Help just lost in court to CL Finance/Howard Cohen

[sleepy jean 1]

OH any help on how to do a link to this thread ???

[sleepy jean 1]

I know that if you serve a CCA s77 and it is not complied with, send a demand for one as a reminder, and further down the line you go to I think it is the FSA but anyway, it is the licencing authority and if you get this right, you can actually get the lenders lisence revoked. A lender who can't lend? But it is not something I am expert at.

I like the sound of that Ibsys

[Ibsys 86]

We need to see the Tomlin Order/Consent Order as I imagine that it says that the claim be stayed etc and no judgment entered whilst the OP is paying £XX.XX.

 

Once the OP breached Tomlin Order/Consent Order the Claimant had to apply to lift the stay and enter judgment.

 

The Court have lifted the stay and entered judgment so the OP now has a CCJ for £XX.XX per month.

 

If the OP now defaults on the CCJ the Claimant can enforce, whereas they couldn't before as there was no CCJ to enforce.

 

As is see, the Tomlin order is by a Court Officer and judgement had not been made at the time of the order(2009?), it was stayed. If there was no judgement, just an agreement albeit serious, the debtor has a valid claim for a s77 CCA 1974 because it hadn't been dealt with by a court as in judgement (technically). So not having received the CCA s77 within the prescribed period, a default exists and CL Finance is in default. Whilst the default exists, he may not enforce the debt. Below is the part which precludes enforcement but the technical standing of the Tomlin order has to be established. Is the Tomlin order deemed to have been issued in a court of law (chamber) or by a Court Officer?CCA s77(4) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)—(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement;and(b) if the default continues for one month he commits an offence. (the offence part is repealed)

[Ford 2,335]

edit

Edited May 19, 2011 by Ford
correction :)

[the_shadow 3,280]

Tomlin orders are routinely drawn up by the opposing solicitors and signed off by judges so I dont think there is anything untoward with this.

 

If I read this thread correctly,

 

A CCA request was sent to CL prior to court action

No response from CL other than we cannot obtain it and wont enforce.

CL issue court claim as is allowed (carey vs HSBC)

SJ didnt receive it as moved house

CL manage to convince SJ to sign a consent order thereby admitting the debt effectively and agreeing a repayment scheme.

SJ failed to keep up the payments

CL sought judgement wrongly via wrong form

Court knocked CL back and told to issue formal application

CL issued formal application

CL have application rubber stamped as Tomlin order breached

 

It also looks like costs and possibly interest might have been added to the debt to inflate it to such a large amount does the CCJ amount = the consent order amount?

 

The problem I can see with getting it set aside is convincing a judge that despite signing a document stating you would pay xx per month till the debt was paid off you were not aware of court action or the need to keep to the agreement you were signing.

 

Yes they would not have been able to obtain judgement whilst the s77/s78 request was not responded to (also Carey vs HSBC+McGuffick vs RBoS) however they have received judgement due to the broken tomlin order, not on the evidence of the claim.

 

S.

[sleepy jean 1]

Hi Shadow does that mean I can not go for a set aside. I have written to the court asking for permission to view and copy all docs relating to my case as I did not have any copies. It has gone up to be approved by a judge at the moment. Surely CL should not have written to me saying they would not enforce while my requests were outstanding and then go ahead and take me to court ???

[sleepy jean 1]

As I understand it, the court hearing took place last Friday by telephone, and judgment for not complying with the tomlin order (see post 53) was passed then. I think this is what SJ is trying to set aside. Is that right SJ?

 

Yes chipmeister that is correct.

[consumeredge 213]

On the 3rd December 2009, SJ received a summons issued by Howard Cohen & Solicitors acting on behalf of CL Finance Limited, the claim was for £1,124.24 Howard Cohen & Co alleging this amount to be the outstanding balance owed to Santander Cards in relation to a Monsoon Store Card, provided by GE Money.

 

From the 8th December 2009 until October 2010, correspondence was exchanged between SJ (aka Mrs Ski), Santander, CL Finance Limited and Howard Cohen & Co.

 

SJ agreed during September 2010 in principle to enter a compromise agreement by way of a Consent Order.

 

It was conditional before agreeing to sign the document, Howard Cohen & Co amend details within the consent order, and that they sign the copies first, then forward for SJ to sign.

 

This SJ did, numerous photocopies were made.

 

It would be reasonable to assume the consent order for this claim to be seen dated 21st September 2010.

 

SJ received from the court no further action was to be taken and that Howard Cohen & Co had met the cost.

 

Effectively the claim was stayed.

 

Now then......

 

On the 10th August 2008 a previous claim 9******** was issued by Howard Cohen & Co on behalf of CL Finance Limited for £11,500, the claim was in relation for the outstanding balance owing from a joint loan taken out by SJ and her ex-husband in 2004/2005, the loan was provided by GE money.

 

SJ submitted a defence to the claim with an offer to pay £40 per month admitting only to a total of £5,000 as being her half of the loan.

 

Howard Cohen & Co failed to trace SJ’s ex-husband, Howard Cohen & Co traced SJ, Howard Cohen & Co then pursued SJ using a course of harassment, stating SJ was fully liable for the debt, SJ eventually agreed to start payments.

 

When SJ defaulted on this, Howard Cohen & Co made an application to the court to enforce judgement.

 

Unless SJ signed 2 (two) different consent orders on the 21st September 2010, Howard Cohen & Co (with the use of a photocopying machine) changed the claim number to 9********, the total amount as owed to £11,500 and the monthly payment figure to £40 on the consent order which SJ originally signed to satisfy the payment of £1,124.24 (or less) for the Monsoon Store Credit Card/Santander Cards.

 

Howard Cohen should take note, if SJ wishes to pursue this she has a very strong case, Howard Cohen should have issued a concurrent summons against SJ’s ex husband at the same time, thus enabling Howard Cohen & Co to provide proof of service to the court, together with a certificate of Judgement by default against SJ’s ex-husband.

 

The Judge, although clearly showing wanting when it comes to civil procedure, was denied the full facts by Howard Cohen & Co, a 5 minute telephone hearing?

 

imo SJ can apply to have original judgement set aside, the procedure when issuing the claim was not executed correctly.

 

SJ has indisputable proof and evidence Howard Cohen & Co agreed no enforcement action would commence until the document is disclosed yet Howard Cohen & Co refuse to disclose the agreement to SJ, the answer is simple, it will show two parties, SJ and her ex husband as having signed the agreement, Howard Cohen & Co deliberately misled the court.

[consumeredge 213]

Hi Jean

 

I’ve now looked over the paperwork you sent:

 

NCCBC confirm, and I’ve set out exactly how they have stated:

 

Date of Issue 10 – August –2009

 

Date of Service 15 - August - 2009

 

01 - September – 2009 Receipt of Part Admission

Admits 5000.00, Disputes Rest, Offers 40

01 - September – 2009 Send Valid Defence/Part Admission

 

21 – September – 2009 Case Stayed No Action

 

30 – September – 2009 N24 Order Lifting Stay

30 – September – 2009 N152 Allocation Questionnaire

30 – September – 2009 Part Admission Not Accepted

30 – September – 2009 Transferred Out (Pre-Judgement)

Reason: Defence Filed

Howard Cohen & Co provided the court a "consent order" alleging that the document was signed by you dated 21 September 2009,

 

NCCBC’s log of events proves Cohen’s allegation and "consent order" to be false. If the District Judge had the original summons in front of him/her at the time of your 5 minute telephone hearing, and indeed bothered to spend the 5 minutes looking at the bottom left had corner of the front page, the information stated above would have jumped out and smacked him/her round the head. The judge was a disgrace.

 

NCCBC on the 21 September 2009 upon their own motion stayed the case, Howard Cohen & Co then filed

N24 on the 30 September 2009 lifting the stay refusing to accept your Part Admission £5000.00 at £40 per month.

 

If Howard Cohen & Co had a consent order in their possession signed by you dated 21 September 2009 with both parties having agreed settlement, why on earth would Howard Cohen & Co then apply 9 days later to have the stay lifted and proceedings transferred to your local court.

 

The "consent order" clearly states all further proceedings to be stayed as from the 21st September 2009

 

On the 8th February 2011 John Paul Murphy, solicitor, employed by Howard Cohen & Co filed an application stating the Defendant has failed to make payment in accordance with the sealed consent order, copy attached.

 

On the 5th March 2011 the Portsmouth County Court stated the application filed on the 14th February 2011 was refused by a District Judge who himself stated the Claimant should make a proper application in relation to a Tomlin Order.

 

Howard Cohen & Co then produce a N24 General Form of Judgement or Order apparently stamped by the Portsmouth County Court dated the 12th June 2010.

 

Ironically John-Paul Murphy was the "solicitor" for Howard Cohen & Co against Davetherave, his signature and name on both Howard Cohen’s Witness Statement and Howard Cohen’s application for Summary Judgement. The evidence he submitted for both the SJ and the final hearing was dismissed, and as in Jeans’s case, neither did he appear in person.

 

I'll speak with the SRA next week and enquire if this person really exists

　

[the_shadow 3,280]

Annoyingly its down at present but you should be able to search for the name on the SRA website, it lists all solicitors by company or location.

 

http://www.sra.org.uk/

 

S.

[consumeredge 213]

Hi S

 

SRA sent a responce within hours saturday, a John-Paul Murphy is registed as an Assistant (solicitor) with Cramer Cohen & Solicitors, I know Howard Cohen & Co are merely a trading title of CC but I'm still not convinced the person actuallly exists, the SRA said a full reply will be sent, they stated this could take up to 40 days, what I want to know as well is this, are Cohen Cramer & Solicitors entilted to use the SRA name and Cramer Cohen's SRA number on correspondance when Howard Cohen & Co PO Box bla bla does not appear to be listed.

 

I have evidence of "employees" of the "lewis group" communicating with people stating they are employed by Howard Cohen & Co? as this company does not truly exist I am looking to get a ruling from the SRA

Edited July 18, 2011 by consumeredge