Threads about set aside hearings?

[keren29]

Citicards have applied for a set aside (and a stay) because I issued a judgement by default. The court has ordered a hearing for the application and I was wondering if there were any other threads where this has happened?

 

'set aside' in the search produces no results.

[Number6]

On what basis are they asking for the stay?

 

Pete

[keren29]

They didn't receive the claim and only knew about it because they found me here on my thread and the old Mercantile court trick.

 

I used a letter I found here which I sent to the judge saying that the Elliot v Lloyds case was settled, and that banks were settling out of court just before court dates.

 

I'm having a look around, but can't find any set aside hearings? I'll keep looking.

[bill-k]

Just as an "aside" (pun intended).

 

This seems to demonstrate that the banks are monitoring this site, and in a "less than general" manner.

 

Tread carefully.

[orfoster]

They didn't receive the claim and only knew about it because they found me here on my thread and the old Mercantile court trick.

 

They found you on this site? Really?

[keren29]

I certainly will. I'm following everything to the letter, and as this particular account is closed, I've got nothing to lose other than the initial court fee.

[orfoster]

hmmmm i suppose it is open to all to watch but im abit freaked by this to be honest as they should not be using this to inform themselves of us.

 

They must be paying people to find things by claim amounts and names and things like that. grrrrrrrrr

[keren29]

They found you on this site? Really?

 

Yes. It's all in my thread, but basically the citicards solicitor said that they didn't know about my claim until the judgement was issued . He wrote on the set aside/stay application

 

"The defendant monitors the website "The Consumer Action Group" and became aware of the claimant's action only via this source. It did not receive the claim form and currently has no knowledge of the claimant's case"

[Number6]

Yes. It's all in my thread, but basically the citicards solicitor said that they didn't know about my claim until the judgement was issued . He wrote on the set aside/stay application

 

"The defendant monitors the website "The Consumer Action Group" and became aware of the claimant's action only via this source. It did not receive the claim form and currently has no knowledge of the claimant's case"

 

That sounds VERY dodgy to me. If they didn't know about your claim why did they search for your name? Sounds like a sham trick to try and con the judge IMO.

 

Pete

[Bookworm]

Whizzkid v Abbey

NeilP v Abbey.

Kellyjo v Natwest

Seminole v Natwest

 

There's more, but can't think of others just now. The 2 Abbey ones are very detailed.

[keren29]

Cheers bookworm, I'll have a look.

 

I wrote a long letter to the judge (found on this site) about the stay application. I also detailed the letters I had already sent to Citicards , as well as the replies, the dates and who had sent them.

[Glenn UK]

Yes. It's all in my thread, but basically the citicards solicitor said that they didn't know about my claim until the judgement was issued . He wrote on the set aside/stay application

 

"The defendant monitors the website "The Consumer Action Group" and became aware of the claimant's action only via this source. It did not receive the claim form and currently has no knowledge of the claimant's case"

 

I do wonder if they have registered as a user?

 

Doesnt their use of the site constitute an infringement of some act or other?

 

Be wicked if it did and they got sued, might also make the information invalid, i.e a bit like hear say evidence?

 

Well maybe

 

interesting though, im not surprised either.

 

Glenn

[keren29]

I think that anyone can view the threads, but someone has to be registered to see signatures and to access the template library etc.

 

If he wanted to register, he would have to approach someone, bankfodder maybe? He is an in-house solicitor, so guess the rules still apply? If he is registered but hasn't asked, I know it is very naughty, but don't know why!

[bill-k]

Sorry I kicked over that can of worms just now ! I did mention something like this in another thread a while back.

 

In the same way that some ex-bank employees are kindly supplying us with info, I could quite easily myself be passing info to my mate who works in Grabbitt Bank, who in return is "bunging" me "considerations."

 

I know I ain't of course - but how do YOU know ?

 

That's why I am keeping my cards fairly close to my chest in my postings, as I reckon it would be dead easy for someone to work out from my litigation history and posts who I am.

 

They walk among us, I'm sure.

[keren29]

I'm sure there are bank employees etc reading the threads. i've got nothing to hide to be honest, I'm more than happy to go to court and see them disclose their real costs!

 

I've PM'd a mod for some advice.

[Plutos]

It's not surprising they monitor this - if you post on a publically available site you should expect this. It does, of course, mean that you can speak to them though....

 

Surely they must know that the ones from this site are the serious ones as well! They shouldn't bother with court and just pay out!

[bill-k]

I doubt if they could use anything picked up here directly as evidence, but in some cases they could anticipate a claimant's intended defence of their claim, and thus decide to enter a defence based on their covertly-acquired knowledge (but not actually relying on it as evidence).

Forewarned is fore-armed. And knowing what the opposition is going to to next (and/or why) can be very useful. You don't play chess and tell your opponent what you're doing and why, until you've actually done it.

Fore-armed is four-legged - they could charge through a claim upfront or creep round the back and surprise us with some obscure banking move like a Garnishee order or...or...or...am I just being paranoid?

 

Does this need a separate thread, or are we OK here? :?

[Guest Zooman]

Karen, would you like to fight this set aside, or at least come out of it in the best possible position. If you do I will help you prepare witness statements for the courts etc. Set Asides are not an automatic right. I can not see how they can link a claim from your posts here, then find the court name and claim number and we wil tell the jusge this and allow him to make up his own mind. At the very least they will have to explain to the judge how they did link your posts to your claim. PM me if you would like my help.

[Robertxc]

I think at the end of the day there is little chance of the set aside not being granted. Judges prefer cases to be settled on their merits, not by default, so in reality a set aside is almost always granted. If it were me, I wouldn't even bother objecting to it. It does however give you the opportunity to alter your case to claim for the compund contractual rate of interest, rather than the judicial rate. I suggest you search the forum for threads by Vampiress to find out more about this. , because it may mean you can claim back quite a bit more.

 

As for Citi monitoring the site, that's no particular surprise, and frankly, we couldn't care less. Everything anyone needs to know about the lawfullness of the banks' charges can be gathered from here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/litigation/

[The cobbett slayer]

Clicky here. Natwest have applied for set aside in my case despite admiting in the set aside application that they received service and due to "oversight" failed to acknowledge. I'm still waiting for the judges decision on the application but I have entered an objection.

 

With regards to Citi monitoring the site, I would be surprised if the banks aren't but would be very surprised if they could cite anything on here as evidence. Have you considered the fact that in order to become aware of the action only from this site, they would have to know your user name to be sure they were monitoring the right case. It is conjecture, intimidation and most likely a blatant lie!

 

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/17630-shiebers-natwest.html

[bill-k]

Paulshieber, I agree that the banks could not directly cite (the word I was looking for earlier) anything found here as evidence, but I'm still not convinced that they cannot work out somebody's game plan from here, then come up with a blinder of a defence - because they knew what was coming.

Agreed, in most cases involving (relatively) minor amounts, up to 6 years back and/or Statutory interest etc., they would not make much effort, but if someone was to claim back to the year dot, with Contractual Compounded daily at Unauthorised rate, then they might consider it worth getting off their fat asses.

Putting one's self in their place - they just have to get eager young Jimmy ("just joined us on Work Experience last week - over there between the Lamburnum and the Costafortunum") to Search for all Grabbit bank threads within "Litigation in Progress" (Hey - guess wot - that bit is already done for him !!), then look for claims over a certain figure, or containing the words "Unauthorised" or "Contractual" or "to the max" etc. When they find a figure that exactly matches the one they've got in front of them on their desks, then they (as good as dammit) know who you are. They can then lock in to your train of thought, character defects, and your fears (beyond young Jimmy, now, I admit, but he's served his purpose and is now back at the Jobcentre).

So they then enter a 10-page defence, based entirely on what they know you are going to do next, and what they know scares you. I personally would still have to carry on, but many others would perhaps fold at this point. Job done -thanks Jimmy - you were good value while you were with us.

 

Paranoid ? - Me ? - Come here and say that !!!

 

JMHO.

 

Bill

[Mindzai]

Paulshieber, I agree that the banks could not directly cite (the word I was looking for earlier) anything found here as evidence, but I'm still not convinced that they cannot work out somebody's game plan from here, then come up with a blinder of a defence - because they knew what was coming.

 

Forsight does not change the fact that they are in the wrong. At the end of the day the only defence against your allegations is to prove what it actually costs them to take the action that they charge for. We all know that doing this would prove them guilty, so they dont do it but settle instead. No amount of monitoring or extra time is going to help them prove the unprovable (not a word i know - what is the opposite of provable?!).

 

However, I'm puzzled as to how the bank can link the thread in question to a specific claim when they haven't heard about the claim? Surely that's something of a paradox?

[Robertxc]

I thought that in England the summons is served by recorded delivery by the court? If that's the case, how could they possibly not know about it? I think that with all the time wasting that's been going on by the banks, they may well get a bit of a hard time from the judge, but I still think the set aside will be granted.

[bill-k]

Agreed, Mindzai - they can't do much with what they find here once they get in Court. Theirs is indeed a no-win situation. But I've been ranting a bit on the "Banks/Companies monitoring THIS site" thread that sprang from this, and I think they can use what they find here to scare some people away from going to Court (eg., 10-page unintelligible defence submissions). THAT's the only way they can win I reckon - by scaring people into either accepting a bag of sweeties, or dropping their claim altogether.

But, yes it stinks of something when they find a specific claim on here that they didn't know existed.

Robertxc - I had a little SCC spat with Littlewoods a while back, and nothing I got from the Court came by Recorded. But they let it get to Judgement by Default, so maybe nothing I got merited Recorded. One would expect that the initial Service to the Defendant has to be made securely. There are some SCC staff on the Forum here somewhere - I wonder if one of them can help?

[keren29]

Well, they won't scare me off. As my OH has lots of experience with the small claims court and the procedure from his mediation/adjudication work, he will be able to help me get things together for the day. He has also outlined what to say if asked by the Judge. (obviously will keep that under my hat if this is being read by Citicards)