Is this a mistake or Fraud? ***WON***

[frettful38]

My point exactly!

[legalpickle]

IT has sent his witness statement bundle which I received yesterday.

I know that IT is trying to confuse the court by bringing the claim in 2005 together which this one at present, but the case in 2005 has nothing to do with this case.

What is this about an action brought in 2005? You have only ever mentioned an action in 2000 and that court order which resulted in the overpayment. You must always disclose EVERYTHING before so that we help you as best as possible! If you don't you will suffer!!!

 

It may seem complicated but it is not. I know what he is trying to do as he does this for a living.

Here is IT's statement:

IT!!! IT!!!

 

It will only be complicated if you don't tell us EVERYTHING as you should have done from the START!!!!

He's trying to prove his case by stating this matter has been previously before the court and has already been settled by a court judgement and as such is disallowed under Res judicata.

IT!!! IT!!!!

Not necessarily. IT seems to be raising a new issue which may also have been settled by court judgment, but the previous issue raised was actually for a judgment dated in 2000, not 2005. And this one frettful38 conveniently forgot to tell us nothing about!!!

 

Obvioulsy this is not the case as this action has been brought about by matters occuring after the judgement and in light of new evidence

"In light of new evidence" would still require an appeal or something like that, as it would relate to the prior judgment, so these are definitely NOT the words to use, and is a - hopefully - misinterpretation! "Occurring after the judgment" is hopefully correct.

 

My point exactly!

I hope not, because "in light of new evidence" does not mean issue a new claim! Get your story straight!!!

Edited November 26, 2009 by legalpickle
almost simultaneous post by frettful38...

[frettful38]

Please give me a few minutes and I will post up the answers and hopefully you will have a better picture and understand LP.

[legalpickle]

Please give me a few minutes and I will post up the answers and hopefully you will have a better picture and understand LP.

The only reason I don't have a better picture or understand is because YOU did NOT disclose EVERYTHING, so HURRY UP!!!

[frettful38]

The case in 2005 was made against IT by my father. My father thought he knew enough about the law and was so hell bent on getting IT back because of the money me and my husband had lost. My father did not prepare his case properly and messed everything up. No solicitor wanted to take on our case as they said I had consented to an out of court order.

My father issued proceedings against my solicitors, IT and IT's solicitors. The result was my case was lost and I was ordered to pay £800 in costs.

This was all my father's idea and I was so so nieve, thick that I just listened to what he said and thought he knew best. I had lost all faith in the legal system and thought this was the only way to get back what I had lost. I know I was wrong and do not have an excuse apart from that at that time I thought that was the best way forward.

 

The reason I did not mention it before was that as you know I have written a few threads on CAG about what happened to my OH and how he was made bankrupt, and how we had been done over by IT, but I was always advised that there was nothing more that could be done, but something inside would not let me just give up after all the injustice I received.

 

The bottom line is that me and my OH were tenants of IT. IT conned me and OH in to giving him £1k to secure a mortgage deal. Mortgage never went ahead, IT refused to refund our £1k, I transfered Housing Benefit to the value of £1k to my name. IT issued rent arrears against me and OH. I had a very strong case, but on the day of the hearing my solicitors switched barristers, and made me consent out of court. From there everything went wrong. I am just another victim of IT, there are many people in my town who have been through what I have and IT knows how to ruin people. My only problem was that I was too believing and dumb.

 

Now IT is trying to drag the past up and connect it to this case, but it does have nothing to do with this. I have nothing to hide, and I am sorry if I did not mention it earlier because I was afraid that I may complicate matters and I would not have been helped.

 

LP please understand that my intentions were not to mislead or hide anything from you, it's just that I have been through so much and never received any proper help or advise before you came along.

[legalpickle]

The case in 2005 was made against IT by my father. My father thought he knew enough about the law and was so hell bent on getting IT back because of the money me and my husband had lost. My father did not prepare his case properly and messed everything up. No solicitor wanted to take on our case as they said I had consented to an out of court order.

My father issued proceedings against my solicitors, IT and IT's solicitors. The result was my case was lost and I was ordered to pay £800 in costs.

This was all my father's idea and I was so so nieve, thick that I just listened to what he said and thought he knew best. I had lost all faith in the legal system and thought this was the only way to get back what I had lost. I know I was wrong and do not have an excuse apart from that at that time I thought that was the best way forward.

 

The reason I did not mention it before was that as you know I have written a few threads on CAG about what happened to my OH and how he was made bankrupt, and how we had been done over by IT, but I was always advised that there was nothing more that could be done, but something inside would not let me just give up after all the injustice I received.

 

The bottom line is that me and my OH were tenants of IT. IT conned me and OH in to giving him £1k to secure a mortgage deal. Mortgage never went ahead, IT refused to refund our £1k, I transfered Housing Benefit to the value of £1k to my name. IT issued rent arrears against me and OH. I had a very strong case, but on the day of the hearing my solicitors switched barristers, and made me consent out of court. From there everything went wrong. I am just another victim of IT, there are many people in my town who have been through what I have and IT knows how to ruin people. My only problem was that I was too believing and dumb.

 

Now IT is trying to drag the past up and connect it to this case, but it does have nothing to do with this. I have nothing to hide, and I am sorry if I did not mention it earlier because I was afraid that I may complicate matters and I would not have been helped.

 

LP please understand that my intentions were not to mislead or hide anything from you, it's just that I have been through so much and never received any proper help or advise before you came along.

 

You say your father issued that case, but it was issued in your name, so ultimately it was issued by you.

 

When in 2005 was it issued?

 

Did ANY of that claim relate to this alleged overpayment?

[frettful38]

My father issued the claim but it was in mine and OH's name. It was issued in 18th April 05. In that claim there was nothing relating to an overpayment at all.

[legalpickle]

You say your father issued that case, but it was issued in your name, so ultimately it was issued by you.

 

When in 2005 was it issued?

 

Did ANY of that claim relate to this alleged overpayment?

 

My father issued the claim but it was in mine and OH's name. It was issued in 18th April 05. In that claim there was nothing relating to an overpayment at all.

Ok. Do you have a copy of those ridiculous Particulars of Claim? And the court order/settlement reached?

 

If yes please post those as attachments here - minus confidential details.

[frettful38]

I do have copies LP but I will have to delete a lot of details and will take a few minutes, please bear with me

[legalpickle]

I do have copies LP but I will have to delete a lot of details and will take a few minutes, please bear with me

Ok, but only delete details from the copies to be attached here. You'll need to copy those documents with the details still on them for the court, defendant & you as well.

[frettful38]

Ok, but only delete details from the copies to be attached here. You'll need to copy those documents with the details still on them for the court, defendant & you as well.

 

 

The claim my father prepared was nothing but a complete and utter joke, only now I know why my case was so badly prepared and why I lost.

Edited December 2, 2009 by frettful38

[legalpickle]

The claim my father prepared was nothing but a complete and utter joke, only now I know why my case was so badly prepared and why I lost.

"complete and utter joke", "badly prepared"? Those are MAJOR understatements! This has to be THE WORST I have ever seen!!! I'm surprised IT didn't take on a £10k/hr barrister and sue you guys for costs of several £m!!!! Coz IT would've succeeded!!!

 

The big problem raised with that is that it shows the figure of £6,191.80 as 60% of costs - not what you've stated which is that they added interest to the £2,758.60 which now confuses matters even more!!!

 

Furthermore there is no clear cause of action in that case, so if IT is claiming that the case was a badly worded case also for the refund of overpaid costs, then IT may succeed!!!

 

frettful38: PLEASE TELL US EVERYTHING!!! DON'T LEAVE ANYTHING OUT!!! I AM GETTING VERY PEEVED OFF NOW!!!

[freakyleaky]

Will you please calm down LP. You will be scaring the newbies away.

[frettful38]

OK LP, from the beginning.

On the 8th Feb 00 me and my OH had costs ordered against us. My OH's costs were for £4597.66 and mine were for £2758.60.

 

IT pursued my OH for costs and never accepted to be paid by installments, so instigated bankruptcy against my OH. IT never ever once demanded or pursued me for my debt of £2758.60.

 

After bankruptcy, trustee got involved this eventually went to court, and I had to remortgage my house to pay off trustee and release caution. From 8th Feb 00 up to remortgaging IT never demanded payment for my costs. It was only at right at the end he demanded £6,191.80 and even then never told me what that amount was for.

 

LP this has nothing to do with the 2005 hearing, believe me. IT is being very clever, and IT knows I messed things up very badly before and is trying to trick me again

[frettful38]

IT was not entitled to add any interest to the £2758.60, as we have already established that in the previous posts. IT has obviously got to you LP, as I said this is what he does for a living. You see I know what he does and how he does my only problem is explaining it

[the_shadow]

The claim my father prepared was nothing but a complete and utter joke, only now I know why my case was so badly prepared and why I lost.

 

Crikey, he really did you no favours I'm afraid.. I dont mean to be rude but I'm assuming english is not his first language. You really should have disclosed ANY actions between yourself and IT, they ALL have some bearing on the proceedings in hand even if just for reference.

 

S.

[frettful38]

Crikey, he really did you no favours I'm afraid.. I dont mean to be rude but I'm assuming english is not his first language. You really should have disclosed ANY actions between yourself and IT, they ALL have some bearing on the proceedings in hand even if just for reference.

 

S.

 

Thanks the shadow, I did not intentionally hide this. What we should be concentrating on is that was IT entitled to claim interest on the costs of £2758.60? that's all.

IT is trying to complicate matters by bringing the 05 case with this one, where it was already heard and dealt with.

[legalpickle]

Will you please calm down LP. You will be scaring the newbies away.

Sorry! Will try! I'm having a VERY stressful day!

 

OK LP, from the beginning.

On the 8th Feb 00 me and my OH had costs ordered against us. My OH's costs were for £4597.66 and mine were for £2758.60.

 

IT pursued my OH for costs and never accepted to be paid by installments, so instigated bankruptcy against my OH. IT never ever once demanded or pursued me for my debt of £2758.60.

 

After bankruptcy, trustee got involved this eventually went to court, and I had to remortgage my house to pay off trustee and release caution. From 8th Feb 00 up to remortgaging IT never demanded payment for my costs. It was only at right at the end he demanded £6,191.80 and even then never told me what that amount was for.

 

LP this has nothing to do with the 2005 hearing, believe me. IT is being very clever, and IT knows I messed things up very badly before and is trying to trick me again

Maybe, but YOU should have disclosed matters right at the start, rather than leaving it to IT to do!!! That works AGAINST YOU!!!

 

IT was not entitled to add any interest to the £2758.60, as we have already established that in the previous posts. IT has obviously got to you LP, as I said this is what he does for a living. You see I know what he does and how he does my only problem is explaining it

1. IT has NOT got to me!!! YOU leaving out pertinent details - ANY background IS pertinent has got to me!!!

 

2. IT!!!

 

Crikey, he really did you no favours I'm afraid.. I dont mean to be rude but I'm assuming english is not his first language. You really should have disclosed ANY actions between yourself and IT, they ALL have some bearing on the proceedings in hand even if just for reference.

 

S.

EXACTLY!!!

 

Thanks the shadow, I did not intentionally hide this. What we should be concentrating on is that was IT entitled to claim interest on the costs of £2758.60? that's all.

IT is trying to complicate matters by bringing the 05 case with this one, where it was already heard and dealt with.

NOPE!!! What we should be concentrating on is responding to IT's witness statement, to try and get you out of the hole YOU dug for YOURSELF by not disclosing EVERYTHING!!!

 

What happens is that when you go to court, IT will try to dredge all that up, and YOU will have to explain EVERYTHING including why YOU didn't disclose matters earlier!!! This will ONLY work AGAINST YOU!!! Therefore we NEED to respond ASAP, so that IT doesn't manage to turn your mistake into what makes YOU lose!!!!

[frettful38]

LP IT already did mention this matter to the judge at the hearing before last and the judge said to IT that

 

" I still need an explanation as to the overpayment" that is why the judge gave IT time to respond to my amended defence. IT did try to drag it up but the judge said she was not convinced that it was a reasonable excuse therefore my claim was not struck out and things were allowed to proceed.

 

The 2005 case has nothing to do with this case. The judge knows it, IT knows it and I know it. IT is just trying every dirty thing under the table to win, that's all. Now do you understand what sort of a xxxx I am up against. I will not let your hard work go to waste LP, he knows we've got him by thw whatsits, why else would he want me to consent again.

 

The first time I consented was the biggest mistake and most costly I have ever made in my life and I will be damned if I am going to give up now, up and forward and I will win this no matter what he throws at me. I refuse to be bullied anymore by this snake, he has got a fight on his hands and trust me I am more ready than I have ever been. So bring on what ever you can IT I am ready.

Edited November 26, 2009 by frettful38

[the_shadow]

Thanks the shadow, I did not intentionally hide this. What we should be concentrating on is that was IT entitled to claim interest on the costs of £2758.60? that's all.

IT is trying to complicate matters by bringing the 05 case with this one, where it was already heard and dealt with.

 

Exactly and thats the point, forewarned is forearmed

 

Anyway to the point in hand, if the judgment did not state for interest to be added then as I understand it No he cant claim interest. If IT was unhappy for the costs to be paid in installments imo the correct thing for IT to do was seek enforcement not inflate the figure with interest not agreed upon. In hindsight I think an application to vary the order should have been put in to force him to accept the installments but thats by the by, with no prior agreement he cant just pluck a figure out of the air IMO.

 

S.

[legalpickle]

LP IT already did mention this matter to the judge at the hearing before last and the judge said to IT that

 

" I still need an explanation as to the overpayment" that is why the judge gave IT time to respond to my amended defence. IT did try to drag it up but the judge said she was not convinced that it was a reasonable excuse therefore my claim was not struck out and things were allowed to proceed.

You only ever said that IT raised the issue of the case being closed in 2000. That's the only matter ever raised here - which has been responded to!

 

YOU should have told us about that, NOT left it for it's witness statement!!!

 

Exactly and thats the point, forewarned is forearmed

 

Anyway to the point in hand, if the judgment did not state for interest to be added then as I understand it No he cant claim interest. If IT was unhappy for the costs to be paid in installments imo the correct thing for IT to do was seek enforcement not inflate the figure with interest not agreed upon. In hindsight I think an application to vary the order should have been put in to force him to accept the installments but thats by the by, with no prior agreement he cant just pluck a figure out of the air IMO.

 

S.

Yup, but now IT is trying to dredge up a confusing case which was NOT raised by frettful38, and will try to confuse issues! Had frettful38 raised it earlier, and made sure to shut off that "defence", it would have been a LOT simpler!!!

 

frettful38: You only attached the claim form, but not the final order/agreement to the case issued in 2005!!! Where is it???

[frettful38]

Sorry! Will try! I'm having a VERY stressful day!

 

 

Maybe, but YOU should have disclosed matters right at the start, rather than leaving it to IT to do!!! That works AGAINST YOU!!!

 

 

1. IT has NOT got to me!!! YOU leaving out pertinent details - ANY background IS pertinent has got to me!!!

 

2. IT!!!

 

 

EXACTLY!!!

 

 

NOPE!!! What we should be concentrating on is responding to IT's witness statement, to try and get you out of the hole YOU dug for YOURSELF by not disclosing EVERYTHING!!!

 

What happens is that when you go to court, IT will try to dredge all that up, and YOU will have to explain EVERYTHING including why YOU didn't disclose matters earlier!!! This will ONLY work AGAINST YOU!!! Therefore we NEED to respond ASAP, so that IT doesn't manage to turn your mistake into what makes YOU lose!!!!

 

 

Rest assured LP I am not worried in the slightest as I know his game. I know what to say when I get there as I already told the judge that IT is trying to bring past matters and involve them with this new one. The judge wanted an explanation from IT not me.

[frettful38]

You only ever said that IT raised the issue of the case being closed in 2000. That's the only matter ever raised here - which has been responded to!

 

YOU should have told us about that, NOT left it for it's witness statement!!!

 

 

Yup, but now IT is trying to dredge up a confusing case which was NOT raised by frettful38, and will try to confuse issues! Had frettful38 raised it earlier, and made sure to shut off that "defence", it would have been a LOT simpler!!!

 

frettful38: You only attached the claim form, but not the final order/agreement to the case issued in 2005!!! Where is it???

 

 

LP I lost that hearing and was ordered to pay £800 costs. £400 to IT's solicitors and IT. That's all that was the outcome.

[legalpickle]

Rest assured LP I am not worried in the slightest as I know his game. I know what to say when I get there as I already told the judge that IT is trying to bring past matters and involve them with this new one. The judge wanted an explanation from IT not me.

IT!!! IT!!!

 

YOU are the one who was panicking all the way through this thread and asked for MY assistance! YOU are the one with ONLY negative court experiences!!!

 

You may not get the same District Judge. You may get a much less tolerant District Judge who is frustrated by the fact that YOU did not disclose EVERYTHING!

 

IT's problem is that IT is cocky and doesn't believe that IT can ever lose! Don't become like IT!!!

 

LP I lost that hearing and was ordered to pay £800 costs. £400 to IT's solicitors and IT. That's all that was the outcome.

And where's the order??????????

Edited November 26, 2009 by legalpickle
almost simultaneous post by OP...

[frettful38]

IT!!! IT!!!

 

YOU are the one who was panicking all the way through this thread and asked for MY assistance! YOU are the one with ONLY negative court experiences!!!

 

You may not get the same District Judge. You may get a much less tolerant District Judge who is frustrated by the fact that YOU did not disclose EVERYTHING!

 

IT's problem is that IT is cocky and doesn't believe that IT can ever lose! Don't become like IT!!!

 

 

And where's the order??????????

 

I would never get like IT. Which court order did you want the £800 that I was ordered to pay in the 05 case?