Turnball Rutherford Solicitors have just delivered a Stat Demand for Statute Barred Debt** DISCONTINUED**

[dadofholly]

I shall try and get hold of the court tomorrow as like you i too smell a rat here and it definately does not sound right.

 

When I was in court the judge asked me if I had the original copy of the claim form. I did not and only had a part copy. The judge allowed me to have a read through the copy TR had and said we could then continue in 15 minutes or so once i had time to read the full claim form. From this the judge then proceded to set aside my Statutary Demand and said based on the information the CCJ should also be removed immediately.

 

My understanding was that TR would then have to go through the entire process from scratch again. Instead I have been issued anothe CCJ. I thought I was supposed to get a letter from the court but never did. The only letter I have recieved is the Claim form from TR.

 

You say you recieved a claim form - was this for the original case - or the latest CCJ.

[broken arrow]

No nothing from the court. My recollection of the Set aside was that the set aside was for the Statute Demand and that the judge at the same time ordered the removal of the original CCJ.

 

Some courts can takes weeks to post out orders, as it was your local court, it should have gone to your correct address.Can you remember what directions the Judge gave at the end of the hearing, you should have really written them down.It sounds like he gave you a time period to submit a defence and you haven,t, I think the courts would dismiss another set aside application on the same grounds, in their opinion you was given a chance and you missed out.

Edited December 16, 2011 by broken arrow

[broken arrow]

When you phone the court ask exactly what order the Judge gave at your hearing.

[Hants38]

Hi Guys the claim form was the exact same as the original claim form but sent to Winchester Court instead.

 

So basically the Judge ordered the Statute Demand be set aside and the CCJ be removed.

 

The claim form sent through whilst i was on honeymoon was the exact same as the one i never recieved on the original CCJ.

 

I am going to set this aside and mention the fact that no CCL was in place plus the fact that Barclays have no acknowledgement of the debt nor have they EVER owned it.

 

I'm confident on these grounds that I can get this set aside, however I need to put a stop to this once and for all.

 

The judge did not give me an order he stated HFO had to remove the CCJ from my record and that the Statute Demand was to be set aside. As far as I know I have done everything apart from go to court to defend this. I now have to go through the CCJ setaside again all because I was away for a few weeks.

 

So TR basically were asked to remove my CCJ on the 8th and then reapplied on the 9th???? Yet ALL their facts were wrong.

 

I thought that in order to take me to court they had to write to me in the first place???? not just send another claim form. Also technically this is now the first I know of the said debt so surely they have to send their regular letters etc.

 

Anyhow i'm not going to give in and will appeal the CCJ, and go for set aside again on the grounds above.

[cat10]

I thought this debt was SB. If the CCJ etc has been removed why can't you use SB argument.

[broken arrow]

Did you phone the court?

[coledog]

Yes but what exactly have TR sent you??

[broken arrow]

Hants you need to post up some docs, so we can see what has happened and, who exactly is claiming.Sorry for keep repeating myself but you need to find out what the exact order was at your hearing.

[DonkeyB]

Forget the Barclaycard bit – they are useless. And probably mistaken. That part is NOT a defence.

 

Can you check the registry trust to see what’s recorded? You may have to do two searches – one for the wrong address, and one for the correct address. Take a printout or screen grab of what’s recorded.

 

http://www.trustonline.org.uk/

 

I want to be sure the original CCJ WAS removed. If it was not, there’s abuse of process as two claims would have been extant.

 

Does anyone know what the process is of a claimant removing a CCJ? Surely only the court can do this? Could they do it in one day?

 

Need some legal input here.

[broken arrow]

The court would issue a Certificate of satisfaction or cancellation of judgement debt, a notification would then be sent to the keeper of register of judgements, for the entry to be removed.

[DonkeyB]

So that could not happen in a day!

[broken arrow]

So that could not happen in a day!

 

Anything can happen in a HFO day, we needs to see some facts to what has actually happened.

[Hants38]

Ok the letter reads as follows:

 

Dear Mr XXXX

 

Further to the Order of the 8th November 2011, we enclose the Claim Form and attached Particulars of Claim, together with a Response Pack detailing your options.

 

The witness statement in response to your application to set aside is also enclosed and we look forward to your response within the prescribed timeframe.

 

Yours sincerely

 

TR

[broken arrow]

Reading between the lines, they have re served the claim and you have not responded, did you contact the court and find out what the exact order was.

[Hants38]

Sorry guys i'm getting really confused now I have had NOTHING from the court all I have had since the 8th Setaside hearing is this new Claim form ??? What is this Order???

 

I have not got through to the court yet but am going to try on Tuesday as on the road all day Monday and could not get through yesterday as the queue was really long and i was at work

[broken arrow]

The order is what the judge said at the end of the hearing, which would have been the set aside and what directions were to be taken next, it looks like he ordered TR to serve the claim again and then you would have had to respond with a defence, which is what was ordered at my set aside hearing.Some courts are very slow at sending out the orders, it might not have been sent at all, but you were representing yourself, it is your responsibility to write the order down, this is where it is useful to have a Mckenzie friend to take notes for you.

[broken arrow]

Hello darragh, hope all is well with you.

[Hants38]

Ahhh ok well definately not recieved anything and i know the court has my correct address as the adjouned hearing was sent to my address which i attended. Plus I rang the court services and updated my details a few months ago.

 

I'm going to have to go for setaside again so am looking at Stat Barred Debt, The account has never been owned by Barclays so how could Barclays have sold it when they have put in writing they did not own it, also the fact HFO were without a valid CCL when they purchased the debt.

 

Do you think this is good enough grounds

[capcom]

Please correct if I am mistaken

 

I understand about the SB, However the BC letter could be very important, I underestimated the power of my BC letter and its impact during my hearing.

 

Could hants38 try to obtain a signed W/S from Barclay Card which officially confirms the letter info, which could be used as an exhibt with the letter , more layers to the def.

 

If they refuse, could hants ask for directions from the courts based on this letter to order BC to supply a affidavit or WS confirming BC never owned the account and its was never sold to HFO as claimed by supporting docs contained in TRS CB.

 

If confirmed by affidavit, no hearing would be required, TRS are screwed, demand TRS to drop the case or apply to be struck out, the courts time would not be wasted

 

 

 

If

[DonkeyB]

There is one problem. Barclaycard speak with forked tongue.

 

They said they did not know of the account, yet they told Hants to contact someone else about this.

 

Guess who they told him to contact?

 

HFO Services.

 

If they had no knowledge of the account, how did they know who was dealing with it?

 

Barclays almost certainly DO have the info you need re the probable SB status. You need to get on to the Director’s Office at Barclaycard and complain long and loud.

[dadofholly]

Ignore i misread the hearing date.

 

You really need to get hold of the Court to find out what the Order was at the hearing.

[dadofholly]

The letter from BC is evidence in itself - no need for afidavits etc. Just accept the information given.

 

If BC say they never owned the account - then they never had the account to sell to HFO - thats what the letter says - and thats what the judge has to accept. It's up to HFO to prove otherwise.

[DonkeyB]

DoH, Barclays are mistaken - how else would they know HFO are involved? HFO will, er, easily get a letter from Barclays stating the exact opposite, as we know.

 

There are bigger issues for the defence.

 

Barclays almost certainly will have details of the alleged payment. That's the point to target.

[broken arrow]

I think the mistake which has been made is, the account was never owned by Barclaycard, but Barclaycard are now responsible as the data controller, MS/Goldfish accounts were sold to HFO before, the transfer from Goldfish to Barclaycard.

[DonkeyB]

Spot on BA. Both scenarios have occurred before.