Underwriting Sheet - Using CPR31.16

[Sparkie1723]

The most common defence for someone to use to prevent an Order being made under CPR 31.16 is that the person who is requesting the order is just "FISHING" for information ......in "the hope" they might discover something........that is why you have to be precise in what you are asking the Court to order, and that you must be proposing to issue proceedings or proceedimngs are already in progress and the docs you request would assist your case and that you will be using them in court proceedings...you can't use this CPR to get documents just because you want them.

Court won't grant an order under those conditions

 

sparkie

[beachcomber60]

Interesting thread 42man, not sure if this appropriate for this thread but I'd like your views if possible.

 

I got a PPI complaint against GE Home Lending (unsecured) they basically told me its nothing to do with them & I should 'approach' the double glazing company.

 

While I was in contact with the glazing company GE quickly 'sold' the debt to Link who immediately issued a court claim.

 

To cut a long story short, Link supplied (without being asked as I didnt know about secret commissions at the time) a computer print off sheet entitled 'Pay Off Sheet' containing

 

Commissions :-

Additional £***.**

Loan £****.**

PPI £***.**

 

On cross checking with that supplied by GE's response to my SAR, I found a similar sheet minus a Link reference number, after the word 'commissions' GE have tipexed out some wording, holding it up against the light it states :-

 

Commissions

(Loan £****.**) TIPEXED

(PPI £***.**) OUT

 

I have been chasing GE, the Glazing Company & the Insurers for information regarding this sheet, GE & the Insurers have failed to respond & my first letter to the glazing company they stated that 'to the best of their knowledge no commissions were received', after a second letter to them I received a reply stating that they will no longer correspond with me unless its through their Solicitors.

 

I am due to file my A&Q's & Draft order of Directions to Court next week.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/227155-court-claim-link-while.html

 

Although GE & the Glazing company weren't regulated at the time the FOS has accepted my complaint of mis sold PPI because the Insurers (Pinnacle) were regulated.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Beachy

[postggj]

well i would ask the court for a disclosure notice for the underwriting sheets

 

Commissions

(Loan £****.**) TIPEXED

(PPI £***.**) OUT

 

 

you have it in black and white

 

mention wilson v hurstanger and watch them squirm

[beachcomber60]

well i would ask the court for a disclosure notice for the underwriting sheets

 

Commissions

(Loan £****.**) TIPEXED

(PPI £***.**) OUT

 

 

you have it in black and white

 

mention wilson v hurstanger and watch them squirm

 

Thanks postggj

 

Read today that a Judge ruled that Wilson v Hurstanger is no longer relevent as a result of the Manchester test cases :-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgages-secured-loans/155866-g-e-money-secret-new-post.html

 

 

'B'

[alias barneyrubble]

subbing

[JGJ]

Hi all,

Apologies for jumping into the thread but,

I stumbled across this interesting thread whilst researching info re my PPI/LPI reclaim and susequent reply and offer of full and final from Lloyds TSB.

In the initial stages,

I also sent the letter from 42man post #4 and the follow up letter re the request for the underwriting sheet or other document showing any commissions paid to them by the broker.

 

Nothing was heard from them until their final response letter in february upholding my complaint re the LPI/PPI. but also mentions the previous letters which I had sent to them prior to upholding my complaint.

 

The following paragraphs seemed to have hit a raw nerve with them thus:

 

We cannot disclose whether Lloyds TSB Bank plc receives a commission, or the amount of any commission because this information is confidential as between the Bank and the Insurer, we are under no legal or regulatory obligation to disclose such information.

 

We cannot disclose the remuneration arrangements that we have had with our staff because this information is confidential as between employer and employee and we are not under no legal or regulatory obligation to disclose such information. Foremost however we do not think that this information is relevant to your complaint since we would always ensure that any remuneration structure we have in place would not have a detrimental impact on our relationship with our customers.

 

I note your intention to apply for an order for pre-action disclosure if you do not receive copies of all of the documents requested. I draw your attention to the Court of Appeal decision in Rose v Lynx Express Limited, which stated that such an application must be based on a "properly arguable" substantive claim. For the reasons set out above, I do not consider that you have established a substantive case and therefore any application for pre-action disclosure by you would be wholly misconceived and inappropriate and defended by us. I also reserve the right to draw the attention of the Court to this letter in respect of our costs should such an application be made.

 

Although we are prepared to refund you the Loan Protection premium as outlined, we do not agree that the loan agreement between us was unenforceable or contravenes the Consumer Credit Act 1974 or any associated regulations.

 

I have another ongoing thread as to the validity / enforcibility of the agreement due to the mis-sold PPI/LPI.

 

I have not as yet accepted their full and final offer re the LPI/PPI, your comments and advice will be gratefully received.

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

Edited March 20, 2010 by JGJ

[Sparkie1723]

Refer them to Wilson v Hurstanger and explain to them that you will be presenting their letter to the Court because by saying what they have in that letter makes it practically open and shut that not only was any commission paid secret ..... but now they are attempting to conceal it and that is an offence under the New Fraud Act 2006.

You can also refer them to the later case wherein MBNA were ruled to have received a scret commission I can find you that case although it was CC judgement it will show them you mean business

 

The Court will see that you do have a very subsatntial case to pursue.

 

IMO they have placed themselves in a very vulnerable position.

 

sparkie

Edited March 20, 2010 by Sparkie1723