Hydra-vs-RBS

[HydraUK]

Quick update for anyone following the saga....not as interesting as Michael Mcuth's, I know, I don't write letters like he does...

 

Position is now - Strike out application refused, Judge wants to hear LA issues.

 

RBoS now 5 weeks late with disclosure and 10 days late with statements of fact.

 

Phone call last week from Cobbetts saying client inclined to settle, could they have 14 days to go through schedule and make FF offer....Yippe

 

I was disinclined because, and I made this point, that after giving them another 14 days to 'go through schedule as my claim is over 10k' (to which I replied 'Youve had months to do that'),and with only 14 days left to case conference, they could just carry on the fight, leaving me less time to prepare.....but I agreed in order to get things moving, possibly (Inclined to settle.....sucker punched!)

 

Then letter arrives over the weekend confirming I had agreed to let them have 14 more days to submit Standard Disclosure and Statements of Fact - which I definitely did not agree to, quite pointedly did not.

 

Also paragraph about how they would arrange the telephone conference on 24th May 'If necessary' (huh? court order was for attendance...I just love this lot, so professional)

 

I Phoned them today, but LCB wasn't in the office so bit difficult to dispute a conversation with somebody who didnt hear it.... expect a call tomorrow re. errors.

 

So the games go on....

[Glenn UK]

Quick update for anyone following the saga....not as interesting as Michael Mcuth's, I know, I don't write letters like he does...

 

Position is now - Strike out application refused, Judge wants to hear LA issues.

 

RBoS now 5 weeks late with disclosure and 10 days late with statements of fact.

 

Phone call last week from Cobbetts saying client inclined to settle, could they have 14 days to go through schedule and make FF offer....Yippe

 

I was disinclined because, and I made this point, that after giving them another 14 days to 'go through schedule as my claim is over 10k' (to which I replied 'Youve had months to do that'),and with only 14 days left to case conference, they could just carry on the fight, leaving me less time to prepare.....but I agreed in order to get things moving, possibly (Inclined to settle.....sucker punched!)

 

Then letter arrives over the weekend confirming I had agreed to let them have 14 more days to submit Standard Disclosure and Statements of Fact - which I definitely did not agree to, quite pointedly did not.If you havent already done so you must respond to this letter correcting the mistake on their part and copy the court in on it too.

It is critical the courts dont think you have agreed to anyhting you havent.

Dont mark your letter WOP and dont mention anyhting about potential settlement, if you want to write about that send it as a seperate letter otherwise there is a danger that they may ask the court to deem your letter WOP due to discussion about a settlement.

 

Also paragraph about how they would arrange the telephone conference on 24th May 'If necessary' (huh? court order was for attendance...I just love this lot, so professional)

 

I Phoned them today, but LCB wasn't in the office so bit difficult to dispute a conversation with somebody who didnt hear it.... expect a call tomorrow re. errors.

 

So the games go on....

 

SOunds like our letter may have worked then, does their letter or did the phone call give any clues?

 

glenn

[HydraUK]

I certainly think your letter had the desired effect on the Judge with regards the strike-out application, I haven't had a response as such, from the bank about it.

 

When LCB phoned me last week she made no bones about the fact the client was 'minded to settle' and that the 14 days extra was to allow this. On contacting them again yesterday I spoke with FC who couldn't comment on the conversation, but pointed out the phrase 'we will arrange telephone conference if necessary' as indication that the client was settling - to which I replied that I wasn't perpared to 'read between the lines' of statements made by them at this point in the procedings.

 

I haven't replied to them hard-copy as yet, as you advise it I will draft up something this morning and pop it here for review for mailing this afteroon, although I'm expecting a telephone call off LCB today on the topic.

[HydraUK]

Okelydokely....

 

First draft letter in response to LCB letter.

 

Dear Sirs

 

In response to your letter dated 27 April 2007, it should be noted that at no time during our telephone conversation of 26th April (Burgoyne/Steed) did I give consent for a time extension of 14 days to allow compliance with the Court’s Order of 28 February.

 

Our discussion centred on your client’s position of being ‘minded to settle’. You requested the 14 day extension as my claim is in excess of £10000 and your client would require the additional time to scrutinise the schedule and return with Full and Final Settlement.

 

 

I agreed to the time extension on the basis that it was to allow your client time to settle and NOT as an extension to Court set dates for compliance.

 

For your Client’s information I have included an up to date schedule including properly accrued Judicial interest current, to today’s date. Should they wish to settle in full, either a cheque or payment directly into my account, in the sum of £10995.64 in respect of charges and statutory interest, plus £350 court fees, will be acceptable as Full and Final settlement of this claim.

 

I trust this clarifies my position.

 

It should also be noted that the Court’s order for conference on 25 May has been amended to ‘Attendance’ as I am Litigant in Person, and not ‘telephone’ as implied in your letter.

 

 

Yours faithfully

 

Mr HydraUK

 

Comments and critique asap pour favor

 

(EDIT - Ive just re-read your comments about not mentioning settlement Glenn. Didn't ignore you, just misread forst time - Assume I will split this letter?)

[Glenn UK]

Dear Sirs

 

In response to your letter dated 27 April 2007, you have made a signifcant error.

I do not now and have not previsouley consented to any extension of time for complaince with the Courts order Dated 28th February 2007.

 

I trust this clarifies my position.

 

It should also be noted that the Court’s order for conference on 25 May has been amended to ‘Attendance’ as I am Litigant in Person, and not ‘telephone’ as implied in your letter.

 

 

Yours faithfully

 

Mr HydraUK

short and sweet

 

Glenn

[HydraUK]

Gotcha. Chrs Glenn

[Glenn UK]

PS email or fax it to both the court and the defendants ASAP

[mcuth]

I concur with Glenn, short & sweet, and make sure stuff like that is in writing, with a copy to court if needed. Just a couple of spelling/grammatical/layout suggestions to Glenn's draft though:

 

Dear Sirs

 

In response to your letter dated 27th April 2007, I believe that you have made a significant error.

 

I have not consented, nor do I currently consent, to any time extension for you to comply with the Court's Order dated 28th February 2007.

 

It should also be noted that the Court’s Order for Conference on 25th May has been amended to ‘Attendance’, and not ‘Telephone’, as implied in your letter, because I am a Litigant in Person.

 

I trust this clarifies my position.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Mr HydraUK

 

Cheers

Michael

[Glenn UK]

I concur with Glenn, short & sweet, and make sure stuff like that is in writing, with a copy to court if needed. Just a couple of spelling/grammatical/layout suggestions to Glenn's draft though:

 

 

 

Cheers

Michael

[/font][/color]

 

If there werent any typos you wold know i had got someone else to type it!!!

[mcuth]

If there werent any typos you wold know i had got someone else to type it!!!

 

LOL

 

Cheers

Michael

[HydraUK]

Thanks Lads, hardcopy away in the post this morning. I believe I have an e-mither for FC here somewhere, I'll pop one off that way right now too.

 

Phil

[Sparkie1723]

Love your post keep at it, .......IIIIIIIIIIIIII'm watching :D

 

sparkie1723

[HydraUK]

Cheers Sparks, watchin me, watchin you, watchin THEM ;0)

[HydraUK]

Okay so the situation so far....

 

Nearly arrived at the original 14 day agreed extension. I've had no reply to the last letter and a promised call-back from Cobblers never materialised.

 

The S.O.B.'s are keeping me in the dark about exactly how they are intending to proceed....if they suddenly submit documents to court I am going to be in the cack a bit because, due to them giving me the impression verbally that they were about to settle, I haven't submitted my own Statement of Fact (although SD was in on time.)

 

Going to need a pointer here - what the hell is statement of fact? This the same as Witness Statement in the bundle?

 

Cheers

 

Phil

[HydraUK]

Going to need a pointer here - what the hell is statement of fact? This the same as Witness Statement in the bundle?

 

 

*Bumping*

[clakkers]

HydraUK...

 

Any more news on this???

[HydraUK]

Situation is that whilst they SAY they are going to pay, the cheque still hasn't arrived.

 

I am currently preparing my Statement of Facts and a wasted costs order to take to court with me on Friday.

 

Full update will follow when I get back from what seems will be a very one-sided case conference, as whilst I have told Cobblers several times in the last 10 days that if the cheque hasn't cleared I will be attending, they have given no indication that they will be attending.

[HydraUK]

Well here's a turn-up for the books. More than a little worrying.

 

I've just been contacted by Cobblers to tell me that whilst the client is still minded to settle, they are scrutinising my claim to look not at the charges, but at the cause of each charge. This is following recent media coverage????

 

This was after I pointed out it only took me about 5hrs to do it myself.

 

What the hell is that all about?

 

And they WILL be attending the case conference tomorrow...

 

OH S*%T!

[matt_smith2000]

I would get your terms and conditions sorted out for the case conference tomorrow. That is why the lloyds case failed.

 

Do you have these?

[HydraUK]

Got T&C from 1997 coming in this afternoon.

[Sparkie1723]

Hydra Its another stall another bluff....The Lloyds case failed because the guyu(claimant was NOT claiming penalty charges) he was trying to claim the account running charges that all banks are ENTITLED to charge as per their terms & conditions,

The Judge asked him if he could prove that these charges would have been lower at another bank and if he could give him the evidence to that fact.

 

The claimant admitted that the charges would have been practically the same...Hence he lost.

 

IF you have not tried to claim anything else except your penalty charges , you have got nothing to worry about at all, they will attend the allocation hearing "maybe" but they will not let it go to court IF all you have claimed arethe penalties ..

 

sparkie1723

[livelylad]

Mmm not sure I think its a bluff, I would just attend court and make sure you are prepared. I would expect a phone call from them again today.

[clakkers]

HydraUK...

 

Just want to say we think you'll be fine...We have read your thread and we think your pretty switched on...

 

Will be thinking of you tomorrow mate...

 

ALL THE BEST!

[HydraUK]

Thanks all.

 

I'm off to soak my head in the freezer for an hour or two before the cloud of doom that is Mrs Hydra comes in from work.....

[HydraUK]

**URGENT**

 

The T&C document I was waiting for turns out to be for the Royalties Services.

 

Does anyone have a copy of old T&C that can be scanned/mailed to me?