Amex/Mischcon V Me

[Martel]

Hello Martel!

 

One good reason not to sign, is they are not entitled to s69 County Courts Act 1984 Interest in relation to a Regulated Agreement.

 

Here's why, see s3(a) of the following Statutory Instrument:

 

The County Courts (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order 1991 [sI 1991/1184]

 

Obviously, you cannot possibly sign anything that might allow them to claim something to which they are not entitled.

 

That would never do!

 

They also have to win first before they get it, but that's yet to be decided.

 

I do hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

Thank you, BRW!

 

Honestly, between this and Blondie's point in the above post, one wonders just WHAT Mishcon is thinking....surely some mistake???

 

I suppose this point should be added to Blondie's in my response.

 

Thanks!!! MXX

PS Hello Guest!!!

[Martel]

Wow, the Guest seems riveted by this thread!

 

Just wanted to point out some of the language in the Mishcon letter accompanying their amended POCs: ' you are not prejudiced by these reasonable amendments and we therefore invite you to sign and return the enclosed copy of this letter to confirm that you consent to their filing' and should you refuse to consent, our client shall apply to the court for the amendment and will seek to recover the additional cost of doing so from you'.

 

Does this mean they can push this fiction through??? MX

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Martel!

 

...you are not prejudiced by these reasonable amendments...

What planet do these Mammoth Minds live on?

 

I'd call their bluff. Tell them to stuff their Amendments where the sun don't shine, and invite them to put their money where their mouth is, and apply to the Court.

 

Then you can object, and ask a few other awkward questions while you are at it.

 

Start reading up about Litigant in Person's Bill of Costs, so you can submit a suitable one to reclaim your costs when a Judge blows them a raspberry on the s69 abuse.

 

The old and new POCs seem to be wildly different, so it's not a minor tweak, but a complete re-writing.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited June 23, 2010 by banker_rhymes_with
Typo

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Martel!

 

Just some light bedtime reading to put this all into perspective:

 

Two charged in alleged bank loan fraud | Press room | SFO - Serious Fraud Office

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Martel]

Hello Martel!

 

 

 

What planet do these Mammoth Minds live on?

 

I'd call their bluff. Tell them to stuff their Amendments where the sun don't shine, and invite them to put their money where there mouth is, and apply to the Court.

 

Then you can object, and ask a few other awkward questions while you are at it.

 

Start reading up about Litigant in Person's Bill of Costs, so you can submit a suitable one to reclaim your costs when a Judge blows them a raspberry on the s69 abuse.

 

The old and new POCs seem to be wildly different, so it's not a minor tweak, but a complete re-writing.

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

I know! Are you familiar with the word 'gaslighting'? As in being asked to believe the unbelievable???

 

Yes, I have a few awkward questions to ask - about the 'agreement' and the flawed DN......

 

Will knock a letter out .....thanks for your help....you have great style!!

MX

[Martel]

Hello Martel!

 

Just some light bedtime reading to put this all into perspective:

 

Two charged in alleged bank loan fraud | Press room | SFO - Serious Fraud Office

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

Haha...read a version of this on Zhan's thread. But I really like having it on my thread too.... You couldn't make it up!!

 

What's that old proverb about stones and glass houses??? MX

[ScarletPimpernel]

Hello Martel!

 

Just some light bedtime reading to put this all into perspective:

 

Two charged in alleged bank loan fraud | Press room | SFO - Serious Fraud Office

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

I'm glad you posted that, BRW, because I was going to say how surprised I was that a firm of Mishcon's standing would try to claim, on behalf of their client, something to which they were not entitled, because lawyers in a major London firm would not act dishonestly or unprofessionally, would they?

 

I should add that despite being charged and remanded, Mr Steel is innocent until proven guilty - although Mishcon seem to have judged him already

[Blondie40]

Blondie,

 

Thanks for this. It looked like a totally bizarre request to me.....I wonder if THEY would agree if I asked for something comparably favorable to me????

 

I assume I should write back and say no thank you?

 

MXX

 

Probably not bizarre, maybe they know the agreement falls down.

 

I would not give my consent to them amending their POC.

 

IMO you are "prejudiced by these reasonable amendments".

[JonCris]

I'm glad you posted that, BRW, because I was going to say how surprised I was that a firm of Mishcon's standing would try to claim, on behalf of their client, something to which they were not entitled, because lawyers in a major London firm would not act dishonestly or unprofessionally, would they?

 

I should add that despite being charged and remanded, Mr Steel is innocent until proven guilty - although Mishcon seem to have judged him already

 

I know terrible init What does EVERYBODY else think:)

[Martel]

I'm glad you posted that, BRW, because I was going to say how surprised I was that a firm of Mishcon's standing would try to claim, on behalf of their client, something to which they were not entitled, because lawyers in a major London firm would not act dishonestly or unprofessionally, would they?

 

I should add that despite being charged and remanded, Mr Steel is innocent until proven guilty - although Mishcon seem to have judged him already

 

 

I know. I am DEEPLY shocked by this news.

 

Hahaha MX

[Martel]

I know terrible init What does EVERYBODY else think:)

 

I'm sure this REPUTABLE firm has been shaken to its core.

 

 

Hmmmmmm....mxxx

[Docman]

Guys

 

I think that references to Mr Smith are distracting from focusing on Martel's case, especially as Mr Smith is innoent until proven guilty and it is not easy to secure convictions in fraud cases like this one. that said, Phison may have a big problem if Mr S is found innocent of the charges.

 

As to the new POCs, they are substantially different and should be resisted, if only to let Mishcon know you are not a pushover. The problem is that being awkard can go against you. I suggest you write back to Mishcon's and say that as they have referred to both an Agreement and a Default Notice in the Amended POCs, that they should let you have a copy of both these documents so that you can consider their POCs properly.

[Martel]

Guys

 

I think that references to Mr Smith are distracting from focusing on Martel's case, especially as Mr Smith is innoent until proven guilty and it is not easy to secure convictions in fraud cases like this one. that said, Phison may have a big problem if Mr S is found innocent of the charges.

 

As to the new POCs, they are substantially different and should be resisted, if only to let Mishcon know you are not a pushover. The problem is that being awkard can go against you. I suggest you write back to Mishcon's and say that as they have referred to both an Agreement and a Default Notice in the Amended POCs, that they should let you have a copy of both these documents so that you can consider their POCs properly.

 

Hi Docman,

 

Thanks for these points....it's so easy to overlook what isn't there.

 

They claim the acc't was terminated in 12/06 but the actual DN has a different date and is flawed (is 'termination' different from a DN?), as is the agreement (wonder why THAT wasn't included). Another anomaly is the 'statement of account' - dated NOW even tho I haven't seen a statement since 3/07. Where did they magic this up from?

 

I need to file a 'standard disclosure list' by 30/6 and inspection or request for copes by 7/7. I haven't had time to send Mishcon a CPR. I probably do have a lot of the docs but I'm not sure.....

 

Is it time for me to ask for a consent for an extension?

 

Thanks for your help...MX

[Hadituptohere]

Wow Martel check out the guests on this thread, you must really be making a stir, 1 registered and 9 guests this morning.

[Martel]

Good lord, Had!! I'm soooooo popular!! It would certainly save me a lot of postage and court time if the 'guests' participated on the thread.

 

I can think of two organisations that should be paying CAG a retainer.....MXXX

[Martel]

First of all, good afternoon to 'my' solicitors at Mishcon! Or do I mean 'Performance Leader'?

 

I've rec'd BY COURIER no less a letter and standard disclosure list (honestly, they've spent more money on pursuing this than the claim is worth).

 

Apparently, they are looking forward to receiving my list (need advice here....think Mishcon has got everything I need).

 

They state that docs I've asked for are listed here and they've enclosed further copies of these docs FREE OF CHARGE (is there no end to their generosity?). And, no, the copies are NOT enclosed.

 

Ah, there IS an end to their largesse - if I ask for any other copies, I have to give an undertaking for their reasonable photocopy fees pursuant to CPR Part 31.15. Things must be really tough at Mishcon.

 

More advice, please - should I be sending a CPR 31.14 request?

 

They also state that my 'assertion that our client is not entitled to interest pursuant to the county courts court Act 1984 is misconceived. The Court Courts (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order 1991 provides that interest does not accrue after CCJs. In contrast, the proposed pleading requests interest until judgment.'

 

And: 'We note your refusal to consent to the proposed amendment and your assertion that you are prejudiced by those amendments. We fail to see the reasoning behind your contention. The draft provides that, even if the agreement was improperly executed, you have suffered no prejudice because of it. For example, yo wold not have relied upon the agreement being improperly executed when you entered into it......blah blah blah....you are on notice that you may be ordered to meet the cost of any unreasonable refusal'

 

The disclosure list is extensive.

 

They object to inspection of correspondence between solicitor and Claimant.

 

They are no longer in control of correspondence created by the Claimant ad despatched to me int he ordinary course of business and some may have been destroyed.

 

Do I need to submit a disclosure list? Also, I will definitely need advice on my WS, which I'll have to do in the next two weeks.

 

Enormous thanks in advance for any help coming this way....MXX

[Martel]

Just rec'd another Mishcon letter, enclosing copies of docs that were omitted in the previous letter.

 

They are the application form, the T&Cs and a Cancellation letter.

 

What they haven't sent is the DN referred to in the POCs.

 

In the disclosure list, they list a Copy DN but the date doesn't match the date of the (flawed) DN I have.

 

Perhaps the DN I have should be on MY disclosure list?

 

MX

[Hadituptohere]

All documents you have in your hand are supposed to be disclosed, if not disclosed then not allowed to be produced in court is my understanding

 

Hadituptohere

[JonCris]

Hadituptohere

That's true but as Mishcon & others can confirm documents do get overlooked until the very last minute some don't even find their way into the LIP's bundle whereas they do in the judges copy ........ clerical error dontcha know

[Hadituptohere]

lol sure do

[Martel]

All documents you have in your hand are supposed to be disclosed, if not disclosed then not allowed to be produced in court is my understanding

 

Hadituptohere

 

Hi Had,

 

So, you're suggesting I disclose my DN? Interesting that it has a different date.

 

Does a faulty DN make an agreement unenforceable? if you know what I mean.

 

MXXX

[Hadituptohere]

Hi Martel

 

I have been informed previously that is the case but as JonCris says clerical errors do occur

 

Ive seen it argued on here that a dodgy DN does and doesnt make an agreement unenforceable, my initial thought was that it does. But there seems to be a heck of a lot of trolls about the site that would argue that black is white

 

Sorry I cant be more of assistance on that one

 

Hadituptohere

[Martel]

Thanks, Had.

 

I'm still in a quandry re the disclosure list.....the deadline has passed but I suppose I should still submit one with the application, T&Cs, DN and Amex sols' correspondence.

 

Should do that ASAP but need some guidance....

 

Thanks in advance to anyone who can help,

MX

[MAGDA]

Hi Martel, you can download an N265 Online and type it up, then print off. You will need to do a copy as I don't think you can save it to the computer.

 

On the front of the N265 you need tick the box for Defendant.

 

Beneath this, enter the date of the court order, ordering parties to make disclosure.

 

Then tick the box "I did not search for documents:

 

tick - pre dating the cause of action.

tick - located elsewhere other than: in the custody and control of the defendant.

tick - in categories other than : those relevant to the issues.

 

On next page:

 

I did not search for the following:

 

tick - documents created before: the cause of action

 

documents contained on or created by the - tick: claimant

 

You don't really need to tick anything else. leave the rest blank.

 

sign and date at the bottom of this page.

 

 

Next page:

 

I have control of the documents numbered and listed here. I do not object ot you inspecting them/producing copies.

 

enter: please see attached list.

 

I have control of the documents numbered and listed here, but I object to you inspecting them:

 

Either leave blank, or if a solicitor was involved you can enter:

 

correspondence notes momoranda between solicitor and client being privileged from production.

 

I object to you inspecting these documents because:

 

They are subject to legal professional privilege.

 

(You may or may not need to enter the above, depending on whether a solicitor was ever involved in this particular case)

 

I have had the documents numbered and listed below, but they are no longer in my control:

 

enter: The originals of those documents retained as copies.

 

Then you just need to do the list you mentioned above: (type this on a blank sheet of paper and attach to N265)

 

Defendants List of Documents:

 

1. Pleadings common to both parties

2. Correspondence common to both parties.

 

AMEX Credit card Account (Martel, think it's a credit card is it, without checking):

These may include the following, for example, depending on what you have actually received in this case:

 

3. Claimants accounting statement in relation to the Defendant's account.

 

4. Caimant's case history in relation to the Defendant's account.

 

5. Copy credit agreement.

 

6. Copies of Account statements from xxxxx to xxxxxxx (enter dates as appropriate if this applies)

 

7. Copy of Notice of Assignement or representation of notice of assignment (depending on whether you have received this document)

 

8. Sale and purchase agreement covering the Assignment of this account .

 

9. representation (or copy) of DN.

 

The above is just an idea of the kind of things you need to mention, depending on what you have actually received, so you can amend this to suit.

 

That should pretty much cover it. I would get it off as soon as possible, as it's important you do this.

 

Hope this helps, if it doesn't make sense, give me a shout.

 

Magda

[rhodium78]

Ive seen it argued on here that a dodgy DN does and doesnt make an agreement unenforceable, my initial thought was that it does. But there seems to be a heck of a lot of trolls about the site that would argue that black is white

 

LOL.... I must be one of the trolls as you call it because I don't agree that a DN makes an agreement unenforceable. Better check your facts and law before you argue that because if that was brought up against me, apart from laughing, I would advise the Court that the LiP's mistaken belief that a faulty DN makes the agreement unenforceable has no grounding in law and has already been judged as such in Rankine. Apart from that, s 127 does not apply to DNs.

 

I will troll off now... LOOOL!