Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm still pondering/ trying to find docs re the above issue. Moving on - same saga; different issue I'm trying to understand what I can do: The lender/ mortgagee-in-possession has a claim v me for alleged debt. But the debt has only been incurred due to them failing to sell property in >5y. I'm fighting them on this.   I've been trying to get an order for sale for 2y.  I got it legally added into my counterclaim - but that will only be dealt with at trial.  This is really frustrating. The otherside's lawyers made an application to adjourn trial for a few more months - allegedly wanting to try sort some kind of settlement with me and to use the stay to sell.  At the hearing I asked Judge to expedite the order for sale. I pointed out they need a court-imposed deadline or this adjournment is just another time wasting tactic (with interest still accruing) as they have no buyer.  But the judge said he could legally only deal with the order at trial. The otherside don't want to be forced to sell the property.. Disclosure has presented so many emails which prove they want to keep it. I raised some points with the judge including misconduct of the receiver. The judge suggested I may have a separate claim against the receiver?   On this point - earlier paid-for lawyers said my counterclaim should be directed at the lender for interference with the receiver and the lender should be held responsible for the receiver's actions/ inactions.   I don't clearly understand that, but their legal advice was something to do with the role a receiver has acting as an agent for a borrower which makes it hard for a borrower to make a claim against a receiver ???.  However the judge's comment has got me thinking.  He made it clear the current claim is lender v me - it's not receiver v me.  Yet it is the receiver who is appointed to sell the property. (The receiver is mentioned/ involved in my counterclaim only from the lender collusion/ interference perspective).  So would I be able to make a separate application for an order for sale against the receiver?  Disclosure shows receiver has constantly rejected offers. He gave a contract to one buyer 4y ago. But colluded with the lender's lawyer to withdraw the contract after 2w to instead give it to the ceo of the lender (his own ltd co) (using same lawyer).  Emails show it was their joint strategy for lender/ ceo to keep the property.  The receiver didn't put the ceo under any pressure to exchange quickly.  After 1 month they all colluded again to follow a very destructive path - to gut the property.  My account was apparently switched into a "different fund" to "enable them to do works" (probably something to do with the ceo as he switched his ltd co accountant to in-house).   Interestingly the receiver told lender not to incur significant works costs and to hold interest.  The costs were huge (added to my account) and interest was not held.   The receiver rejected a good offer put forward by me 1.5y ago.  And he rejected a high offer 1y ago - to the dismay of the agent.  Would reasons like this be good enough to make a separate application to the court against the receiver for an order for sale ??  Or due to the main proceedings and/or the weird relationship a borrower has with a receiver I cannot ?
    • so a new powerless B2B debt DCA set up less than a month ago with a 99% success rate... operating on a NWNF basis , but charging £30 to set up your use of them. that's gonna last 5mins.... = SPAMMERS AND SCAMMERS. a DCA is NOT a BAILIFF and have  ZERO legal powers on ANY debt - no matter WHAT its type. dx      
    • Migrants are caught in China's manufacturing battles with the West, as Beijing tries to save its economy.View the full article
    • You could send an SAR to DCbl on the pretext that you are going for a breach of your GDPR . They should then send the purported letter of discontinuance which may show why it ended up in Gloucester and see if you can get your  costs back on the day. It obviously won't be much but  at least perhaps a small recompense for your wasted day. Not exactly wasted since you had a great win  albeit much sweeter if you had beat them in Court. But a win is a win so well done. We will miss you as it has been almost two years since you first started out on this mission. { I would n't be surprised if the wrong Court was down to DCBL}. I see you said "till the next time" but I am guessing you will be avoiding private patrolled car parks for a while.🙂
    • It is extremely disappointing that you haven't told us anything about the result of the hearing. You came here at the very last minute and the regulars - all unpaid volunteers - sweated blood trying to get an acceptable Witness Statement prepared in an extremely short time. The least you could have done is tell us how the hearing went, information invaluable for future users. Evidently not.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Templates - question regarding rbrears response to thread


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6330 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

rbear wrote:

The MCOL template patently fails to plead the claim properly and in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules.

 

Would you be knid enough to expand on this?

Do you have any suggestions to improve on the current template?

Curious

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry just testing to see if replies to the thread are working. I keep receiving email notifications of other users' replies to this thread and when I open the link the reply isn't showing in the thread. But it is obviously working, so not sure why this is happening.

Link to post
Share on other sites

don't think so Bill, all my other subscribed threads are working. I had three replies yesterday to this thread in my email and every time I link in I see your beautiful face stepping off the Clapham Omnibus!:D

(Not now ofcourse, I see my beautiful black belt.)

 

I could copy and paste them here from my email if anyone wanted to see them. Didn't you receive them? One from CrispDust and two from Noomill060?

Link to post
Share on other sites

here's the first one at 22:26 yesterday -

 

Dear bong,

 

CrispDust has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled

- alanfromderby v Bristol & West - In court 20th December - in the

Mortgage companies forum of Consumer Action Group.

 

This thread is located at:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgage-companies/2424-alanfromderby-bristol-west-court-new-post.html

 

Here is the message that has just been posted:

***************

rbear wrote:

The MCOL template patently fails to plead the claim properly and in

accordance with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules.

 

Would you be knid enough to expand on this?

Do you have any suggestions to improve on the current template?

Curious

***************

 

p.s. should I post up the other two?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What was wrong with the OMNIBUS post Bill? It was useful to hear your opinion. Ding!! Ding!!

 

Sorry Alan, I won't mess up your thread with any more annoying rubbish after this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

here was the second one that came in at 00:07 this morning -

 

noomill060 has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled

- alanfromderby v Bristol & West - In court 20th December - in the

Mortgage companies forum of Consumer Action Group.

 

This thread is located at:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgage-companies/2424-alanfromderby-bristol-west-court-new-post.html

 

Here is the message that has just been posted:

***************

rbear- "The MCOL template patently fails to plead the claim properly

and in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules."

 

Maybe you would like to like write a more appropriate template which

does?

***************

Link to post
Share on other sites

and last but not least at 00:29

 

noomill060 has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled

- alanfromderby v Bristol & West - In court 20th December - in the

Mortgage companies forum of Consumer Action Group.

 

This thread is located at:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgage-companies/2424-alanfromderby-bristol-west-court-new-post.html

 

Here is the message that has just been posted:

***************

"The banks lawyers do not agree and they are absolutley entitled to

defend the claims (of unlawful charges) and ask people to properly plead

their cases. In fact the lawyers would be in breach of their duties to

their client if they didn't."

 

It would be a different story if the word "unlawful" were to be

replaced with "illegal"

 

Intentional deception intended to injure another person by concealing

something or making a false representation could be considered as

obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception.

***************

Link to post
Share on other sites

What was wrong with the OMNIBUS post Bill? It was useful to hear your opinion. Ding!! Ding!!

 

Sorry Alan, I won't mess up your thread with any more annoying rubbish after this.

Apology repeated from me, Alan.

 

In case this glitch is linked to my post #125, can you delete it ? (and subsequents if req'd)

 

Continuity of this thread is far more important than that post, despite Bong's kind comments !!

 

Can affected subscribers re-subscribe - and give Bong a break ? !!!

 

Power to you, mate,

 

Bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...I think we can all consider ourselves well and truly "bounced" then !!

 

I do apologise to those others here who got bounced with me. I asked Alan to delete MY posts, because it seemed one particular one might have brought a glitch with it.

 

Still, it was Alan's thread after all. :sad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Berserker said

"If I was paying for legal representation I would expect that representation to take instruction from me, offer me advice on my instruction and then act on my instructions."

My query, rbrears, is: at what point does a legal adviser, whether internal or external, advise the client that they're getting caned every time they take on one of these actions and the court fees - original claim and AQ cost - plus statutory interest are costing them a fortune over and above the original amount claimed and suggest the obvious - if the case being made against the banks (in the LBA, eg) has merit and is well presented, then cut the losses and settle before summons?

I know the clients aren't obliged to take the advice and they're still entitled to their day in court. But, if the lawyers firmly believe the banks have a case, why don't they take it all the way to court? It really needs just one well-prepared case that proves the charges are legitimate and lawful for this lot to come to a juddering halt. Until that day comes (and I doubt it ever will, without a change in the law) then the banks are squandering money, aren't they?

 

BTW - thanks for the help you've given.

Westy

Westy

 

 

 

If you like my post, click the scales!!

 

Nov 1 2006 Preliminary letter

21 Feb 2007 - cheque arrived for charges+DEBIT interest +Statutory Interest! Hurray!

Read all about it: natwesttookmymoney - v- NatWest

DONATE AS MUCH AS YOU CAN TO KEEP THE SITE GOING.

 

What can you claim? Vampiress has a good idea:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/69877-what-can-you-claim.html

Anything I say is just a suggestion. I'm a bigmouth, not a lawyer!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

You're right NatWest. It is true that they could settle the claims as a way to avoid the costs of the litigation. But I guess for them its a rock and a hard place. They want to pay off the small claims on a commercial basis (and it almost certainly is true that it would cost the banks more to fight almost all of the charges claims individually than they cost to settle), BUT they don't want to be seen to settle all of them on day1 - sends the wrong message I suppose.

 

Of course there might also be a little bit of beligerence in there- if the b*ggers want their money then they can go through the hoops - after all we can afford it.

 

I'm just glad that they are settling them. I have a feeloing they are waiting to lay into the OFT's next investigation into charges, let the OFT have their "costings" for dealing with defaults on the accounts and see if they can get a decent result from that - maybe a £12 charge and then hope that this will stem the tide at least to a significant extent. Even that would be better than the two professors and the ex Nat West Excxecutive who recently stated that the maximum charge should be a couple of quid!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...