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Cab1ne!

 

Under CPR 6.26 First class post (or other service which provides for delivery on the next business day) is deemed to be “served” The second day after it was posted, left with, delivered to or collected by the relevant service provider provided that day is a business day.

This is really only applicable to Court related documents IMHO. The Consumer Credit Act 1974 is amply covered by The Interpretation Act 1978, and the subsequent Queens Bench Practice Direction 1985 that clarified the time scales for Service via 1st (+2 Working Days) and 2nd Class (+4 Working Days) Post.

 

CPR does not even mention 2nd Class Post for example.

 

But CPR is useful to argue that even CPR defines time scales for Service via Post, so Amex and others have to allow for transit time if they elected to use Post rather than personal service, i.e. to ensure the Consumer is given the correct number of clear days (7 or 14, depending on when the Default Notice was issued).

 

In the case of all Amex DNs we have seen, they have failed to do so.

 

Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.

 

Cheers,

BRW