sj - lost! but battle still continues?

[means2anend]

Well SH*T!

 

Apparently I could have claimed???

 

And they will back date???

 

I could have claimed for a max of 12 months as long as I was registered at the Job centre, now here's my problem I only registered for 6 months because I got a temp (3 months) job back being self employed and I never reregistered at the job centre, I never reregistered because my wife earns over the limit. My reason for taking the job was MONEY (house trying to be reposed, and loads wanting money).

 

At first thought, it looks like I will have to drop the counter claim, because I have no paperwork to say otherwise. BUT! it's not about the ability to claim it's about how it was sold 'prerequisit'?

 

the games still afoot

 

Bang on!!!

 

THE FACT that you are ENTITLED to BACKDATE for 6 months and NOT 12 is irrelevant to the circumstances surrounding the inception of the PPI agreement.

 

What they are saying is this : YOU CAN BACKDATE 6 months because there WAS an agreement.THE ISSUE here is no longer WAS THERE ANY AGREEMENT but was it conducted in the PROPER FAIR MANNER

 

 

m2ae8)

[kel123]

Hows this reply sound

 

Dear Sirs

Thank you for your communication of the 4th March 2010, the content has been dully noted.

I have contacted London and Edinburgh and it appears that you are quite correct, in that I may have been able to claim from the Payment Protection Insurance. You yourself must have been astonished having already returned the premiums to the account? As a matter of course I have requested a claim form, although it may take longer than the 26th March 2010 (trial date) to be processed. There were no guarantees of acceptance offered by the staff at London and Edinburgh, which was different from the information given to me on the 14th December 2005, when I was told of the ineligible employment situation and having no paperwork I was not in a position to counter this – experience now dictates that you apply what ever is said.

However this makes no difference to the counter claim of miss-sold payment protection and I put you to strict proof that my Business Manager did not at the time hold control over all my accounts and that it was his instruction that I had to accept Payment Protection Insurance before the application would be forwarded for acceptance.

I hope this clarifies the situation

Further to our telephone conversation, regarding your witness Philip Clay-Joyce attending the trial, I have asked the court to intervene but it may be prudent on your part to avoid official requests and agree to this.

I look forward to hearing from you

[patrickq1]

Letter from [problem] just arrived?

 

They have been in contact with London & Edinburgh about the PPI, It is recorded that I contacted them on the 14th Dec 2005 (thanks for the info [problem]) and that I never completed an application - Yes! this is correct because they informed me that it would be a useless exercise!!!

 

They now recon (different form other letters sent by [problem]) that London & Edinburgh may be willing to back date a claim. I will contact them to see?

 

Remember they have already refunded the payments?

 

And I think it is strange and coincedental that they send it just as the court start moving - yes they suggest I delay the counter claim.

have they put this in writing if so use this as part of your bundle,this proves the fact that ,they have only part of a claim if they wish to continue but also it is now hinging on the document they have produced and you need to get into your 250 words the express wishes that the judge will agree to your producing the expert document witness to show that the document is a reconstruction that is so far from the truth that it should now subject to further enquiries with regards to the statement of truth concerning the documents and the attempt to pervert the course of justice for pecunary gain....

need i say anymore lol

good luck kell stick by your guns you are doing ok

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

However this makes no difference to the counter claim of miss-sold payment protection and I put you to strict proof that my Business Manager did not at the time hold control over all my accounts and that it was his instruction that I had to accept Payment Protection Insurance before the application would be forwarded for acceptance

dont be too hasty in phoning them,But when you do your should send a fax expressing your wishes that their is a continuance of the procceedings and you are of a mind to put in a serious objection to the courts concerning any delays with court case,you now also have employed an undertaking from a expert forensic witness in documents who has epressed a wish to inspect the documents on your behalf and you are making an order to the court s for this to take place

remember you are in control dude and with this new evidence they know that sh*t has really hit the fan...

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

it is also upto them to prooove not you so they cannot go down that road ....

on the balance of probabilities you had made contact with the insurance Co proof in itself i would say you got em dude hehe

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

just noticed is there a definite stipulation PROVIDED YOU SIGN ON WITH THE JOB CENTRE ? would be interesting to see that ..

[kel123]

This is how it was explained to me this morning:

 

There are 3 sections to the claim form

 

1 personal details etc

2 employer section (to be ignored for self employed)

3 job centre section

 

and the lady at London & Edinburgh said that I could claim for the period I was signed on!

[kel123]

Their actual letter

 

http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk81/123kel123/Lloyds/scm.jpg

[patrickq1]

as i said it is not upto you to prove anything you have your proof by their admittance that you asked the insurance company for help and you presumed they had rejected your claim....also this now makes the case they have had finnished as the figures are incorrect..you are also entitled to ask for all sums paid for the PPI ,saying that it may be beneficial if the PPI was only paid for a short period,then the PPI would autamaticly go to the OC reducing your debt somewhat but you also have charges to be knocked of as well

patrickq1

[kel123]

I need advice on this because my gut says it will backfire if I do not do it correctly

Ignoring the fact that it is still miss-sold PPI (prerequisite)

I have received a claim form for me to complete.

Lloyds have refunded all the premiums, this is what is said in their witness statement:

Taking into account the reduction of £527.71 for the Payment Protection Insurance, there remains a balance due under the credit agreement to the claimant in the sum of £5,183.21

Because I paid Lloyds and Lloyds have refunded do I still own the policy?

[means2anend]

What was the COST of the policy???

 

You have been refunded the premiums only.Sometimes the cost can be more than the loan itself...

[kel123]

My Gut was correct (#210)

 

[problem] have applied for an adjournment for me to deal with the PPI, seems they are thinking of me (I think not). They asked for it to be considered without a hearing but! it seem the court have thought otherwise (6 days time, 7 days before the trial)

 

I see it has a secondry issue, win or loose on this point has no relevance to the prerequisite PPI. Remembering that they have paid back the premiums (+ int) and that it's a CC account, so technically Although I own the policy I am sure I do not own the rights under it.

 

Do I need to put this in writing to the court? i.e. Monday

 

Can anything else be bought into this hearing? i.e. witness attending & originals in court.

 

Kel

[patrickq1]

hi mate see this is still going

was the 527.71 did this include the 8% intrest this intrest runs until they agree it is owed

i think PT needs to advise on this kel PM him if you can and if i see him on a thread i will send the link to him

patrickq1

[kel123]

Is it Lloyds, [problem] or paralegal that are producing these forgeries

 

I GOT ANOTHER THROUGH THE POST TODAY!

 

A photocopy of a booklet titled 'Your payment protection policy booklet'

 

It is quite simple a cut and shut document - made up of atleast 2 booklets and not a good job was done taboot. Different fonts, different page sizes, different presentation styles, some pages are numbered but in different corners the same goes for page headings. and here is what I think is the biggest pathetic laugh of all - all the document is poorly copied, quite fuzzy but in one corner in a different font, cleaner but lighter is a date 01/05. Here your honour is the date! It really is pathetic and what I would call unprofessional, they could have atleast tried to do a better job. Withdraw the counter claim 'my a*se'. The only problem is the DJ and how willing he is to accept a forgery inorder to allow them to win?

 

This is the first time I have seen this booklet or anthing like it and they draw my attention to the cancelation rights proving it has not been miss-sold, How the, does this show it has not been miss-sold, if I didn't know how could I?

 

Am I/we that gulable that they can produce this drival or is it purely down to we can hoodwink the judge with ease.

 

This has really p*ssed me off - gonna get locked up tomorrow and this is just for the hearing to adjourn.

 

Kel

A grumpy old hector

[patrickq1]

The only problem is the DJ and how willing he is to accept a forgery inorder to allow them to win?

a dj wont accept it if he does just tell him you will appeal on grounds that this document is not an origional and it has been designed to deceive the dj....you ask him for permission to bring forward and expert witness to contest the validity of this document....

i would nt worry if i got one like you say he he they are in the deep s**t an they know it just post a copy of it back tell them you are going to request an expert witness and will they sign to say that the document you have received is the origional document and you expect this to be in the witness statement when it goes to court...end off

[kel123]

Not alot of time to do this Pat, Tomorrow is for their application for adjournment (got the papers Friday) and the trial is next Friday? They have already submitted a witness statement on this counterclaim and this booklet is not part of it!

[patrickq1]

oh sorry ,i take it you are contesting the adjournment,grounds for accepting should only be on condition that the agreement they have sent is submitted to an expert witnes to contest the valididty of this agreement being a true and origional one signed by you...

patrickq1

[kel123]

Application for Adjournment - REFUSSED

 

It was a circuit judge and I got the feeling he knew more than he let on.

 

totherside was abit, well, lets say he wouldn't be part of my circle. On meeting me he asked for us to have a chat in private, I said No need unless you are going to offer a large compensation package. He said no thats not on the agenda, I replied with I cannot see why not because you are going to get slaughtered - he went and sat somewhere else!

 

The CJ asked him how this came about - talk about woffle, he put forward that me being able to claim was an absalute defence against miss-sold PPI and that the court should at the very least throw it out. He also made a big play on which track, they now want it to go to fast track? less disclosure and reliance on fact! Remember their constructed T & C where never disclosed and they made a statement 'no other documents exsists or can be reproduced'.

 

My turn came and I had to fight with the CJ to get over what I wanted to say not what he wanted me to say. I got the feeling that he was a 'you had it now pay' judge so I avoided putting him in a possition to say it. I think I did rather well on this point!

 

I put forward that this was a secoundry issue with the primary issue being that the PPI was made a prerequsite and that this had always been the case and that this is an attempt to divert the court from the real issue.

 

Well the CJ didn't like the statement ...attempt to divert.... and he told me off quite strongly (I looked for the black cloth but couldn't see one). The CJ asked why I am claiming (here there was some confussion) i'd explained that they had already refunded the £527 so he asked why I am claiming another £500 - Quite strongly I said I am not!

 

He went back to the tother side who yet again tried to make the ability to claim the primary issue saying that I had changed my mind - striaght away the CJ said 'he has always said it was has he as said' Their sol went into supper woffle mode at this point - I couldn't make head nor tail of what he said

 

Anyway

 

application refussed on the grounds that it was a secoundary issue and nothing todo with it being a prerequisite but I have got to amend my counter claim to reflect that the premiums have already been refunded.

 

Kel

Just imagine old Hector singing:

 

I feel good d,da d,da d,da d Like I knew that I would now d,da etc

[patrickq1]

Well the CJ didn't like the statement ...attempt to divert.... and he told me off quite strongly (I looked for the black cloth but couldn't see one). The CJ asked why I am claiming (here there was some confussion) i'd explained that they had already refunded the £527 so he asked why I am claiming another £500 - Quite strongly I said I am not!

i think this was what me and DD were warning you of accusations dont ever go down well..sos much as to say you were lucky to survive till another day so now it will need fact figures and case law to support your claim,perhaps they want fast track because the know that a barristor dealing with a lip is good news to them so you will need a Mc Kenzie freind to support your case when it moves forward

patrickq1

[kel123]

With hindsight when I received their WS stating the reduction I should have notified the court of the settlement i.e. 3 & 4 of the counterclaim, particulars of claim. I think a nice letter to the court appologising for this oversight is in order but in my defence this is the only official referance to the reduction

 

It as now been mentioned in court by tother side i.e. the balance owed is just over 5K (closer to 6K if not)

 

It is in my defence and WS but how strong is:

 

1. there PoC is £527 out

2. the DN is £527 out

[kel123]

Hows this for a first draft, unsure about PoC 3. & 4. need a better way of putting it

 

 

 

Dear Sirs

 

This is an addendum to my court bundle and an alteration to my counterclaim Particulars of Claim.

 

Please accept my apologies for my oversight in not informing the court that Lloyds TSB Bank Plc had by retuning all premiums paid by me towards Payment Protection Insurance had satisfied various sections of my counterclaim Particulars of Claim. My only defence for not doing so is that it was only referenced within Philip Clay-Joyce’s witness statement of the 23rd December 2009 paragraph 21. It has now been openly accepted in court that the premiums have been refunded and in conjunction with the orders by CJ XXXXX of the 18th March 2010, Please accept the amended counterclaim Particulars of Claim (originals page 13 of court bundle)

 

1. ON THE 23.05.205 AT LLOYDS TSB BANK PLC (XXX BRANCH) UNDER ADVICE FROM THE BRANCHES FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND THE CLAIMENTS BUSINESS MANAGER, THE CLAIMENT AGREED TO INCLUDE AS PART OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF TAKING OUT A LLOYDS TSB PLATIGNUM CREDIT CARD TO TAKE OUT PAYMENT PROTECTION INSURANCE.

 

2. TAKING OUT THE PAYMENT PROTECTION INSURANCE WAS A PREREQUISITE IMPOSED BY THE CLAIMENTS BUSINESS MANAGER, WHO KNEW THE CLAIMENTS FINANCIAL SITUATION.

 

3. THE CLAIMENT CLAIMS THAT THE PAYMENT PROTECTION INSURANCE WAS MISS-SOLD BY VIRTUE OF THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974, SECTIONS 140A & 140B (CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 2006 SECTION 19 UNFAIR RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CREDITORS AND DEBITORS) AND AS SUCH THEREFORE MAKES THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT NUL AND VOID

 

4. THE CLAIMENT SEEKS COMPENSATION

 

This also effects the following paragraphs in the claimants defence (16th November 2009) and witness statement (21st December 2009)

 

Defence

Paragraph 21. page12 (omit)

 

Witness Statement

Paragraph 4.6, page 17 (omit)

Paragraph 5 Default Notice (add 5.6 Default Notice should read your balance £5171.21 not £5698.92 by virtue of Philip Clay-Joyce’s witness statement of the 23rd December 2009 paragraph 21)

Kel

[kel123]

There court bundle has arrived today! A full A4 ring binder full of stuff, i'll sit down and read through it just incase i've missed something.

 

I still cannot understand why they are proceeding, They half won at SJ because of the judge and they lost with ease at the adjournment and on the particular issue of reducing it to small claims - less fact/legislation.

 

i'll let you know if I gleam anything from their bundle.

Edited March 24, 2010 by kel123
Fast track to small claims I got it A bout T

[kel123]

It is just a load of duplicate copies and some times 3 or 4 copies just in different sections. I have marked/adudicated over asignements/projects upto and including educational level 4 (degree), and this standard would have been thrown out at level 2 - wieght noway equals quality. It looks good but with no substance?

 

There is a couple of questions I need answers to:

 

1) the case was restarted after the SJ i.e. returned to day one. Should they have inluded my thrown out defence and witness statement in the bundle

 

2) If a document is not mentioned in their standard Disclosure list can it be admitted i.e. [problem] sent me this PPI booklet and it is in their bundle, by sending it to me and introducing into the bundle have they complied with this

 

3) and further to 2) This PPI Booklet as discussed in earlier posts is a poor copy and contains irregularities, If the original is not produced in court can I claim it to be hearsay?

 

Guys I need input please

 

Kel

[citizenB]

Kel, as far as I am aware, if a document hasnt been included on their disclosure list then NO, it cant be included.

 

I am not quite sure what is happening, so can you do a short summary for others looking in.

 

When is the hearing ?

 

Site team are aware of your S.O.S. hang in there:)

[kel123]

Quick Summary

 

feb 08: SAR and s78 request - no response

 

mar/ap 08: sent indispute letters

 

ap 08: recieved application/agreement and summary of T & C titled Bank Copy- letter to them saying they have not complied

 

ap & ma & june 08: complaint received, still investigating - no final response

 

June 08: I stopped paying

 

July 08: Defaulted - time scales correct but no mention of early repayment or termination (due to repayment of PPI premiums figures now incorrect)

 

Oct 08: Termination letter

 

jan 09: claim issued through northampton

 

feb 09: I applied for strike out. [problem] late with paperwork but alowed to reinstate

 

Nov 09: SJ application/hearing - [problem] convinced judge that a newly aquired T & C was genuine although not on Standard disclosure list. This bits strange, Judge awarded SJ by throwing out my defence and W/S but then reinstated it by allowing me to re-enter defence and W/S? I also put in a counter claim for miss-sold PPI.

 

Dec 09: Within their W/S they paid back PPI premiums

 

Trial window set for Mar 10.

 

Feb 10: [problem] discover??? I was given the incorrect information about PPI and that I could claim being self employed

 

Mar 10: [problem] apply for Adjornment (non-hearing)

 

17 Mar 10: Received PPI booklet (very peculiar photocopy)

 

18 Mar 10: adjournment rejected (returned premiums now mentioned in open court) Order to amend PoC to reflect PPI premiums being returned by 4pm thur 25th Mar 2010, This does not effect Miss-sold PPI (prerequisite)

 

Friday 26th March at 10:30: trial, 1 day allocated

 

Other things have happened inbetween but this is the main drift