Jump to content


dizzyblonde1966

Can Howard Cohen reconstruct a DN on OC headed paper?

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3636 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

from what i have now discovered its about reconstruction of documents

 

cca etc , passing off as the original when there is none

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys has the judge done me a big dis service today then?

 

I was quiet surprised myself today for it to get transferred, why didnt he just transfer it on the first case management hearing ?why wait till now, he mentioned in the first case management hearing about the manchester test case, so what changed from the first case management hearing to today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dizzy

 

sending a pm

 

it will answer all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you got a lazy judge! That said, perhaps you should have pulled him up and asked why he wants to transfer - if he has any understanding of the Manchester case, he would not have done this - but then he threw you a big curve ball.

 

I'm not sure if there's anything you can do to prevent the transfer - and it would be better if you could, because your case is NOT relevant - any ideas, guys?


“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009

 

If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look forward to it!


“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009

 

If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the plus side, my costs are adding up

 

Any help anyone please?

 

CPR 27.14(2)(g) would seem to be very appropriate in this case DB.


The REAL Axis of evil: Banks, Credit Card Companies & Credit Reference Agencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CPR 27.14(2)(g) would seem to be very appropriate in this case DB.

 

Hi Alphageek,

sorry could you explain in a bit more detail for me,

 

DB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not right now, hic, but heres the text, may be slef explanatory

 

Costs on the small claims track

 

27.14

 

(1) This rule applies to any case which has been allocated to the small claims track unless paragraph (5) applies.

(Rules 44.9 and 44.11 make provision in relation to orders for costs made before a claim has been allocated to the small claims track)

 

(2) The court may not order a party to pay a sum to another party in respect of that other party’s costs, fees and expenses, including those relating to an appeal, except –

(a) the fixed costs attributable to issuing the claim which –

(i) are payable under Part 45; or

 

(ii) would be payable under Part 45 if that Part applied to the claim;

 

 

(b) in proceedings which included a claim for an injunction or an order for specific performance a sum not exceeding the amount specified in the relevant practice direction for legal advice and assistance relating to that claim;

 

© any court fees paid by that other party;

 

(d) expenses which a party or witness has reasonably incurred in travelling to and from a hearing or in staying away from home for the purposes of attending a hearing;

 

(e) a sum not exceeding the amount specified in the relevant practice direction for any loss of earnings or loss of leave by a party or witness due to attending a hearing or to staying away from home for the purposes of attending a hearing;

 

(f) a sum not exceeding the amount specified in the relevant practice direction for an expert’s fees; and

 

(g) such further costs as the court may assess by the summary procedure and order to be paid by a party who has behaved unreasonably.

 

 

(3) A party’s rejection of an offer in settlement will not of itself constitute unreasonable behaviour under paragraph (2)(g) but the court may take it into consideration when it is applying the unreasonableness test.

 

(4) The limits on costs imposed by this rule also apply to any fee or reward for acting on behalf of a party to the proceedings charged by a person exercising a right of audience by virtue of an order under section 11 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 19901 (a lay representative).

 

(5) Where –

(a) the financial value of a claim exceeds the limit for the small claims track; but

 

(b) the claim has been allocated to the small claims track in accordance with rule 26.7(3),

 

the small claims track costs provisions will apply unless the parties agree that the fast track costs provisions are to apply.

 

(6) Where the parties agree that the fast track costs provisions are to apply, the claim and any appeal will be treated for the purposes of costs as if it were proceeding on the fast track except that trial costs will be in the discretion of the court and will not exceed the amount set out for the value of claim in rule 46.2 (amount of fast track trial costs).


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...