Hfo turnbulls court proceeding pls help!!

[wunder]

Good advice, many thanks.

 

Maybe the court will chase then up re allocation and hearing?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

If it's going through Northampton they have a backlog to clear.

Brig.

[coledog]

Have TR responded to your defence? Have you phoned the court and asked what is happening?

[wunder]

Thank you Brigadier; Yes it is Northampton.

 

CD; Defence was responded to, but in haste. I have written to the court.

[wunder]

I have had no response from TR what do ever. I would appreciate opinions on applying for a strike out for non compliance? Im trying to avoid further costs in application fees so haven't lodged an application yet.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

hi Wunder,

You really have just 2 courses of action, wait a little

longer or phone the court to check on the status

of the case.

 

Brig.

[wunder]

Thanks Brigadier. I'll call them next Friday if I don't hear anything by then. Many thanks.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

OK wunder keep us posted.

[wunder]

Hi all,

 

An update - called the court today and the case has been stayed! I wrote in to them after TR failed to comply with the CPR request and included proof of service of the request and subsequent requests and the court has stayed the claim on that basis and just forgot to send me out the letter saying so! Phew!! That is a relief and a saving of the application fee I really have appreciated everyones help on this and I really thank you all immensely. I will be back most probably with another problem but meanwhile I want to say a BIG thank you to everyone!

[wunder]

Just a quick question do I need to apply for it to be struck out?

[broken arrow]

Just a quick question do I need to apply for it to be struck out?

 

Thats up to you, but it is still probally a bit early, the first stayed claim was over a year ago and HFO have done nothing.So well done and if they do come back, then you know where we are.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Agreed.

[wunder]

I think I spoke too soon! I received a letter today from TR stating;

 

We write further to the above and your 7 July 2011 letter.

 

We disagree with your assertion that we have ignored all your letters. You wrote to us on 17 May 2011 stating that the debt is statute barred and you have stated this in your defence. We wrote to you on 17 June 2011 with a copy of your statements of accounts confirming that you have made payments within the last 6 years therefore the debt is not statute barred.

 

Since our 17 May letter. you have written to us on 18th, 20th and 23rd June requesting a large volume of information and documents which in our view does not assist yo in proving that the debt is statute barred. We therefore take the view that since your defence would fail on summary judgment your letters are an attempt to frustrate proceedings.

 

Barclay's bank has provided us a copy of your letter to dated 21st June 2011 (copy enclosed), where you have signed the letter as Miss XXX (maiden name) and requested that their response be sent to XXX (a firm address, just for correspondence). We note that the fax correspondences we received from you were also sent from XXXX. Would you please confirm if XXXX are acting your behalf and if they are accepting service of documents.

 

You have asked us to prove that you and (the defendant's name - my maiden name) are one of the same person. We take the view that your correspondence with the original lender shows that you are the person named on the Barclaycard statements of the account. If this is not the case then your correspondence to Barclays could be viewed as misrepresentation in order to obtain information which you are not entitled to. Upon our client's application for summary judgment this letter will be produced as evidence and you conduct will be reported to the court.

 

We once again invite you to contact is with your payment proposal as further proceedings are likely to incur further costs of which you may be liable for.

 

TR

 

 

I asked BC for confirmation to whom the debt was assigned to, I signed in my maiden name as in my present name they would not have on record and they would not be able to process it. As for the fax and firm, that is just for correspondence...gosh.... any ideas will be highly appreciated ????

[wunder]

They have not mentioned about the claim being stayed at all. Should I just ignore their letter?

[coledog]

I need to re-read the whole of this before I can comment. They would have to apply to have the 'stay' lifted i believe so do not know really what they are talking about.

[wunder]

Letters I think weren't sent out re the stay by the court. But even so I think they would have contacted the court and been advised there was a stay. Any help will be appreciated, many thanks in advance.

[broken arrow]

Tossers, your conduct will be reported, they made the claim then ignored it, tough luck Mr T, they can not take further action, it is against court rules, all they can do is apply to have the stay lifted.

[wunder]

And I can contest that. Plus they will have to pay a fee. Should I reply or just ignore? I'm thinking of ignoring it?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi CD, I've read this and read it again IMHO

there are points that don't add up,would

really like your opinion:madgrin:

[wunder]

They state that 'in own opinion', however a CPR request is a CPR request and they have not complied with it, full stop. It doesn't matter what they think so how they can say that I haven't a clue. They must think I am pretty gullible.

[wunder]

Any opinions any one, would be appreciated

[coledog]

I think that you are wise to just wait and see what they do next. They seem to have made a right mess of it IMO! See if you can get written confirmation from the court that the case is 'stayed'

[wunder]

Many thanks. Court have just said letters weren't sent out and they apologise but the case is stayed. I'll await to see what happens and ignore responding to them. I really do not want to get in to a debate with them over letters when the case has been stayed and they will need to apply to the court to lift the stay and prove that the CPR has been complied with and if it hadn't then why. I agree CD they have made a pigs ear out of it. many thanks I'll keep the forum updated.

[DonkeyB]

What I’d like to know is why Barclaycard are passing your personal correspondence with them to HFO. That is not on – a letter to the ICO is in order.

[coledog]

That whole piece of correspondence from TR is very odd indeed, definitely needs some complaints. Give them enough rope etc...