Northern Rock v Me - help please

[eddie303]

Hello,

 

I'm wondering if some of you very kind and helpful people on here could advise me of what I should do next with my County Court case with Northern Rock for a personal loan.

 

This is where I am at right now:

 

I have sent back the acknowledgement of claim to Gateshead County Court stating I am contesting the full amount. I phoned the court, they said they received it and the defence date is 25th July.

 

I sent Wallers (the solicitors for Northern Rock) a CPR 31.14 Request using the template on this forum, which they have now replied to.

 

Here is their reply in which they say there is no original copy of the agreement and appear to admit that the terms and conditions are illegible:

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx307/1783952/0035.jpg

 

They say the date for my defence is 27th July.

 

Please see further below for a full list of copies of documents and letters.

 

I have four questions at this point:

 

1. Does the fact that I originally offered reduced repayments to Wallers Solicitors "destroy" my new stance of contesting the full amount?

2. Does the fact that Northern Rock have not kept the original agreement and only made an electronic copy mean they probably don't have a case?

3. Which is the date by which the court needs to receive my defence; the 25th or the 27th?

4. What should I do next?

 

Please ask if you need copies of anything else or more info.

 

Thanks!

 

 

One of the three of four Default notice I received from Northern Rock, this one dated 8th May

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx307/1783952/0024.jpg

 

First letter from Wallers Solicitors asking for payment in full

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx307/1783952/0025.jpg

 

Letter from me to Wallers offering reduced repayments

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx307/1783952/0051.jpg

 

Reply from Wallers rejecting offer

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx307/1783952/0026.jpg

 

Claim Form from Gateshead County Court (pages 1 and 2)

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx307/1783952/0027.jpg

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx307/1783952/0028.jpg

 

Particulars of Claim (pages 1 and 2)

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx307/1783952/0029.jpg

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx307/1783952/0030.jpg

 

Copy of Credit Agreement attached to Particulars of Claim (pages 1 and 2)

(I have scanned these in high quality so you can see how legible they are)

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx307/1783952/0032.jpg

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx307/1783952/0033.jpg

 

CPR 31.14 Request from me to Wallers (pages 1 and 2)

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx307/1783952/0052.jpg

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx307/1783952/0053.jpg

 

Wallers' first reply acknowledging request

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx307/1783952/0034.jpg

 

Wallers' second reply enclosing documents

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx307/1783952/0035.jpg

 

They enclosed the same loan agreement as was originally attached

to the Particulars of Claim (see above) except they added a copy

of the terms and conditions in use at the time the loan was taken

out (not the original illegible one)

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx307/1783952/0036.jpg

 

They also enclosed one the default notices (see above for a copy of one) which is quite legible.

Edited January 17, 2010 by eddie303
Edit title as Summary Judgement dismissed.

[surfaceagentx20]

Eddie,

Answers to Qs

 

1 Depends. What are your grounds for contesting the full amount?

 

If the creditor is relying on that DN I think it is ineffective to give rise to a right to claim early payment, though the arrears would remain recoverable. The text of the DN is prescribed. The DN must specifiy a date before which you are requried to comply with the terms of it. You will notice the DN uses the phrase (correctly) 'before the date shown'. When is 'before the date' and which is shown? The only date shown is the date of the DN. This is an example of a lazy creditor seeking to escape the burden imposed by the regulations by use of the phrase 'within 17 days of the date of this notice'. That's not good enough in my opinion. The Regulations require the creditor to specify a date. If they wanted you to settle by 27 May 2008, the date which ought to have been but which was not shown, was 28 May 2008.

 

2 Not of itself, unless you contend that the copy disclosed is not a true copy of the executed agreement and that the executed agreement was not compliant with the provisions of the Act and Regulations.

 

3 27 July. The Claimant's solicitor will be regarded as having extended time for service of a Defence to 27 July.

 

4 Begin preparing your Defence.

 

x20

[eddie303]

Thanks for the reply x20.

 

I am annoyed that they have resorted to court action so quickly, and have just point blank refused my repeated and very reasonable offers. So I'm not going to let them have an easy ride, I've contested the full amount simply to put the pressure on them to prove their case.

 

I am wondering if the agreement is legible enough to be enforced? The first page has some parts that are unreadable, but the second page is worse. Can they simply provide a copy of the general terms and conditions used at that time in 2006 to replace the illegible page and expect the court to accept it?

 

Does anyone think there is anything here on my side or am I wasting my time?

[robcag]

Hi Eddie

 

 

One of the three of four Default notice I received from Northern Rock, this one dated 8th May

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx307/1783952/0024.jpg

 

 

Presumably you rectified the earlier DNs before the dates given?

 

If that is not the case then perhaps you need to look at the earlier ones as it could be the case that NR have terminated on the back of an earlier (also possibly defective) DN.

 

Just something which IMHO might need to be considered.

 

 

 

If the creditor is relying on that DN I think it is ineffective to give rise to a right to claim early payment, though the arrears would remain recoverable. The text of the DN is prescribed. The DN must specifiy a date before which you are requried to comply with the terms of it. You will notice the DN uses the phrase (correctly) 'before the date shown'. When is 'before the date' and which is shown? The only date shown is the date of the DN. This is an example of a lazy creditor seeking to escape the burden imposed by the regulations by use of the phrase 'within 17 days of the date of this notice'. That's not good enough in my opinion. The Regulations require the creditor to specify a date. If they wanted you to settle by 27 May 2008, the date which ought to have been but which was not shown, was 28 May 2008.

 

 

Further to what x20 has said above regarding the DN shown, even without considering the incorrect wording 'within 17 days of the date of this notice', they have not given you the statutory 14 clear days to rectify the default. Even if service was by 1st class post, they have failed to take into account that the DN was dated - I just went to check and it seems you've now removed the (important) date of issue. When I first looked yesterday ISTR that that date fell on a Friday. Which if that is the case, you would not have been deemed to have received it until the following Tuesday, then start adding the 14 days starting at the Wednesday. Perhaps you could put the date of issue back in your linked document for clarity.

 

Cheers

Rob

[eddie303]

Thanks for your help Rob I went through erasing dates and other bits from the images after I had originally posted as I thought it might be possible for NR or Wallers to identify me from them. I realise now dates are obviously crucial so will keep them in from now on.

 

Here is the earliest DN I received, dated 7th March (pages 1 and 2):

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx307/1783952/0038.jpg

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx307/1783952/0039.jpg

 

so I guess they gave enough time based on that DN.

 

However, this is the original DN that Wallers sent me a copy of as a result of my CPR 31.14 Request to them, dated 8th May (pages 1 and 2):

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx307/1783952/0040.jpg

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx307/1783952/0041.jpg

 

I guess we can't gamble on them only producing that one to the court

 

Also they sent this Formal Demand on the 2nd June, but they had sent 3 or 4 FDs before this:

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx307/1783952/0042.jpg

 

So I guess we can't get them on dates but perhaps the wording of the DN?

[robcag]

Thanks for your help Rob I went through erasing dates and other bits from the images after I had originally posted as I thought it might be possible for NR or Wallers to identify me from them. I realise now dates are obviously crucial so will keep them in from now on.

 

Here is the earliest DN I received, dated 7th March (pages 1 and 2):

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx307/1783952/0038.jpg

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx307/1783952/0039.jpg

 

so I guess they gave enough time based on that DN. Disregarding the fact that they used the incorrect wording as helpfully explained by x20 further up the thread, unfortunately for NR they didn't give you 14 clear days because the 7th Mar 2009 fell on a Saturday (which doesn't count) therefore you would not have been deemed served until the following Weds.

 

However, this is the original DN that Wallers sent me a copy of as a result of my CPR 31.14 Request to them, dated 8th May (pages 1 and 2):

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx307/1783952/0040.jpg

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx307/1783952/0041.jpg

 

I guess we can't gamble on them only producing that one to the court Defective - less than 14 days for the reasons already discussed.

 

Also they sent this Formal Demand on the 2nd June, but they had sent 3 or 4 FDs before this:

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx307/1783952/0042.jpg

 

So I guess we can't get them on dates but perhaps the wording of the DN? Not at all, see above!

 

Cheers

Rob

[eddie303]

Rob,

 

Just went through all the letters from NR, and altogether they sent 3 DNs, identically worded, with these dates on the top of the letter:

 

8th May

2nd April

7th March

 

So they are all 3 defective?

 

regards,

Eddie

[eddie303]

Also, I've read through what you and x20 have written but I still don't understand the 14 day thing and how they have failed to do that? Is it down to the way they have worded the DN, or just that they have omitted to put the date they want it rectifying?

 

Also to answer an earlier question from you I just spotted, no I did not remedy any of the DNs, I wrote to them repeatedly offering the reduced repayments.

 

thanks,

Eddie

[robcag]

Rob,

 

Just went through all the letters from NR, and altogether they sent 3 DNs, identically worded, with these dates on the top of the letter:

 

8th May Friday, deemed served the following Tuesday (if 1st class)

2nd April Thursday, deemed served the following Monday (if 1st class)

7th March Saturday, deemed served the following Wednesday (if 1st class)

All would be even later if not sent 1st class, but irrelevant in your case.

 

So they are all 3 defective?

 

regards,

Eddie

 

Yep, all defective, all less than 14 clear days to rectify due to not allowing enough days for service before adding the 14 days on.

 

Which begs the question, why so many DNs? Did you rectify the earlier ones?

 

Cheers

Rob

[robcag]

Also, I've read through what you and x20 have written but I still don't understand the 14 day thing they have to give you 14 clear days to rectify the default in accordance with ss 87,88 of the CCA1974 before they are entitled to take the action they have taken, see;Consumer Credit Act 1974 (c. 39) - Statute Law Database and how they have failed to do that? Is it down to the way they have worded the DN, or just that they have omitted to put the date they want it rectifying?

 

Also to answer an earlier question from you I just spotted, no I did not remedy any of the DNs, I wrote to them repeatedly offering the reduced repayments. OK

 

thanks,

Eddie

 

This is what was pointed out by pt2537 in my thread, and went on to blow HFC/restons claim out of the water, so it's very relevant. Although there are now many other threads where people have defended using defective DNs, see my thread here post #12 onwards;

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dca-legal-successes/124572-hfc-no-agreement-amended.html#post1298696

 

Sorry I can't point you to anything else right now but I'm a bit busy with another case of my own.

 

Cheers

Rob

Edited August 11, 2009 by robcag
grammar

[eddie303]

Thanks again Rob, that's great. I will read through other threads on this subject to get my head around it.

 

The other question I have for someone else to answer as Rob has been more than helpful already ......

 

.... in addition to the 14 day thing, shall I also put in my defence anything about the illegibility of the agreement or is it not worth going at them with that too?

 

This is the agreement they have, in electronic form only as they destroy originals after 6 months:

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx307/1783952/0032.jpg

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx307/1783952/0033.jpg

 

The second page was on the back of the original agreement and is particularly unreadable.

[robcag]

Thanks again Rob, that's great. I will read through other threads on this subject to get my head around it.

 

 

A good thread by x20 to start with;

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/170345-tale-dodgy-dn.html

 

and the thread it links to at the last post of the thread.

 

Cheers

Rob

[eddie303]

Thanks to Rob pointing me in the right direction thread-wise I have been reading various threads regarding the invalid DN issue in the last couple of days.

 

If anyone has a moment to take a glance at my Defence below I would be most grateful.

 

My defence is due in on the 27th (Monday) so I really should post using Special Del today to make sure it arrives on time. I realise I'm not really giving anyone on here enough time to comment so if nobody does I will understand. :-| I'll wait until about 4PM before putting it in the envelope and sealing and then heading off to PO.

 

I've put together my defence purely based on the invalid DN argument, and by copying from other Defences I've found in threads on this issue.

 

thanks,

Eddie

 

Note I have put a couple of comments in below in between {}s and in orange that will not appear in the printed copy.

 

 

In the Gateshead County Court

Claim number

 

 

Between

 

xxxxxxxxxxx- Claimant

 

and

 

xxxxxxxxxxx – Defendant

 

 

Defence

 

1. Except where otherwise mentioned in this defence, the Defendant neither admits nor denies any allegation made in the Claimants’ Particulars of Claim and put the Claimant to strict proof thereof.

 

 

2. The Claimant must under Section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 serve a valid Default Notice before they can demand early payment of sums not yet due under a Regulated Credit Agreement. It is submitted that the default notice served under s87 (1) Consumer credit act 1974 failed to comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561).

 

 

3. I refer to the date of the letter as being the 7th of March 2009; it is denied that the Default notice was received on the 7th of March 2009 thus not allowing the prescribed time frame required by the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) which states, Regulation 2(2) schedule 2

 

 

Details of breach of agreement and action required to remedy, or pay compensation for, the breach

3

A specification of:--

(a) the provision of the agreement alleged to have been breached; and

(b) the nature of the alleged breach of the agreement, specifying clearly the matters complained of; and either

© if the breach is capable of remedy, what action is required to remedy it and the date, being a date [not less than fourteen days] after the date of service of the notice, before which that action is to be taken; or

(d) if the breach is not capable of remedy, the sum (if any) required to be paid as compensation for the breach and the date, being a date [not less than fourteen days] after the date of service of the notice, before which it is to be paid.

 

 

4. Fourteen days were not allowed between service of the default and the time laid out where the alleged breach needed to be remedied. I therefore put the claimant to strict proof as to the date of service of said document.

 

{the next bit I will indent to make clear it is all part of 4.}

 

1. Under the Interpretation Act 1978 Section 7, it states:

 

Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression "serve" or the expressions "give" or "send" or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."

 

2. Practice Direction

Service of Documents - First and Second Class Mail.

 

With effect from 16 April 1985 the Practice Direction issued on 30 July 1968 is hereby revoked and the following is substituted therefore.

1). Under S7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 service by post is deemed to have been effected, unless the contrary has been proved, at the time when the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

2). To avoid uncertainty as to the date of service it will be taken (subject to proof to the contrary) that delivery in the ordinary course of post was effected:-

(a) in the case of first class mail, on the second working day after posting;

(b) in the case of second class mail, on the fourth working day after posting.

"Working days" are Monday to Friday, excluding any bank holiday.

3). Affidavits of service shall state whether the document was dispatched by first or second class mail. If this information is omitted it will be assumed that second class mail was used.

4). This direction is subject to the special provisions of RSC Order 10, rule 1(3) relating to the service of originating process.

 

8th March 1985

J R BICKFORD SMITH Senior Master

Queen's Bench Division

 

3. Further to point 2 above, CPR rules on service also state the required timescales to be given for serving of documents :-

 

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.

 

{end of indented bit and resume main points numbering}

 

5. For a creditor to be entitled to terminate a regulated credit agreement where there is a breach, demand repayment in full or take any legal action to recover any monies due under the agreement, a creditor must serve a Default Notice under section 87(1) CCA 1974 which states

 

 

(1) Service of a notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a "default notice ") is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement,-

(a) to terminate the agreement, or

 

 

(b) to demand earlier payment of any sum, or

 

 

© to recover possession of any goods or land, or

 

 

(d) to treat any right conferred on the debtor or hirer by the agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred, or

 

 

(e)to enforce any security.

 

 

6. I note the opening part of section 88(1), which states

 

 

88. Contents and effect of default notice.

 

 

- (1) The default notice must be in the prescribed form.......

 

 

The word must makes it clear that no variation is acceptable. Therefore it cannot be dispensed with as a De Minimus issue.

 

 

7. I note that the regulations do not allow any variation in the form of these statements and therefore it is suggested that where the statements are not as laid down in the regulations the Default Notice is rendered invalid as a consequence.

 

 

8. In the case of Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co - [1998] All ER (D) 339 in the Court of Appeal, the court addressed in some detail the issue of the contents of a default notice and should the notice fail to comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) it would render the default notice invalid I quote the comment of KENNEDY LJ: "This statute was plainly enacted to protect consumers, most of whom are likely to be individuals" the judgement appears confirm the consumer credit legislation made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as plainly enacted and set out to offer protection to the consumer. Therefore it is suggested that the failure of the claimant to set out the default notice in accordance with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) could unduly prejudice me as it failed to allow the required time to remedy the default.

 

 

9. The claimants failure to issue a valid default notice must surely prevent a right of action and would make any termination of the agreement unlawful as statute provides the procedure that must be followed and since the claimant has failed to adhere to statutory procedure it is averred that the claimant does not have a right of action.

 

 

10. The claimant's case cannot succeed as matters stand.

 

 

11. In view of matters pleaded, I respectfully request the court give consideration to striking out the claimants case pursuant to part 3.4 of the Civil Procedure Rules entitled “Power to strike out a statement of case”, which state:

 

 

(2) The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court -

 

 

(a) That the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending

(b) That the statement of case is an abuse of the court's process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings; or

© That there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order.

 

 

12. Having instigated these proceedings without any legal basis for doing so, the Claimant's behaviour is entirely vexatious and wholly unreasonable.

 

 

 

 

Statement of Truth

 

 

I xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, believe the above statement to be true and factual

 

 

 

 

Signed …………………

 

 

Date

[eddie303]

bump

[robcag]

 

If anyone has a moment to take a glance at my Defence below I would be most grateful.

 

My defence is due in on the 27th (Monday) so I really should post using Special Del today to make sure it arrives on time. I realise I'm not really giving anyone on here enough time to comment so if nobody does I will understand. :-| I'll wait until about 4PM before putting it in the envelope and sealing and then heading off to PO.

 

 

 

Hi Eddie

 

I'm still really busy (struggling!) with my own stuff so I haven't had a chance to look at your defence, hopefully someone will pass comment later today.

 

Don't panic about posting today, in fact if you get the letter over the counter at your PO before 12:00pm on Saturday it will arrive on Monday. At least that is permissable at my main PO, not sure about sub-POs, but you might like to check with your own PO if it's not too far away.

 

Another alternative, I believe it's allowable to fax the defence to the court which you could then follow up with a posted copy.

 

Cheers

Rob

[eddie303]

Thanks Rob, you're a star. I wasn't expecting you to have a look as I know you're v. busy.

 

Yes I can post tomorrow morning at my main PO but thought perhaps it would be cutting it fine. But I just phoned the Gateshead court and asked if for any reason it did not arrive Monday would they accept a fax and they said yes. So fantastic, thanks for that tip!

 

So I'll send it tomorrow morning, I'll leave it till tomorrow about 11AM before I print out my draft and stuff in the envelope, so with any luck someone else may be kind enough to comment.

[eddie303]

OK I now have to complete the AQ which is N149. Having spent the last 3 hours trawling through posts/threads about AQs I have come up with the following:

 

A: Settlement - No

 

B: Location - Yes, I am putting "I respectfully request the case be heard at my local county court as I am a litigant in person."

 

C: Track - No - Fast Track due to the amount of the claim.

 

D: Witnesses - 0

 

E: Experts - No

 

F: Hearing - Here i give dates i can't attend

 

G: Further information - "The Default Notice issued by the claimant is invalid. As a result the subsequent termination of contract by the claimant was unlawful. The claimant's case cannot succeed as matters stand, and I respectfully request the court give consideration to striking out the claimants case."

 

H: Fee - No

 

I am going to post it Spec Del later today so can anyone comment if the above is OK?

 

thanks,

Eddie

[surfaceagentx20]

I wouldn't bother putting anything in 'Further Information', if what you put in is concerned with achieving something other than case management directions. The court wil not give consideration to striking out a claim or awarding you summary judgment unless you file an application notice, after which the court will give that consideration at the hearing of your application.

 

x20

[eddie303]

thanks x20, I will leave Further Information blank then.

 

The only other very simple question I have is what to put for Track. The claim amount is around £8K, so presumably it should be Fast Track as opposed to Small Claim. But is it in my interest to point this out or am I better of just ticking Yes?

[surfaceagentx20]

I'd have a look at the element of interest included in the claim. Not just the bit they're adding on top but the entire element of interest. Interest is excluded when reckoning the value of a claim for the purpose of determining the appropriate track. See CPR 28.6(2).

 

If you can show the amount in issue is less than £5,000.00 once interest is excluded, there would be justification for the case being allocated to the small claims track. Ultimately however, a judge decides which track the case is allocated to.

 

x20

[eddie303]

OK, I guess the fundamental question I have is, is it beneficial for me to try and get it dealt with as Small Claim as opposed to Fast Track? e.g. do Small Claims courts tend to be more "friendly" towards inexperienced LIPs compared to Fast Track?

[surfaceagentx20]

Yes it is beneficial to have the case on the small claims track. The strict rules of evidence are relaxed and above all, the power of a sucessful party to recover costs from the loser is severely restricted.

 

x20

[eddie303]

OK I sent off the N149 AQ on 11th August. I have now today received a "Notice of Hearing of Application" from the Court, saying there is a hearing taking place at the Gateshead court (not my local) on the 27th August.

 

Here it is, split into 5 pages:

 

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx307/1783952/0046.jpg

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx307/1783952/0047.jpg

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx307/1783952/0048.jpg

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx307/1783952/0049.jpg

http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx307/1783952/0050.jpg

 

Could someone kindly advise me of what I should do now? Do I just attend or do I need to do something/fill in anything? Can I get them to transfer to my local court? Also point 19 they say if I am relying on written evidence I need to serve it to all parties; what do I need to do with regards that?

 

Thanks in advance for any help as I'm beginning to feel a little out of my depth!

 

Eddie

[surfaceagentx20]

Northern Rock are applying for summary judgment against you, that is, they are applying for an order that you have no reasonable prospect of succeeding at trial and there is therefore no point in having one. They are also seeking an order for the forthwith payment of whatever it is they claim and give notice that by obtaining a forthwith order they will then immediately seek a charging order over your home.

 

In brief, the grounds of the application are, they say, that there is nothing wrong with their DNs.

 

However, the notice fixing 27 August as the day for the hearing of the application is dated 13 August and you say it arrived today, 19 August. I should immediately object by stating that pursuant to CPR 24.4(3) you are entitled to at least 14 days notice.

 

CPR 24.4(3) says:

(3) Where a summary judgment hearing is fixed, the respondent (or the parties where the hearing is fixed of the court’s own initiative) must be given at least 14 days’ notice of

 

(a) the date fixed for the hearing; and

 

(b) the issues which it is proposed that the court will decide at the hearing.

 

Telephone the court and have the fixture re-listed. You will then gain more time to properly prepare. If the court office refuses to remove the fixture from the list, let us know why the court refused and we'll re-think things.

 

x20

[eddie303]

x20, thanks again for your invaluable help.

 

I checked the envelope that they sent the Notice in, their franking machine stamped it the 17th, I received it on the 19th, but as you say the notice is dated 13th!

 

I just phoned Gateshead county court office. I asked them to re-list it at a later date, but they said I would have to complete an n244 requesting that, and pay the £40 fee! I quoted the law from your post and explained it is their fault they haven't given me enough time, but they insisted that was the only way, and I could request a refund of the £40 but that would be for the court to decide.

 

In actual fact the 27th would be OK for me as I go away on the 1st Sept for a week. I can move quickly to put together my response now if necessary. Unless you think it is better to fill in an n244 requesting a re-list. But then what if they say no and we lose more time?

 

What do you think?

 

regards,

Eddie