Help need with court claim please

[the_shadow]

Thanks for your input Shadow. Just to say that they are stating they are using a default dated 18/05/2009 and the only one they sent me in May was dated 05/05/2009.

 

I think they are possibly stalling too, shame they didnt do it a bit sooner though! As you previously mentioned though, the back log at the Court shows how busy the Courts are and this case being brought when a payment has been offered will not go in A&L's favour, i don't think?

 

Hopefully Citizen will be along soon to give us his thoughts.

 

errrrr.... her ;-)

 

I dont want to alarm you but you should be aware that not all judges are sympathetic, the fact you have made an offer should be taken into account but like life there are no certainties

 

At the very least the fact you have made the offer and even had the offer given back to you only to be whipped away when you could have made the payments should go for you in regards costs.

 

S.

[avarose]

Oh dear... oops, really sorry CitizenB . My silly mistake there. Thanks for pointing that out Shadow!

[citizenB]

:lol: Thank goodness there are only two choices him/her

 

I would agree with Shadow in this respect, although it would have been nice of them to tell you what "issues" required narrowing ?

 

I think you could almost certainly argue against any excessive costs by way of THEIR being unreasonable. You have proof that you have made attempts to settle this outside of litigation. It has been their choice to push forward.

 

I think it would be worth checking with the court every 2 or 3 days to see what is going on.

[citizenB]

Thanks for your input Shadow. Just to say that they are stating they are using a default dated 18/05/2009 and the only one they sent me in May was dated 05/05/2009.

 

I think they are possibly stalling too, shame they didnt do it a bit sooner though! As you previously mentioned though, the back log at the Court shows how busy the Courts are and this case being brought when a payment has been offered will not go in A&L's favour, i don't think?

 

Hopefully Citizen will be along soon to give us his thoughts.

 

This is one area you can argue forcefully. The DN you have is dated 5 May. They say they sent you one dated 18 May.

 

IMHO, they should not be allowed to rely on the 2nd one. There are only 13 days between the one you have and the one they want to rely on. Therefore they issued a 2nd one.. according to them, before the 1st one ran out of time ?

[avarose]

I have no idea where the date of the 18th came from, i had not thought about that they may have sent me one that i didnt get - good point... So if they did then that would have been the third one they sent me but can they prove i got it / that they sent it?

 

My AQ is supposed to be in by this Thursday, i am going to call the Court again around midday today and see if the month stay request has been processed yet by any chance. The person i spoke to yesterday said that it probably wouldnt get done in time. So i will need to get it in still i think. I wonder if Shoosmiths have checked if their stay request has been processed? Would be interesting if it doesnt and i hand in my AQ and they don't!

[avarose]

The application made by Shossmiths for a one month stay has been refused. Just spoke to the court and they said that it was refused. anyone know if this is common or why it may have been refused?

 

So i will have to get that AQ in asap, really sorry for this urgency now citizenB but can you help me with section G please asap?

[citizenB]

As for section G I dont think its wise to ask for any disclosure at this point... justifying it would be difficult as you've already entered in a defence and didnt claim you were embarrassed hence no reason for disclosure prior to trial bundles.

 

....although in your defence you did state you were unable to ascertain the default notice they claim to be using...

 

Therefore I think you could get away with asking for clarification from the claimant if not a copy of this 5th May default notice that they will be relying on.

 

Might want to run that by Citb and others to see what they think.

 

S.

 

Exactly what documents do you need sight of ? Is it just the Default Notice they are relying on ?

[avarose]

Yes i think so. I have a copy of my cca and then the two Default Notices that i had. Is there anything else i would need to see at this time? Thanks

[the_shadow]

Yes i think so. I have a copy of my cca and then the two Default Notices that i had. Is there anything else i would need to see at this time? Thanks

 

Hi avarose,

 

Normally as soon as you receive the claim form the advice will be to file a CPR 31.14 asking for everything they have specified in the Particulars of Claim, unfortunately you indicated you had the agreement and default notices.

 

When filling in section G, its also normally the case that you put in there that you have asked the claimant for more information to enable the claim to be defended and hence you are embarrassed.. as you had the information the defence isnt an embarrassed defence but rather one stating they have no standing due to non-compliance with the cca1974 default+termination route, you have also raised the issue of the missing/mis quoted default notice which the judge may or may not consider as de minimus (hopefully not as you'll be shown as someone attempting to deal with their debt whilst they look like the vultures they are)

 

So at this point I dont think asking for disclosure will gain you anything, you have entered a defence, you have queried the default they claim to have sent. You have two previous attempts if nothing else that show a lack of compliance with the CCA1974. You also have offers to deal then withdrawn without explanation, even if judgment goes against you on the default issue a sympathetic judge could stop them asking for costs and give them a pittance each month out of what lets be clear here is PROTECTED INCOME...

 

The fact there extension has been denied may play into your hands, it might force them to come to a decision on dealing sooner, fingers crossed.

 

For your defence you've stated there are charges etc on the amount so its invalid... have you done a SAR to obtain statements or do you have the statements to possibly work out a figure of how much this amount (without compound interest at this point) is?

 

Just my opinions as ever tho.

 

S.

[citizenB]

Hi avarose,

 

Normally as soon as you receive the claim form the advice will be to file a CPR 31.14 asking for everything they have specified in the Particulars of Claim, unfortunately you indicated you had the agreement and default notices.

 

When filling in section G, its also normally the case that you put in there that you have asked the claimant for more information to enable the claim to be defended and hence you are embarrassed.. as you had the information the defence isnt an embarrassed defence but rather one stating they have no standing due to non-compliance with the cca1974 default+termination route, you have also raised the issue of the missing/mis quoted default notice which the judge may or may not consider as de minimus (hopefully not as you'll be shown as someone attempting to deal with their debt whilst they look like the vultures they are)

 

So at this point I dont think asking for disclosure will gain you anything, you have entered a defence, you have queried the default they claim to have sent. You have two previous attempts if nothing else that show a lack of compliance with the CCA1974. You also have offers to deal then withdrawn without explanation, even if judgment goes against you on the default issue a sympathetic judge could stop them asking for costs and give them a pittance each month out of what lets be clear here is PROTECTED INCOME...

 

The fact there extension has been denied may play into your hands, it might force them to come to a decision on dealing sooner, fingers crossed.

 

For your defence you've stated there are charges etc on the amount so its invalid... have you done a SAR to obtain statements or do you have the statements to possibly work out a figure of how much this amount (without compound interest at this point) is?

 

Just my opinions as ever tho.

 

S.

 

I would agree with shadow's comemnts ava. IMHO, your defence has already pointed out discrepancies in their Default notices. The fact they have chosen one that you havent received and is dated a few days after one you did receive does actually throw serious doubt on the one they have chosen to rely upon.

 

I wonder why their extension was refused ?

[citizenB]

Ava, you MUST get that AQ in court by tomorrow

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[citizenB]

Just bringing some stuff forward in order not to have to scroll backwards.

 

xx

 

 

Your Defence. This clearly outlines that you have received TWO default notices, neither of which are valid with respect to remedy dates/allowance for postal services.

 

You also need to point out that they are relying on a default notice that you have NOT received.

 

In any case, why would they issue a default notice on the 18th May. By their own admission , according to them, they issued a further DN prior to the remedy date being reached on the earlier one ??

 

 

Chances are you will be asked to prepapre a witness statement or skeleton argument.. we can expand on points so long as we dont try and bring in any new evidence. Even if you arent required to do so.. We will put together something that you can refer to in court in order to keep yourself and the DJ and opposition on track.

 

 

 

 

 

1 The Defendant admits entering into an agreement with the Claimant and which was regulated by The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (The Act). No admissions are made as to the terms, conditions or other provisions of the agreement and the extent to which the Claimant may or may not have complied therewith and the extent to which the Defendant may or may not have complied therewith. Further and alternatively, it is denied that the agreement was properly executed and/or is now enforceable in whole or in part. [ I am not sure whether the agreement is properly drawn up so the bit in red needs to be omitted if it is ]

 

2 It is denied that the Claimant served upon the Defendant a default notice pursuant to section 87(1) of The Act and which was in prescribed form and compliant with the provisions of section 88 of the Act.

 

3 The Claimant fails to identify which default notice it will be relying on.

 

3.1 The first was a default notice dated 27 February 2009. Save that the notice was served upon the Defendant on a date thereafter and that service was by post, the Defendant is now unable to recall on what precise date and by what precise means the notice was served upon him/her. The date specified wherein the Defendant was to comply with the notice was given as 13 March 2009. Which was not a date which was 14 days after service.

 

3.2 The second was a default notice dated 5 May 2009. Save that the notice was served upon the Defendant on a date thereafter and that service was by post, the Defendant is now unable to recall on what precise date and by what precise means the notice was served upon him/her. The date specified wherein the Defendant was to comply with was given as 19 May 2009. Which was not a date which was 14 days after service.

 

4 Without prejudice to the generality of the Defendant’s contentions set out at paragraph 1, the Defendant avers the Claimant terminated the agreement and pursuant to termination that the Claimant has since made demand of the Defendant for the payment of money the subject of this claim.

 

5 Incorporated within the sum demanded by the Claimant are sums claimed for administration fees, late payment charges and like provisions. It is denied (if it be alleged) that the Claimant has incurred any such fees and charges, alternatively that such fees and charges if incurred accurately represent sums lost by the Claimant by reason of any breach on the part of the Defendant. Alternatively, the Defendant avers the incorporation of such claims is penal and unenforceable at law.

 

6 Further and in any event, by reason of the matters set out at paragraphs 2 , 3 and 3.1 of this Defence and the requirements of section 87(1) of the Act, the steps taken by the Claimant and identified at paragraph 4 hereof were steps which the Claimant was not entitled to take.

 

7 In the circumstances neither the Claimant’s default notices nor its termination of the agreement gave rise to an entitlement to claim any of the relief now sought by the Claimant.

 

8 The Claimant’s claim to be entitled to £XXXX. XX or any other sum is denied.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The following contains information that you will need to be confident in arguing in respect of postal regulations and the need for a default notice.

 

The requirement for a valid Default Notice to lawfully Terminate an Account whilst in default

 

1. Notwithstanding the matters pleaded above, 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.

 

2. 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.

 

4. The Default notice supplied by the Claimant is dated Friday 3rd August, to allow service in line with the statutory requirements mentioned in points 2 & 3 above, 2 working days were required to allow for 1st Class postage. Thus the Rectify date should be 14 calendar days from Wednesday 8th August, namely Wednesday 22nd August 2007, not the 14 calendar days from the date of the letter as stated in the Default notice which would have been 17th August.

 

5. I therefore put the Claimant to strict proof that any Default Notice sent to me was valid and allowed the statutory 14 clear days to rectify the breach. I also note that to be valid, a Default Notice needs to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach and include an accurate figure required to remedy any such breach. The prescribed format for such document is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and Amendment regulations the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237).

 

6. The failure of a Default Notice to be accurate not only invalidates the Default Notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is an unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the Court enforcing any alleged debt, but give me a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119.

 

7. It is submitted that the above Default Notice served s87(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 failed to comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561).

 

8. 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) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which states:

 

Section 87. Need for Default Notice

 

(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.

 

9. The Act also sets out via Section 88(1), that the Default Notice must be in the prescribed form, as below:

 

Section 88. Contents and effect of Default Notice

 

(1) The Default Notice must be in the prescribed form…

 

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

 

11. 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.

 

12. 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 judgment appears to 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 alleged default.

 

13. The Claimant’s 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. Since the Claimant has failed to adhere to statutory procedure it is averred that the Claimant does not have a right of action, and can never now have a right of action having terminated the Agreement unlawfully.

 

14. Furthermore, the Arrears Total outlined cannot be accurate, as the Balance on the Account was at least partly comprised of Unlawful Charges plus additional Charges and Interest added unlawfully whilst the Account was in Dispute. Therefore, the Arrears claimed cannot be accurate, as they are themselves calculated using a Total that was itself inaccurate.

 

15. This is at all times an Agreement Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. There is no provision in the Act that allows a large financial institution to terminate an Agreement that is in alleged default or breach simply by giving notice to the Consumer. Section 98(6) makes that quite clear. The Creditor must follow the steps outlined in Section 87 and Section 88 if they are to lawfully Default and Terminate, and enjoy the benefits of Section 87.

 

16. Finally, an invalid Default Notice cannot be remedied by simply issuing a new Default Notice. The Claimant may not serve a second effective default notice in prescribed form post-termination of the agreement. Any such second default notice will necessarily state a date by when I would be required to comply after which in default the agreement would terminate. The second default notice would therefore contain the fiction that the agreement endured when that cannot be the case, as it was terminated on XX/XX/XX. Terminating an Agreement on the back of a defective Default Notice, simply confirms the undeniable truth that Termination of the agreement by the Claimant was carried out in circumstances which then prohibited them from enjoying the benefits of Section 87, namely the opportunity to seek early Payment of a sum that was, prior to Termination, only payable in the future.

 

The clincher I think is the fact that you have repeatedly made attempts to negotiate an amicable arrangement until you can get back on your feet again. These have been refused. Also on one occasion you were advised if you were to repeat an offer you had previously made, it would be accepted. Only then to have it thrown back in your face again.

 

This was also something that Shadow had given you to include in a letter you sent to them. Any reasonable DJ will acknowledge that the opposition have been entirely unreasonable.

 

If for some unknown reason your client is unable to accept the maximum I can pay at this time being unemployed and only in receipt of protected income in the form of benefits then I reserve the right to show the judge this letter at trial to show both your clients unwillingness to mediate once litigation was initiated but also your clients neglect in attempting to take more of my protected income than has been offered in good faith prior to litigation when it was offered.

 

I feel confident a court would look dimly on a company rushing into litigation to obtain the same result they would have got prior to litigation and the lack of respect for the pressures on the courts at the moment in the form of valuable hearing time taken up with matters that could have been sorted outside of the legal system. I would positively ask the judge in any such case that your costs are declined due to improper behaviour both proceeding litigation and post initiating litigation.

 

Chin up

Edited January 20, 2010 by citizenB

[avarose]

Have been having connection problems all day - just now got online and going to read your posts now... Just letting you know i am here! thank you for these! Will post again after i have read them.

[avarose]

The Shadow - Just to confirm that i have not done a SAR.

 

The default sums come to £100 in total. This is an area i am unclear on because i am not sure where / when / how they are supposed to claim for that correctly if not in the total outstanding. They do send me statements and the £100 ( 4 x £25) is in the total now, although they have on the last couple of Notices of Sums in Arrears shown that the Outstanding Default Sums are £100 on a seperate line at the top of the page.However then the closing account balance has them included.

 

Just to confirm then that i do have a statement that shows the 4 x £25 going into the running total. It also shows the £1 a month that i was paying up until recently.

[avarose]

Ok, i am still not sure what exactly to put in section G but shall i have a go at writing something and then post it up so it can be looked at - for comments / ammends etc?

[avarose]

Ok i can't do this. I just can't write in the legal speak way and worried i am going to get it wrong! Help!

 

So am i right in thinking i need to say:

 

The claimant is relying on a DN that i have not seen.

 

The claimant sent me two DN's dated 27 February 2009 and 05 May 2009 which did not give the required amount of time to remedy etc.

 

I have made attempts to come to an agreement on a number of occasions with no success, including one occasion where i made an offer, it was refused, then accepted and then refused again.

 

Is this it, as i am not requesting anything etc etc?

 

Can you help me say all this in the right way please? Sorry for not being more helpful!

[citizenB]

Ok, i am still not sure what exactly to put in section G but shall i have a go at writing something and then post it up so it can be looked at - for comments / ammends etc?

 

Ok i can't do this. I just can't write in the legal speak way and worried i am going to get it wrong! Help!

 

So am i right in thinking i need to say:

 

The claimant is relying on a DN that i have not seen.

 

The claimant sent me two DN's dated 27 February 2009 and 05 May 2009 which did not give the required amount of time to remedy etc.

 

I have made attempts to come to an agreement on a number of occasions with no success, including one occasion where i made an offer, it was refused, then accepted and then refused again.

 

Is this it, as i am not requesting anything etc etc?

 

Can you help me say all this in the right way please? Sorry for not being more helpful!

 

ava, the reason I brought forward that stuff is so that people dont have to scroll backward to find it. It also puts in one place the information you will need on "d" day:)

 

I have asked shadow to look in. Other than the DN they are relying on which you havent had sight of, I dont think you need to request anything else.

 

If shadow is unable to pop in.. I would put something like..

 

You would like sight of the Default notice which the bank are relying on in their particulars of claim. This is because the only Dns you have received are dated 27 February and 5 May.

[the_shadow]

Hi Peeps,

 

Ok what I was attempting to get over badly in my post earlier is that you have not put in an embarrassed defence, hence you have answered to the best of your current abilities the case set out against you. You even have mentioned the cock up with the defaults. Hence the court will think you didnt need any further information at this point.

 

In small claims normal disclosure is just before the hearing and this is when all evidence is sent to each party (normally 14 days prior), this is the point where the defendant would normally receive the documents the other side are relying on. Its more involved for fast/multi track but thats why the N150 is more complicated

 

As you have not required the documents to put in a defence I dont see how you can ask for sight of this duff default prior to standard disclosure.

 

The only way I could see it being done now is if you ask the court for permission to alter your defence and request sight of this agreement stating you need it to defend against.

 

IMVHO and I would seek other/better counsel your defence is stating the defaults you have received and admitted to are incorrect and hence the claimant cannot demand all monies back, he is limited to the amounts prior to terminating/initiating court case if no termination has been given yet........its for the claimant to prove another default was sent and then explain how/why it was sent prior to the 2nd default expiring.

 

Something I havent asked before... do the amounts required to clear the breach on the defaults match or are they different?

 

S.

[avarose]

Morning! Well i need to get this AQ in to the court this morning as you know, i will leave here about 10.30 to take it in so I need to have it all done by then!

 

Thanks again to both of you for your attention on this. Just to confirm Shadow that the amounts on both of the DN's I had have different amounts on them. Just to confirm also that i did have a statement of termination in a letter from Shoosmiths - just a line in the letter where they wrote to tell me they had the case now etc. That letter was dated 16 Oct 2009.

 

So... Am i taking it now that you think it may be best to not put anything in area G as i am not asking to see anything? Or shall i just do a quick summary? It's just the bit where it says " set out any other information you consider will help the judge to manage or clarify the claim" etc. I just think that at the moment the judge is not aware at all that i have tried to come to an agreement many times etc... What do you think?

 

Thank you as ever.

[the_shadow]

Thanks again to both of you for your attention on this. Just to confirm Shadow that the amounts on both of the DN's I had have different amounts on them. Just to confirm also that i did have a statement of termination in a letter from Shoosmiths - just a line in the letter where they wrote to tell me they had the case now etc. That letter was dated 16 Oct 2009.

Cool, Is the amount on shoesmiths letter different from the final default also?

So... Am i taking it now that you think it may be best to not put anything in area G as i am not asking to see anything? Or shall i just do a quick summary? It's just the bit where it says " set out any other information you consider will help the judge to manage or clarify the claim" etc. I just think that at the moment the judge is not aware at all that i have tried to come to an agreement many times etc... What do you think?

 

If you feel better doing it and wish to document you have attempted to come to an agreement prior to legal proceedings put it in... It may enable the judge to decide that mediation or a stay to resolve the issue is given..........................however normally the judge will take a cursory look at the case file if at all (could be court staff) and just decide which track to allocate the claim to and then give directions for the exchange of witness statements and evidence... thats when all your letters to the other side would normally be entered into evidence in your court bundle just prior to the hearing.

 

As stated before I dont think you can ask for documentation as its not required at this point as you've put in your defence, when doing your witness statement you'll simply put its denied you received a default letter dated 18th May and put the claimant to strict proof that such a default was actually sent and it complied with the relevant statutes and prescribed format laid out by CCA1974.

 

Just my opinions tho... others may differ.

 

S.

[avarose]

Hi, the amount reffered to as outstanding on the first letter from Shoosmiths is different to the amount on the last ( second) default, yes.

 

Ok, i have thought about it and i'm not going to enter anything into G then. As you say, the courts have already told me how manic they are at the moment and they will probably not look at my section G too much if i am only rambling on about "poor me look i have tried to pay" etc etc! As you say, the further it gets, then all will be revealed anyway.

 

Really appreciate your advice on this - i know i keep saying it but it's all pretty scary and couldnt do it without the help form CAG!

 

Oh and i have ticked mediation as yes too so it may go that way first anyhow. Although i am really hoping as a long shot that Shoosmiths have not checked whether their stay has been granted and that they don't get their AQ in!! But who knows...

 

Off to the court then i go!

[the_shadow]

Hi, the amount reffered to as outstanding on the first letter from Shoosmiths is different to the amount on the last ( second) default, yes.

 

Nice... ok thats for the witness statement, they'll need to show exactly how they worked out all these different figures... it would be useful if you have the last ever statement prior to default too to compare against the amount they originally defaulted you for. Hopefully all the differing amounts can not be put down to solely interest.

 

Really appreciate your advice on this - i know i keep saying it but it's all pretty scary and couldnt do it without the help form CAG!

Yep, its a godsend to me too

 

Oh and i have ticked mediation as yes too so it may go that way first anyhow.

Good, both parties have to tick for it to happen although the fact you have ticked it should show you in a good light as still trying to come to an amicable solution... you have to be seen to be willing to comprimise and I feel you've done that all the way through...

 

Although i am really hoping as a long shot that Shoosmiths have not checked whether their stay has been granted and that they don't get their AQ in!! But who knows...

Unlikely I feel but you never know, it no doubt would have been one of the juniors task to ring the court and find out. Cases can still proceed without the other sides AQ though! I think its more pertinent that the court felt it couldnt give the claimant anymore time to file and may push them into a)making an error b)or coming to an arrangement outside of court procedures

 

 

Off to the court then i go!

Best of luck, keep us informed if you receive anything from the court or the other side.

 

S.

[citizenB]

Sounds like a plan to me. Glad it is all sorted now, ava:D

[avarose]

Well i got my AQ in to the court yesterday and i felt relieved and thought i could forget about it all for a couple of days... Wrong!

 

I got a copy of the submission from from Shoosmiths in the post this morning.

 

They have not asked for mediation ( i have) and they have again asked for a stay of a month - in response to Question 1 A that asks if they want to attempt to settle the claim before the hearing.

 

They have asked that it be put on Fast Track.

 

They say their costs have been £500 so far and estimate their final costs to be £5000!!!!!

 

They have attached Claimant's Draft Directions also.

1. Asks for allocation to Fast Track.

2. Says "Each party must by 4pm on the 1 March 2010 give to the other party standard disclosure by list with inspection seven days thereafter.

 

It goes on with dates of further submissions etc to point six which asks for costs.

 

Them asking for a stay again is pointless if they are only going to ask me to pay the whole amount at once again or £150 a month again. I just don't understand them at all. Why are they taking it this far rather than accept £20 a month from me?

[the_shadow]

As the claim was for min 9k it was always likely to be parked on the fast track

 

The answer to why must be equity they think you have in your home or just a charging order against your home is what they are after.

 

The fact they have not mentioned post judgment interest on any of the defaults you have should stop them asking for that.

 

Think the defence will need amending as they clearly do not want to attempt to settle amicably. Needs one of the Fast track experts on this thread to take a look. I'll PM Citb and see if she can rustle someone up to have a gander.

 

S.