SB100 v HFC - is this default compliant? Court/Restons ***WON***

[diddydicky]

In at two- still at the office at the moment printing out CPR stuff

 

break a leg

[the_shadow]

In at two- still at the office at the moment printing out CPR stuff

 

Give em hell ;-)

 

S.

[pedross]

break a leg

 

Preferably not the Judges - good luck

 

Pedross

[SB100]

One last question- if they start along the lines of the statements and that I've obviously used the card, how do I answer?

[robcag]

Maybe this; http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2061104.html

 

or something from this thread; http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/191353-what-if-judge-asks.html

 

Cheers

Rob

[pedross]

42 man on the second link makes a good point.

 

Simple answer is - I neither admit nor deny the debt as it is not the issue.

[diddydicky]

Maybe this; http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2061104.html

 

or something from this thread; http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/191353-what-if-judge-asks.html

 

Cheers

Rob

 

With respect sir, the purpose of my defence is to establish that the claimant has no grounds to legally enforce the agreement in question.

 

If the court were minded to make a decision based on a moral basis rather than a legal one then I would be obliged if the court would outline in full its reasons for coming to such a conclusion.

[underdog13]

Best of luck SB:)

[fairbyblue]

Good luck:D

[SB100]

Well that didn't go quite as I hoped, or expected.

 

Restons sent a Barrister to represent- for their SJ I'm guessing. She turned up with a skeleton argument, and a long printout of Rankine.

 

The Judge was a very nice chap, and dealt first with Restons application for SJ that they tried to file last week in the hope that it could be heard today. He refused to hear their application and said they should have known better.

 

He told them if they wanted to re-apply for it to be heard, they needed to do so before the end of October, but warned that their are issues with the default.

 

They also had a witness statement from HFC stating that the default was sent out by 1st class, as was ordinary practice. I have proof it was sent by UK Mail.

 

He then turned to my application. He said he couldn't strike out on the grounds I'd asked for. The bulk system didn't allow for attachments, and although they should have sent them straight to me, they did so as a result of my CPR so I had them reasonably quickly anyway. They made a massive application for costs. The judge asked me what my costs had been- I replied 'minimal', he thanked me for my honesty, then told them he considered the majority of their cost was as a result of their application so I shouldn't have to pay. He told me I'd have to pay a sum of roughly 1/3 of what they'd asked for, but not until after trial.

 

He then went on to set dates for disclosure, exchange etc. Its been allocated to fast track, which concerns me, with the cost implications.

[SB100]

Sorry, hit return by accident.

 

When we left the court the barrister asked if I'd consider settling. I said I didn't have much, and did she know the witness statement made about the first class post was rubbish, and I could prove it. She said she didn't and I should let Restons have the evidence. I think she was then trying to get me to admit liability but I changed the subject each time.

 

To say I'm feeling deflated is an understatement. I suspect if I'd made the SO application on the back of the default rather than the POC I'd have had a different outcome.

 

[supasnooper]

Well....you live to fight another day.

 

Restons didn't get their SJ which is good news.

 

I would also take heart from the fact that the Judge has let Restons know that the Default Notice is defective.

 

Restons now have an insight that the Judge is on the button regarding Consumer Law.

You've also fired a warning shot to their barrister that you have proof of postage...............and it ain't what they've told the Judge

 

As to the case going to the Fast track, this ensures that you will get a District Judge to hear the case.

He\She will have a good knowledge of the Consumer Credit Act and the Statutes.............and not a part-time stand-in Deputy District Judge who has specialised in Family Law

 

Restons being Restons, will drag this out trying to spook you into submission.........don't let them wear you down, as you hold the aces !!

[the_shadow]

Sorry, hit return by accident.

 

When we left the court the barrister asked if I'd consider settling. I said I didn't have much, and did she know the witness statement made about the first class post was rubbish, and I could prove it. She said she didn't and I should let Restons have the evidence. I think she was then trying to get me to admit liability but I changed the subject each time.

 

To say I'm feeling deflated is an understatement. I suspect if I'd made the SO application on the back of the default rather than the POC I'd have had a different outcome.

 

 

Hi SB, sorry it didnt go to plan but remember it didnt go Restons way either you live to fight another day and the helpful judge has confirmed there is an issue with the default and the judge is clued up.

 

As to which reason to request SO for, its all done blindly, some judges I've read details of on here wouldnt have accepted the default argument and some would, its a lottery at the end of the day I'm afraid

 

S.

[SB100]

I know you're right SS, but tbh it doesn't feel like that at the moment.

 

I was hoping I'd be able to bring my last witness statement in to play, but didn't seem to be able to as it was in response to their application and not in support of my application.

 

I also mentioned to the barrister, out of court, about the robcag letter... not sure if I should have, but its done now.

[SB100]

Forgot to add, barrister asked a couple of times about whether I'd be prepared to settle. I told her that they were quite welcome to make me an offer.

[danukindebt]

The DN is confirmed invalid, why should it go any further, its appears the law is not the law

[supasnooper]

The DN is confirmed invalid, why should it go any further, its appears the law is not the law

 

 

It is the law.

 

The Judge dismissed Restons application for Summary Judgment partly due to the defective DN.

[SB100]

He blocked them as they'd tried to rush the application, but insinuated that they wouldn't have got it anyway because of the DN. He stressed that he wasn't making a judgement on the validity, but that they should think carefully before re-applying for SJ.

[tiokim]

I think it was a great result for you SB!!!

[AndyOrch]

Absolutley they wont try for SJ again, and now have to go to full trial with the knowledge of why.Well done SB100!!!

 

 

Regards

 

Andy

[robcag]

Hi SB

 

It sounds to me like you got a reasonable result, from the few threads I've read where people have mentioned going for a SO it doesn't seem happen very often.

 

As others have pointed out, the Judge didn't look too favourably on Restons either, even if he did mention the costs element.

 

I think it's easier for people on the outside looking in to see the implications of such a hearing (at least it was in my case). I came away thinking the result could have been better, but although others agreed to some extent, they also pointed out angles that I hadn't seen.

 

I wouldn't worry about the case being allocated to fast track, as you have an excellent chance of winning, just make sure your costs are not 'minimal' next time! When (not if!) Restons finally do throw in the towel, make sure you claim for every last sheet of paper!

 

Did you ever see this post by fairbyblue, where Restons had to cough up after discontinuing due to yet another defective DN?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/214452-mbna-now-served-3rd-2.html#post2365891

 

 

 

That's what the sweet smell of success looks like (not sure if that sounds right!)

 

Cheers

Rob

[underdog13]

Sorry you feel a bit deflated SB, but take heart, it could have been a lot worse! The judge was fair, seems clued up and perhaps was giving you a nudge in the right direction by mentioning the issues with the DN. Has the same judge reserved your case for the next hearing?

 

If Restons are soooo confident of their case, why are they so desperate to settle? Couldn't possibly be because you can prove that they (allegedly ) deliberately mislead the court over the postage of the DN could it?

 

Put your feet up for the evening, have a glass or three of your favourite tipple and wait for Restons to cave;)

[car2403]

No, no, no - this is a good thing! Honest!

 

I'm not saying more now, but lets see what their next move is over the coming weeks.

 

PM'd you SB...

[citizenB]

Well done SB. I agree with the others. You did well and came away with a good result.

 

[fairbyblue]

The fight goes on. Restons are trying their hand. Keep going I waivered but due to the people on here i carried on and won (See cheque above which i converted into lager) Ups and downs. They wanted to get SJ and didnt. So therfore you one up and the game is on. !!!!!!!!!!