HPH2/Cohen Claim Form barclaycard 'debt'***Settled by Tomlin Order***

[isbo]

Like I said, it's a fair point. Please don't be angry with me for it, I am sorry that my reaction to stressful situations reacts that way. Others lash out, this is my way.

[Guest]

Like I said, it's a fair point. Please don't be angry with me for it, I am sorry that my reaction to stressful situations reacts that way. Others lash out, this is my way.

am not angry

i've helped you on the way. and wish you all the best.

[isbo]

You certainly have, and I'm very grateful.

[jaycwl]

Looks like he has a pretty good defence then doesn't it guys? Seems there missing default notice and the full terms and conditions.

[isbo]

Sounds promising. Why haven't they dropped it though, that's what bothers me?

[jaycwl]

I heard nothing until today Ford. I've received a letter today saying it's been adjourned until October the xth, and to provide evidence of my illness, which is fine. Should I now make an effort to reach a settlement in full (would they let me pay this in installments?)?

 

This is why they do it mate, because people get frightened and give in last minute then pay. Just my opinion and im relatively new here but see what the rest think.

[isbo]

This is why they do it mate, because people get frightened and give in last minute then pay. Just my opinion and im relatively new here but see what the rest think.

That's a good call jaycwl, never thought of it like that. I'm too naive...

[jackreacher]

Keep demanding the original documents....you will note at point 6 the court has ordered the ORIGINAL documents are brought to court. Keep contesting the prescribed terms and conditions are not what you signed and they need to bring the originals..

 

Do not let them bring anything other than the ORIGINALS.. Write and email them and point out the Court has ordered the Originals and you demand they obey the Courts orders.

[isbo]

OK I will write to them and the Court asking for originals then.

[dx100uk]

Not court

[jackreacher]

The Claimant has been ordered to bring the Originals..not copies to court on the day . Write to the claimants solicitor pointing this out, thereby making them aware you know they must bring the original documentation

 

and you need the originals as you believe what they have provided is not the same agreement as Originally signed.

[isbo]

OK will do jr, thank you. dx - did you receive all the emails?

[isbo]

Not court

 

OK, ta.

[dx100uk]

all what I received is in post 196 [20 pages]

[martin2006]

Hi Isbo, bearing in mind this is BC, there is plenty of history of them leaving it till the very last minute, ive heard very little with my BC case, albeit i'm taking them to court, still had no comms since failed mediation a few months ago.

[mercyblue]

The Claimant has been ordered to bring the Originals..not copies to court on the day . Write to the claimants solicitor pointing this out, thereby making them aware you know they must bring the original documentation

 

and you need the originals as you believe what they have provided is not the same agreement as Originally signed.

 

Why on Earth would you write to their solicitors telling them they need to follow the court directions? If they don't follow them that's their problem and you could use their failure to your advantage in court.

In view that they have been ordered to produce the original in court how could they possibly provide the defendant with the original?

[jackreacher]

Why on Earth would you write to their solicitors telling them they need to follow the court directions? If they don't follow them that's their problem and you could use their failure to your advantage in court.

In view that they have been ordered to produce the original in court how could they possibly provide the defendant with the original?

 

In my opinion always best to do it this way,, Firstly it may be the thing that makes them pull out...then on the day when they claim to have overlooked that particular point your case is based on the actual Originals and they have brought genuine Original copies instead ,,you can then turn round with a letter and hand it to the judge. Forcing the judge to make a decision. He has ordered them to be produced and they have disobeyed despite the defendant reminding them.

 

 

 

If you just turn up on the day without that letter the judge is less likely to adjourn or give you the win, when they have after all brought so called genuine original copies.

 

Also If they are claiming they are genuine copies of the original there needs to be a signed sheet confirming this by the department head. I can give you more details of this nearer the time . Hopefully this wont happen.

 

The more points you can get in your favour the better.

Edited September 18, 2016 by Andyorch
edited

[AndyOrch]

MB is correct always use the claimants failure to comply with directions to your advantage...and request sanctions be imposed...never contact the Solicitor and give them the heads up of their failings.

 

Andy

[Guest]

agree. the order was to send copies 14 days prior (they failed to do that. then at the judges discretion no. 7), and then bring originals to the hearing (wonder if they did bring originals to the hearing, the claimant was represented. and what representations were made by the claimant. whether they were told off. at least costs were reserved).

it was adjourned, so the current order still stands. leave it with them to comply or not.

[jackreacher]

MB is correct always use the claimants failure to comply with directions to your advantage...and request sanctions be imposed...never contact the Solicitor and give them the heads up of their failings.

 

Andy

 

 

I also agree what MB proposes should happen.. However The reality for me and many others was different.

For my first 3 cases I played it the 'don't tell them' way... No real joy the claimants didn't give a monkeys about the orders and neither did the judge despite him writing them.

 

I do think if I was represented it would have held some sway but as an LIP ?

 

'They had no excuse as we had written several times before the hearing so they had due warning' The judge agreed they won the case.

 

I did a similar approach for the wife over the original full agreement with a similar successful result. That's not to say the same thing would definitely happen the next time, but I personally would adopt the open approach for myself should the need occur.

 

At the end of the day they either will be producing the agreement or not, despite any letter I write...the letter just puts things in your favour if they don't.

Edited September 18, 2016 by Andyorch
edited

[martin2006]

Maybe a combination of both approaches would be prudent.

 

Without giving a heads up, the letter reminding them of originals requirement could be sent once into the 14 day period before the hearing.

 

Lets them know you know what was required, but leaves them no time to deal with it.

 

Just thoughts out loud.

[jackreacher]

Maybe a combination of both approaches would be prudent.

 

Without giving a heads up, the letter reminding them of originals requirement could be sent once into the 14 day period before the hearing.

 

Lets them know you know what was required, but leaves them no time to deal with it.

 

Just thoughts out loud.

 

Sounds like a plan .. interesting to chew the fat over approaches. The courts seem to appreciate a more open cards on the table approach.

 

'They had no excuse as we had written several times before the hearing so they had due warning' The judge agreed they won the case.

[mercyblue]

Maybe a combination of both approaches would be prudent.

 

Without giving a heads up, the letter reminding them of originals requirement could be sent once into the 14 day period before the hearing.

 

Lets them know you know what was required, but leaves them no time to deal with it.

 

Just thoughts out loud.

 

But what would be the point Martin? Send them a letter telling them I have read the directions? I really don't get it.

[isbo]

Please don't think I've been ignoring you, I did post replies but they've disappeared. The point is they didn't comply with the original 14 day requirement and it still wasn't chucked out on the day, so why would they fret over the originals request? it's a racket.

[mercyblue]

Please don't think I've been ignoring you, I did post replies but they've disappeared. The point is they didn't comply with the original 14 day requirement and it still wasn't chucked out on the day, so why would they fret over the originals request? it's a racket.

 

But there really wasn't "the day" it was adjourned at your request - the case has not yet been considered.