sj - lost! but battle still continues?

[Tonka99]

Hi Kel

 

just to bump you up for a bit of help

 

Tonks:)

[kel123]

re bumping

[Tonka99]

Hi Kel

 

Have you received amended POC today

 

Regards

 

Tonks:)

[kel123]

Hi Tonk

 

It was me who had to amend my counterclaim PoC.

 

I have just handed the courts copy in, [problem]'s sent next day delivery yesterday. Mind you I only got the orders today through the post! While I was there I thought lets be cheeky and ask if all was still on for tomorrow and do we know which judge. It's the same judge as the SJ:eek:, I am trying not to look on the down side but I am having a steel belt welded around my neck so I can claim firing squad not hanging:D I have also got a boil on my neck so I could ask them to put it around my waist;)

 

I hope the DJ read docman's comments that he thinks he got the SJ incorrect and atones for his miscomings.

 

My nerves are jangling abit, not about the game but about my perfomance within it - I want to be able to say I gave it my best shot.

 

[problem] have not followed their previous tactics of sending something the day before, perhaps it will come tomorrow?

 

I wish I could get a definative answer to my previous post about if it's not on the standard disclosure list is it admissable and have they got around this by sending it to me?

 

Kel

[Tonka99]

Hi kel

 

standard disclosure **** will pull any trick they did with us at

the end of a two day trial produced a document , our QC went

mad saying you have not got this on the disclosure list and have

had it for two days with you at court , so again i think its down to

the DJ on the day if its allowed , you will have to stick up for yourself

they will play dirty, and because you are an LIP a very important one:D

i might add ,you may get a bit lost with all the jargon they use if in any

doubt ask for clarifacation .

 

Seems to me that what should happen or be allowed in court goes by the way just depends on which DJ you get and it seems like you have not been to lucky again

 

Have your list of what you need to get across and stick to it DJ will let

them go first , make notes of what they have said and what your reply

will be .

 

Will pm you later

 

Cheers Tonks:)

[kel123]

Seems I may Have answered it myself

 

CPR 31.21 A party may not rely on any document......

 

CPR 31 Practice Directions 3.3 The party must prepare and serve a supplemental list

 

But tonks I think you are probably nearer the truth when push comes to shove

 

Kel

[kel123]

Well

 

I Lost on all Areas

 

Not suprising when I learnt who the DJ was. He rail roaded me at the SJ and I wasn't prepared to allow him to do it again. It quickly became the DJ and My show, Council for the oppersition could have been a sheep riding side saddle on a donkey and still win!

 

It started as soon as the whistle went. Council for [problem] complained that I had not sent them any paperwork (adjournment - orders) and that they had not received my bundle, Guess what nether had the judge (according to him) I told them when they were posted (with reciepts) and when they were hand delivered to the court. Eventually the DJ found the adjourment orders reponse but said that there was nothing else on file. I told him that the bundle including my skeleton arguement was handed in 8 days ago on the 17th. He thanked tother side for their skeleton argument and moved on. At dinner time I checked with the court staff and yes it is recorded that I had indeed handed papers in on the 17th and guess what the DJ had them all day? After lunch I questioned him on this I didn't know that was what it was he said and moved on.

 

Docman sorry myfriend but he through out my S62 claiming he'd already rulled on it. I protested that it was S78 that he ruled on but it made no odds he just carried on. Totherside just agreed with everything the DJ said saying I am grasious your honour. I am sure if DJ had told her you've got a fat arse she'd have said thank you your honour. That is a little unfair of me because at one point she started fighting my corner against the the judge but stoped when she realised she said ' the prejadise shown to the defended oh oh if it were to go to appeal......

 

Don't go away the DN rulings are classic and the unfair relationship has alraedy been paid for

[kel123]

The DN Rulings

It’s a bit complicated so please stay with me

Tother side once again quoted S98 and therefore no need for DN, I asked if the claim had now changed to a non default cliam, the DJ said they can if they want to? It is their right. I quoted S87 and 88 and the regs sced 2, So what are you saying said the DJ, I said the claim is based on a default therefore S98 cannot be used and amoungst other things they have not complied with the regulation, sced 2, 6 a & b by not stating termination and or early payment.

Were is the termination letter said DJ – they sent a formal demand on the (what ever) and that constitutes termination – that is not a termination letter said DJ where is the termination – your honour starting the claim terminates the agreement – No that is for enforcement – so the account endures your honour

Tother side got a word in saying Paragraph 10 of the terms and condition say that we can terminate at any time by giving notice.

DJ then gave his ruling on these points

Contract law allows them to terminate at any time and I accept that there is no need for a DN

The regs have not been broken because there has been no termination and they have not sort early repayment only enforcement.

(I’ve kept this short there was a lot of me and the DJ arguing the CCA and REGS)

Ruling about figures being incorrect ie removal of premiums, Makes no difference they are removed now not retrospectively – but they were incorrectly paid before the DN therefore figures on DN include premiums – DN accurate

Woodchester I hear you shout – irrelevant!

Ruling on ambiguous statement – It is not ambiguous

More to come

[kel123]

Sorry missed abit out of last post

 

tother side did say that the formal demand constituted termination but DJ ignored her

[kel123]

Unfair Relationship ruling

Sorry I’m a bit cloudy on DJ’s ruling but here goes

Why is it unfair relationship DJ asked

I explained PPI was made a prerequisite of taking out the account and under S140A 1(b) constituted an unfair relationship and S140B 1 shows the powers of the court.

He made me pick a section under S140B (1) to base my claim upon. I said ©

Here’s the ruling

If I where to agree and side with ‘me’ then all I would award is the return of the premiums and therefore because the premiums have already been returned I see no benefit in awarding this unfair relationship - failed!

This is not the actual wording just the jist as I remember it. I had packed it in well before this point

I had not set out to antagonise him but after about 30 min I needed to protect my own ego, but that another post

[kel123]

No comments?

 

The appeal request

 

I asked if I needed his permission to appeal, he said yes and waited for me to ask – I eventually did.

 

He then asked on what grounds

 

I said on two areas 1) that the rulings are not in line with statute legislation namely the CCAct 1974 and that 2) I have not been given a fair and equitable trial

 

Yes and what grounds

 

Surely that’s for the appeal your honour

 

No because if you do not mention them here you will not be allowed to raise them later

 

I gave two examples

 

1) the DN ruling

2) the case of my missing folder that you had all along

 

Would me having the folder have made any difference – yes I replied you would have been able to follow what I was saying and it contains all the relevant facts.

 

And have you no others

 

Appeal Denighed

Edited March 26, 2010 by kel123

[supasnooper]

Oh dear !!

 

You really got the worst of the judge lottery with this Judge.

 

I'm speechless to be honest........

[kel123]

He warned me about 12 times for interupting him, but it was the DJ who set it up.

 

He would ask a question and when I started to answer said you are interupting me - power trip or what

 

Has I have said after about 30 min I needed to protect my ego, This is how one bout went

 

DJ asked a question and I started to answer

 

DJ: You have interupted me again

Me: Sorry your honour but I was just answering your question

DJ: You are petulant

Me: and you are rude

DJ: I am not rude

Me: And I am not petulant

DJ: you are

Me: and you are rude.

 

To be honest towards the end I started to loose it and say things that I normally would not

 

I actually told him to hurry up and get on with the job - talk about slow! I even asked him if he'd finished talking so I could answer his question. Yes before you say it I was now being him and lowering myself to his level, respect for the position for the man NO!

[patrickq1]

the guys a pig...sorry but what else can you say... i would be looking at an appeal ,perhaps PT can help you need to get the transcripts and post on here for others to help you with this

[kel123]

because the trial is now over (forget appeal for now and I mean just for now) when is it in the public domain because I am prepared to name and shame quoting court and trial referance.

[Mydogsawestie]

Sorry to read of your disappointing news Kel123 hope you stay strong & dont let the so n so's grind you down....you can always pin your hopes on a better Judge next time round if you do go to appeal for these wrongdoings

[kel123]

Thank you Mydog

 

I am down but not down because I lost, I held my own. It is the final realisation that the law is not the law only if it suits is the law the law and that goes against the grain. I was bought up to beleave in justice and that justice will prevail. this is now filed with the likes of the lock ness monster.

[Mydogsawestie]

Yes it is unfortunate...I agree...heres something I had filed away from a posting I must have come across prob on this site should it make you feel better....

 

Complaints about judges, members of small tribunals or coroners

 

If you want to complain about the personal conduct of a judge, member of a small tribunal or coroner you should write to the Office for Judicial Complaints by post or email. If for any reason you are unable to make your complaint in writing, please telephone us and we will be pleased to help you.

You can download a printable version of our complaints form and send it to us:

Complaints form (MS Word 0.08mb, 2 pages)

|

Alternatively, write to us by post or by email making sure you include the following information:

 

• your name, address and telephone number
  
• the name of the judge / tribunal member / coroner, the court / tribunal hearing centre, the number of the case, the date of the hearing
  
• specific details about the grounds of your complaint
  

Send your complaint to:

The Office for Judicial Complaints

4th Floor, Clive House

Petty France

London SW1H 9HD

Tel: 020 7189 2937

Fax: 020 7189 2936

Minicom: 020 7189 2941

Email

Your complaint should be made as soon as possible and in any event, no later than 12 months after the incident that you wish to complain about.

If your case or your appeal is ongoing, we will not be able to consider your complaint until the case is closed; but you should still let us know about your complaint as soon as possible

[kel123]

Please someone can you answer this

 

DJ accused me of not forfilling the orders following the adjournment hearing

 

DJ said that the following meant that I had to submit a complete new defence (remember this is only todo with the counterclaim)

 

2. The defendant shall re-amend his statement of case to set out the true basis of his defenceas outlined to the court that is that the taking out of PPI was a prerequisite of the granting to him of credit facilities and not his eligibility for the same.

 

I did question and DJ said a new defence was ordered

 

Is it me or is this guy dolallytap

[cymruambyth]

Sorry to hear how you have been treated by DJ lottery and [problem] again. It certainl seems as though you have groungs for both complaint and appeal. I'm sure you have seen the appeal threads that are ongoing where there is loads of helpful information.

It seems to be the case that certain DJs 'know' that if you are a LiP without representation it is because you do not have a worthwhile case and that you do not know what you are talkimg about.

I considered an appeal against [problem] but OH wouldn't do it. I was given excellent advice and support which I am sure will soon follow for you.

You have my best wishes and support for your continuing battle.

[middenmess]

Obtaining the transcript of this is essential!

[means2anend]

Get the transcript as middenmiss has advised and take advantage of the complaint's procedure as mentioned by Mydogsawestie it's what it's there for

 

Remember judges r flesh n blood they ain't GOD.

 

'No gain without pain' Kel..we all know u have put time into this and not so little given on behalf of the Site Team too....so it is a joint disappointment at this stage...but tomorrow's another day

[kel123]

My comments in post 242 are my real pain and the fact that I have not helped move things forward grinds in a bit, I may have hindered things but if it helps others to realise what they can be up against, they can act acordingly. I don't mean don't do it but be ready and prepared.

 

It ended up that I was not fighting tother side I was fighting the establishment (DJ) and it was the DJ who presented their case and presented arguments against mine. I supose I could ask if the DJ was a frustrated barrister that missed the cut and thrust?

 

Would I have done things differently with hindsight - the answer is NO! I have learnt and developed, I may not be able to bring many positives forward but I have a greater understanding of how establishments (DJ) works, again reference post 242

 

Kel

a resiliant old hector

[kel123]

After time to think I am somewhat confussed and I realise that it is all going to be in the judgement. Yes I lost but I am unsure about the reality of the verdict

 

Under S87/88 the account has never been terminated (this is definately in DJ's ruling) also no early repayment has been asked for (definately DJ's comments but may not be in the ruling).

 

Formal demand is not termination nor is taking me to court, Taking me to court is for the ability to enforce (definately DJ's comments but may not be in the ruling)

 

But

 

S98 is acceptable under contract law (I think this is in the ruling or may not have been ruled upon?)

 

There was no final ruling i.e. you must now pay, only that I lost on all points.

 

If what I have said above is factual (it will not be faraway from this) Where infact does this leave me?

[citizenB]

I think this use of s98 has been debated on both fairbyblue's and shakespeare's threads.. links follow.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/199150-sb100-hfc-default-compliant-58.html#post2734736

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/191784-shakespeare62-nastybank-97.html#post2839052

 

Both of them are quite long threads.. but they do put forward powerful arguments in respect of s98.