Wellington court financial services ltd not paying out on FOS final decision RE: +£58k Pension- help enforcing & using form N322A - court claim issued

[honeybee13]

So how are you feeling about this now, Simmonds? Do you feel up to putting a document together for the judge?

 

HB

[Simmonds7]

@Andyorch  allocation unless the court bypasses allocation given this is a Multi Track claim and moves straight to directions. 

 

What does this mean?

 

We are unable to afford legal fees. 

 

Spoke to solicitor today for an hour consultation and she says we will have to go through the courts and prove breach of contract etc and are looking at 2 to 4 years at £45,000 costs

[Andyorch]

Once a claim has been set a side...the normal process if you had not got a default judgment would be for the claim to move to allocation stage...this allocates the claim to the respective court track (Small claims/Fast Track/Multi track) and transfers the claim to the litigants home court (its already at yours).The Notice of allocation gives the courts directions on how the claim will proceed..parties to submit statements evidence etc by a given date and informs you of the hearing date.

[Simmonds7]

We have had enough.  We want to keep FOS decision and leave the courts behind.  She has shut UK branch down and run back to Ireland.  All her other companies that she has she has now moved to Spain.  She is leaving UK and running.

[honeybee13]

Do you know what the status of the Irish company is, Simmonds? I'm not wanting to cut across what Andy thinks, but in a way life would be easier for you if both companies close and everybody is able to claim from the FSCS.

 

I don't know if @Jcb2007has information on this at all.

 

HB

 

 

[Simmonds7]

As far as I'm aware it is trading but it would be so uch easier if she would shut shop.

[FTMDave]

We all understand the immense stress this has caused you.

 

However, consider this.  90%+ of Caggers are successful in court, and in 90%+ of those cases the other party has a solicitor.  Yet the Caggers win.

 

Solicitors can be useful but they can't perform miracles.  A rubbish case is a rubbish case.

 

You convinced the FOS and are highly likely to convince a court.

 

You don't need a solicitor - CAG is here to help should you decide to continue.

[Simmonds7]

@Andyorch  

 

if I withdraw I still have the FOS decision but can not enforce it.  Correct?

 

Seeing as she is not in UK now even if I won I would then have to go to Irish courts to enforce it. 

She clearly can not pay which is why she has Come up with her lies.

 

I would end up with a court order and a lot of costs and mega stress to still be unable to enforce it. 

Then I believe when I finally get to the end of the road she will close her business and then as they are ltd company I would have no payment. 

 

It is a no win case as I will never get WCFS to pay.

 

I just hope FSCS will eventually cover the loses that WCFS have made.  

 

This is why I want the FOS decision to stand as I will need it for the FSCS in the future.  I hope.

 

How do I withdraw? 

What do I put to make sure all is OK.

[Jcb2007]

@Simmonds7 Sorry I can't help on the status of Wellington's status in Ireland. You can never get through on the phone. My FOS case has not been assigned a handler, so I'm way behind you. I know at least one other on the Facebook page I told you about, who had the same FOS decision against WCFS as you, is about to get their CCJ served against them. I applaud you on your energy to keep going. If WCFS do fold then the limit is 85k as you know. Did you file a claim with the administrators (BBL) in Germany who are dealing with the GPG fiasco ?

[Simmonds7]

@Jcb2007  no claim filed.  Was told i couldn't as I have claimed here and won with FOS

[Jcb2007]

My understanding is that companies will have insurance to meet some claims but there will be a limit. I wonder if it is worth going back to the FOS and update them with what is going on? WCFS are still regulated. What's the point of FOS making these decisions if it is a torturous root to enforce them . You are not the only one who had FOS decisions against WCFS, I wonder if anyone else on the Facebook knows where they got to. 

[Simmonds7]

All I get from my FOS (when they can actually be bothered to answer) is once claim decision is accepted that's FOS done and the rest (including enforcement) is upto me.  I also get seek your own legal advice.  As if I can afford it.

 

They are 100% useless.

 

I believe that WCFS have NO insurance and that as they are claiming fraud their insurance company would not cover them anyway.

 

It is mega frustrating 

[Andyorch]

Quote

How do I withdraw?  What do I put to make sure all is OK.

 

Simply ignore the court order and don't respond to point 3.1 (12/6/22) but comply with 3.2 and inform you do not wish to pursue.

 

End of claim.

[Simmonds7]

So once I do this what does it mean.  I know I probably sound stupid but I just need to know what doing 3.2 means in a whole.

[Andyorch]

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

1. The Application is allowed.

2. The Judgment is hereby set aside.

3. By or before 4pm on 9 June 2022, the applicant shall either:

3.1. file with the Court and serve on the respondent a Statement of Case setting out the basis of the Claim; or,

3.2. give written notice to the court and to the respondent that the Claim will not be pursued.

4. There be no order as to costs in respect of the Application.

 

It means you write to the court and respondent and inform them you will not be continuing with the claim...I really cant explain it any simpler.

 

[Simmonds7]

Yes I get that.  I mean.  How do I stand afterwards.

 

Have you read their Skelton argument?  The solicitor I saw today said I can't argue that they would have to do a judicial review as it should of been done at set aside hearing.  I did not know this. 

I was happy to proceed on the basis that FOS stands and need JR to object but not where I have to prove it all again.  

[Andyorch]

You didn't ask me that you asked....:-

 

Quote

How do I withdraw?  What do I put to make sure all is OK.

 

You PMed me the skeleton argument so you know I have read it.

[Simmonds7]

Yes I know.

 

I said "but I just need to know what doing 3.2 means in a whole."   What I meant was where do I stand after I withdraw.

 

I forgot you read the skelton argument.  

[Andyorch]

Once you inform the court you do not wish to proceed...that is the end of the claim with regards to court procedure.....you are back as you where you started with your FOS award....unable to enforce it.

 

If you comply with 3.1 and file and serve particulars of claim...the claim proceeds and you get your chance at a hearing to argue your claim...backed by the FOS award...if you get judgment then you can enforce it by way of the bailiffs.

 

They cant set a side a second time.

 

 

 

.

[Simmonds7]

Thank you.  I think understand now.

So 3.1 is disagreeing  that the CCJ should not be set aside and why I believe that.

 

If I do 3.2 then that is end of it and im back to FOS decision again.  Can I do another CCJ at a later date?

[Simmonds7]

@AndyorchIf I did 3.1

In the whole picture of things as in eventually...

It means I have to go through everything with the evidence I have from day dot through the courts? If so what is the FOS decision for, I might of well done the courts in the first place?

I need to have all the details of what will happen and the full process etc as I still don't understand.

Their skeleton argument is what they will use for evidence etc and that WCFS are being framed as their defence and that they can challenge the Fos decision through th courts.  Mine is FOS decision.  

Also I thought FOS could only be challenged via JR.  Is that not correct? As far as I know it is correct.

[Andyorch]

6 hours ago, Simmonds7 said:

Thank you.  I think understand now.

So 3.1 is disagreeing  that the CCJ should not be set aside and why I believe that. No...the set a side is done completed, they got it you cant object....3.1 will allow the claim to proceed if you submit particulars of claim by said date...and you wont pay a further issuance fee.

 

If I do 3.2 then that is end of it and im back to FOS decision again.  Can I do another CCJ at a later date? Correct and yes you can issue a further claim with the courts permission but you will have to pay the full issuance fee on a Fast track/ multitrack claim  which would equate to 5% of the value of the total claim ...ouch!

 

Quote

If I did 3.1

In the whole picture of things as in eventually...

It means I have to go through everything with the evidence I have from day dot through the courts? If so what is the FOS decision for, I might of well done the courts in the first place? True but it adds weight to your claim and you are simply presenting the FOS award in detail from yourself rather than trying to enforce the FOS award without your input.

 

I need to have all the details of what will happen and the full process etc as I still don't understand.

Their skeleton argument is what they will use for evidence etc and that WCFS are being framed as their defence and that they can challenge the FOS decision through the courts.  Mine is FOS decision.  

 

Also I thought FOS could only be challenged via JR.  Is that not correct? As far as I know it is correct. Im really not sure you would have to check that out but Im sure a District Judge would know if you presented that in your particulars of claim

 

 

Regards.

 

 

 

.

 

[Simmonds7]

Thank you @Andyorch  I am understanding it better now.

 

To onfirm I would not be able to issue another N322a form or N322b At £47 I would have to pay 5% of amount claiming via a tribunal I think.

[Andyorch]

You could but it would be pointless because they would either just ignore it again and set a side or they could defend it and you would be back to where you are now having to submit a particularised claim.

[FruitSalad1010]

Should anyone find themselves in this very unique position in the future I think it is worth noting one aspect of Wellingtons submission.

The main thrust of Wellington's argument to be able to challenge a decision made by the FOS is detailed at paragraphs 9 & 10.

To summarise they refer to case law, namely Bunney v Burns Anderson Plc [2007] EWHC 1240 (Ch) in which a challenge was brought to a FOS decision.

Having read through the case above the main premise was that the FOS had made an award outside of its remit which was an award in excess of £100,000. This was the basis upon which the FOS decision was challenged.

Wellington have construed this to mean that a FOS ruling can always be challenged.

Should anyone face this situation again I think it would certainly be worth raising the point that the mechanism for challenge referred to in the case law above was made in response to the FOS making a decision outside of its remit. In the case of Simmonds7 the FOS appears to have made a decision which was within its remit and I don't think it would be difficult to construct an argument that this should limit the scope for challenge.

If anyone has the time or inclination to verify my summary feel free to correct me on any of the points above.