MBNA county court Summons " Help Please

[diddydicky]

i havent read the thread to be honest- ill try to catch up with it later

[DizzieDiva2010]

i havent read the thread to be honest- ill try to catch up with it later

 

Cool

[Chipmeister]

think of the overriding principles- which basically is to avoid the use of the court system if at all possible- and settle disputes outside of the court system

 

in order to prevent one side saying "look" he offered to settle so he is showing guilt - the use of WP allows the parties in the case to make offers and counter offers to settle the matter without fear of the other side using this against them in the trial

 

 

when the verdict is given (and therefore nothing in the |WP correspondence can influence the judges decision- there then remains the question of costs

 

 

 

where one side has made an offer of settlement during the course of WP correspondence- which turns out to be more beneficial than the finding of the court- THEN that party may reveal to the court that they made an offer to settle the matter but the other side refused it and therefore suggest to the court that the winner should not be able to claim the full amount of costs he is claiming..............on the basis that had he accepted thje offer the further costs would have been avoided

 

hence the expression "save as to costs"

 

Thanks for this explanation DD. May I clarify one thing please - if things haven't yet proceeded to trial and a WP offer is sent to the acting solicitors, how does it stand for costs, cos at the moment there is one amount which includes the N1 and solicitors' costs. Presumably, if it is kept out of court there shouldn't be any other costs, just the figure quoted on the N1? Would the letter still need to be marked WPSATC?

 

It would seem pretty harsh to me if they now refused an offer they accepted a few months back before an N1 was issued and took it to court anyway!

[diddydicky]

if proceedings have already started and you have defended- you are liable for the other sides costs up to the point at which you settle (if it is you who have proposed it- therefore make sure any offer is qualified that each side is to bear its own costs

[Chipmeister]

Great stuff, thanks DD.

[DizzieDiva2010]

Is it good practice for a solicitor to write to me WP stating that in their opinion i have no real prospects of defending myself and ask me to withdraw my defence and accept Judgement now?

 

Shall i reply to this letter and what advice do you give please, CAB are useless im not going back to them again!

[diddydicky]

yes thats normal mind games but gives you the opportunity to tell them that you disagree ,and you will not accept judgement- however in order to resolve the matter amicably and without any admission of liability - you are prepared to offer XXXXXXXXXXXx if they vacate the trial with both sides to bear their own costs- failing which you will fully defend

 

 

assuming of course that is what you want- it is your decision

[DizzieDiva2010]

yes thats normal mind games but gives you the opportunity to tell them that you disagree ,and you will not accept judgement- however in order to resolve the matter amicably and without any admission of liability - you are prepared to offer XXXXXXXXXXXx if they vacate the trial with both sides to bear their own costs- failing which you will fully defend

 

 

assuming of course that is what you want- it is your decision

 

Thanks Diddy i shall do that and post it up.

Edited February 1, 2011 by DizzieDiva2010

[DizzieDiva2010]

Sad times my friend has hours to live 41 why is life so cruel. Diabetes 1

Edited February 1, 2011 by DizzieDiva2010

[Dotty50]

So sad Dizzie

[DizzieDiva2010]

I'm using my iPhone & can only get the mobile site not the full site grrr

[DizzieDiva2010]

On the N157 form do you have to send a witness statement 14 days before the hearing to the other party or is it only the expert witness statement that is required?

 

My other case not MBNA

Edited February 9, 2011 by DizzieDiva2010

[GeoffreyAlby]

Is it 14 days? I thought it was 7 days...

[AndyOrch]

Ah!!!! N157 so it as been allocated to Small Claims Track after all.

 

Andy

[DizzieDiva2010]

Deleted

Edited February 9, 2011 by DizzieDiva2010

[CoventryCrusader]

Hi

 

at my recent hearing MBNA/ OPTIMA their Barrister Kate Urrell stated to the Judge that i hadcbeen on this site and as such it was "fishing expedition and typical of the sort of Internet based avoidance"......the judge replied " i quite agree"...

 

they had printed off all of my thread and submitted it as evidence

[AndyOrch]

No laws have been broken seeking guidance from an internet forum.

[Dotty50]

Hi

 

at my recent hearing MBNA/ OPTIMA their Barrister Kate Urrell stated to the Judge that i hadcbeen on this site and as such it was "fishing expedition and typical of the sort of Internet based avoidance"......the judge replied " i quite agree"...

 

they had printed off all of my thread and submitted it as evidence

 

But they couldn't have used it as 'evidence' if your identity hadn't been revealed on the thread. It is said on many posts that these sites are monitored so that they can trip you up in court, so isn't it in everyone's interest to remain anonymous?

[Chipmeister]

Hi

 

at my recent hearing MBNA/ OPTIMA their Barrister Kate Urrell stated to the Judge that i hadcbeen on this site and as such it was "fishing expedition and typical of the sort of Internet based avoidance"......the judge replied " i quite agree"...

 

they had printed off all of my thread and submitted it as evidence

 

I've just spent my lunch hour reading your thread CC. Unbelievable. And how they can submit your thread as evidence - how were they attempting tro use it? Besides which, your thread seemed more of a summary of how things were moving more than anything else. 8 pages of thread - did the Judge read it?!!

[manchestman]

Hi

 

at my recent hearing MBNA/ OPTIMA their Barrister Kate Urrell stated to the Judge that i hadcbeen on this site and as such it was "fishing expedition and typical of the sort of Internet based avoidance"......the judge replied " i quite agree"...

 

they had printed off all of my thread and submitted it as evidence

I am sorry about your case, Coventry, and the judge you eventually ended up with. However, Dizzy, (and anyone else) you should not necessarily despair at all, it seems that it is simply down to the 'judge lottery'.

 

In retrospect, I believe my SJ Judge was pretty fair and even handed. We discussed where my legal advice came from and I told him honestly and openly about not being able to afford any other except for internet advice. The judge told me that was my right and there was nothing wrong in doing that, but (in his opinion), I should be careful about taking things at face value and he would certainly recommend most urgently that I sought professional legal advice. I thanked him and said I would most certainly consider it. So, maybe I was lucky, I don't know, but the judge in my case was perfectly accepting of the fact that I used the internet for my advice.

[Chipmeister]

And that's what the barristers hate - the fact that advice is available online and people no longer have to lay down and die, they have the option to stnad their ground. As Andy says, nothing illegal in that, it's no different to contacting CAB is it??

[AndyOrch]

Take a look here at Gems day in Court Virgin/MBNA passed to Optima - claim forms received - help!

 

 

They tried it with her, DJ he showed them the door:razz:

 

Regards

 

Andy

[gem77]

He sure did andy but as with Manchestman he warned me to be careful. The solicitor knew what the judge was going to say before he said it but said he was asked by the client to put it forward so had to do so. Must say though it took me by suprize that they would try to get an order forbidding me to use the net for research!

[diddydicky]

Hi

 

at my recent hearing MBNA/ OPTIMA their Barrister Kate Urrell stated to the Judge that i hadcbeen on this site and as such it was "fishing expedition and typical of the sort of Internet based avoidance"......the judge replied " i quite agree"...

 

they had printed off all of my thread and submitted it as evidence

 

good grounds for an appeal if you lost then!

 

the claimant would have had to have obtained a court order to force the site to reveal your IP address and then a court order to your service provider to reveal your identity before the evidence could be used in court

 

i think you would have known about any of that!!

[citizenB]

He sure did andy but as with Manchestman he warned me to be careful. The solicitor knew what the judge was going to say before he said it but said he was asked by the client to put it forward so had to do so. Must say though it took me by suprize that they would try to get an order forbidding me to use the net for research!

 

So what will they try next, banning the use of reference libraries.. logging into bailii ? They really are on thin ice with that kind of thinking.