Hfc/Restons default judgement/co - struck out - now new claim!!

[Clynite]

Hi CB,

I've got until 8 March to submit new defence.

[foolishgirl]

Hi Clynite

 

IMO the defence you need to submit is basically in answer to the original POC that the order above struck out & which this DJ is now refusing to recognise.

 

I would start with

(a) claim struck out, not discontinued

(b) defective DN (above) - time & sum issues

© dispute the balance they are claiming if you have ever had unlawful charges, PPI etc.

© agreement? Have you ever received a copy & is it enforceable?

(d) have you ever sent for any docs. that they have not complied with?

 

If you want to post a draft up, I'm sure you'll get lots of input & you have a while before you have to submit.

[DonkeyB]

I think you have to simply restate your case - to me, it looks watertight.

 

As you say, the influence of the court 'circle' between the so-called 'professionals' is a problem. Perhaps the way to overcome this is to engage a barrister yourself? I understand there's a significant cost involved, but I think a good barrister would prove the vexatious nature of the claim (ie. the judge would listen!), and costs should be yours.

[Clynite]

Thanks FG & DB,

Now that my head has cleared a little, I can impart more information about Mondays hearing. Please see attached copy of order dated 11 August and letter from Restons to the court dated 29 September. I believe these were crucial to the Barrister (B) convincing the DJ that no abuse of process had occurred and that they were not harassing me.

This order, was the one that I claimed was disobeyed by the claimant in not responding to my defence. The (B) explained that a letter had been sent to the court ( the one posted now dated 29 Sept ). Neither of us had a copy to show the DJ. But, the (B) stated that the letter was requesting that the claim be dismissed:mad:, I corrected the (B) and stated that it was merely dismissing the charge order and not the claim. Do you guys agree? It was following this dialogue that the (B) went through her CPR book at CPR3.4, to explain why there was no abuse of process. I lost most of the explanation due to the stress levels and lack of understanding. Anyway here are the relevant copies for your consideration.

The (B) also stated that the debt has been accepted by me and that the claimant was entitled to persue it.

Sorry for the fits and starts, but, when I get stressed, as I was Monday, the information is not retained very well.

I got the impression that the DJ was not that interested in what I had to say.

[Clynite]

I think you have to simply restate your case - to me, it looks watertight.

 

As you say, the influence of the court 'circle' between the so-called 'professionals' is a problem. Perhaps the way to overcome this is to engage a barrister yourself? I understand there's a significant cost involved, but I think a good barrister would prove the vexatious nature of the claim (ie. the judge would listen!), and costs should be yours.

 

Thanks DonkeyB,

I do not feel capable of pulling this off - confidence and understanding etc. But I will consider your suggestion. It would be so much easier and less stress. Can you give me any pointers were to look for a suitable Barrister? Or could anyone recommend one in the S. Wales area please.

Thanks Clynite

[foolishgirl]

Sorry Clynite, I still cannot follow the barrister's reasoning on this as

1. 11 Aug 2005 - Claimants ordered to respond to your defence by 25 Sept

2. 29 Sept - No response filed but & claimants ask for CO applic. to be dismissed & vacate hearing

3. 10 Jan 2006 - claim struck out 'cos claimants have not complied with order given in Oct 2005. Have you got a copy of this order or do you know what it said? If not, I suggest you ask the court for one.

 

The whole thing just doesn't stack up

I can only think that the barrister hoodwinked the DJ into thinking that 'the claim' referred to was the CO one & as the order was for a set aside, the time clock could be set to nought & the whole case commenced again.

 

The order says quite definitely that unless an applic. is submitted by the claimant before xx Jan 2006 the claim will be struck out - and it was - but which one? And this is where the barrister has leapt in I think.

 

So it now looks as though you are going to have to fight this claim from the beginning as if there has been no application for a CO, no set aside & the POC has just been issued. Have you got a copy of that POC? If not, get one from the court asap as you will need it to compile your defence submission. You have a good strong case & should be able to pull this off - in fact I really don't know why Restons are pursuing it, they must be desperate.

[oilyrag]

Hi Clynite,

 

I have just been reading through this thread again and getting updated. What springs to mind here is a "try-on" and seems to be an ever increasing theme. The Banks/DCAs seem to be doing anything to try and retry a case until they get a decision in their favour which they then use against everyone else. Demonstrating that the Banks/DCAs are operating further and further outside the Law.

 

Perhaps a letter to your MP at election time might bring these disgraceful affairs to a head. Clearly we have here a District Judge and a barrister either bent/corrupt or they are unable to read plain English.

 

Not much help I know.

 

regards

oilyrag.

Edited February 25, 2010 by oilyrag
typo

[DonkeyB]

Steady on oilyrag!

 

Just a thought... when you get the judge's orders, will there be an opportunity to challenge or set it aside on the grounds that the judge was wrong in law? Need a legal brain on that...

[oilyrag]

Hi DB

 

I thought that the relaxation of double jeopardy rules only applied to murder. Here we have a case which was struck out at an earlier hearing yet a judge and a barrister have flouted those rules and found against the original order. Double jeopardy! Is this not a serious breach and abuse of court proceedings?

 

Yes we do need a legal brain here to start sorting out what is actually going on.

 

regards

oilyrag.

[DonkeyB]

Quite agree. As I've always said, never underestimate the ability of the establishment to undermine the rights of the small person.

[foolishgirl]

 

Just a thought... when you get the judge's orders, will there be an opportunity to challenge or set it aside on the grounds that the judge was wrong in law?

 

AFAIK there is no process for appealing or setting aside a judge's orders. However if you decided to appeal the final judgment, his assessment of the law if he issued them incorrectly might be brought into play.

 

So at the moment, Clynite is stuck with filing a defence as ordered or giving up and is the latter really an option when he has such a good case?!

[Clynite]

Hello DB,OR & FG,

Im glad im not alone in feeling I've been trumped. I am panicking a bit, cos of the 8 March deadline for a defence. I am hoping to find a barrister that will help me restore the status quo. Kind members have suggested some, but I have to relay this information via e-mail and hope for a response before the deadline. I am about to do that after I finish posting this message. It has been suggested that I reapply the same defence as previous and if this is acceptable the barrister will inform me accordingly.

In answer to FG's question:

Quote:FG

"3. 10 Jan 2006 - claim struck out 'cos claimants have not complied with order given in Oct 2005. Have you got a copy of this order or do you know what it said? If not, I suggest you ask the court for one."

A copy of this order is posted on page 9 - it simply states: Upon the Courts own motion It is ordered that 'As per the Order dated 5 October 2005 the Claim be struck out.'

Thanks for your interest and support - Im off for now to track down a willing Barrister.

BW Clynite

[DonkeyB]

Good luck in finding one - pt2537 often has aces up his sleeve in such cases, so maybe worth a PM.

 

DonkeyB

[Clynite]

Hello DonkeyB,

Many thanks for that info - will follow up!

[foolishgirl]

A copy of this order is posted on page 9 - it simply states: Upon the Courts own motion It is ordered that 'As per the Order dated 5 October 2005 the Claim be struck out.'

 

Sorry, Clynite, not clear - I meant the order dated 5 Oct.

[pt2537]

do we have an agreement which this claim is based?

[foolishgirl]

Sorry, Clynite, not clear - I meant the order dated 5 Oct.

 

 

OK - go it now. For the benefit of others too:

 

 

First Judgement N24

 

1.The Claimants application for a charging order is dismissed and the charge created by the interim charging order dated ***** is discharged and the entry of the charge at H M Land Registry under title number ***** be vacated.

 

2. The default judgement dated 16 March 2005 be set aside.

 

3. All further proceedings upon the Claimants claim be stayed with liberty to both parties to apply provided that if no application is made by the Claimant before 6 January 2006 the claim be struck out.

 

Dated 5 October 2005

 

Second Judgement N24

 

1.As per order dated 5 October 2005 the Claim be struck out.

 

Dated 10 January 2006

 

There were other previous Judgements that led to the last two, But the above ones are the important ones. If you require any further info please let me know.

 

[Clynite]

Hello FG,

Sorry, Clynite, not clear - I meant the order dated 5 Oct.

Its the one on page 9 dated 10 October ( I deleted the date at the bottom, which read 5 October.

Here are further copies of

1. N24 order following initial Res Judicata claim.

2. N24 order following Mondays hearing

Thanks for your interest/support

[Clynite]

do we have an agreement which this claim is based?

 

Hello pt

 

Here is the agreement copy as received from Barrister at Mondays hearing.

I have today managed to obtain the help of a legal represetative. I have explained to them, my commitment to the forum, and will keep everyone informed of developments as and when they arise. Hopefully, my experiences and your posts will help others. I am unable to progress on my own. But, rather than give up, hopefully, this extra support will see me through. I feel, the Banks, and their legal team, frighten the layperson into submission.

[citizenB]

Clynite, that is excellent news. Speak to your legal representative, they may want to keep information off the forum until your case has been won.

 

You will then be able to let us know everything

[lilly white]

Have we counter claim for the ppi

[Clynite]

Have we counter claim for the ppi

 

Hello LW

 

No counter claim as yet.

[Clynite]

Hello everyone

Ill be brief, I am in a bit of a predicament!

Legal Rep (LR) took case on its merit after I last signed on this forum.

Initially LR was upbeat, positive and on a similar wavelength, to the vein of this thread.

LR agreed to take case on 'no win no fee' basis.

All has been going well, until recently.

I am on in Court tomorrow!

LR rang me this evening to inform me that the 'otherside' have stated that I am estopped from claiming Res judicata, because my previous strike out application was struck out.

In effect, the court will not know that the claimants previous claim was struck out.

Essentially, telling me that this presents a problem and that I have little chance of success.

At least, thats my understanding of what LR said.

LR also stated that the otherside have offered to settle, they will waiver the PPI portion of the agreement ( It has already been proved worthless ).

If I was to settle, I would also be liable for LR costs aswell.

I really dont understand Law, how can this situation arise?

The otherside were estopped from bringing a claim - owing to the original strikeout. Yet, they did bring another claim and got a foot in the door.

Now I am told, it is possible that I am now estopped from claiming Res Judicata. I would appreciate any input to help me put this in perspective.

At court all morning.

My LR requested an adjournment for leave to appeal the original strike out result on my res judicata claim.

He inisted that it was the wrong decision and that we should have the opportunity to set the record straight. ( This is what FG suggested earlier on )

The other side were not happy as this is an out of date request

. Nevertheless, the DJ was the same one that had made the alleged wrong decision!

After many legal arguments, the DJ granted my LR request.

Costs of today were served on me for wasted time.

Unable to reserve until next hearing.

The other side failed in their attempt to get the trial to proceed.

I have been given to believe that this is good news for a change.

I will keep you posted.

[DonkeyB]

I hope so, clynite. The luck is that it was the same judge, I suppose, so he could hardly contradict himself.

[citizenB]

Thank goodness this is better news, Clynite. Please keep us updated.