NeilP .v. Abbey National Plc *** WON AS WELL!!!**

[NeilP]

I hope it's tomorrow as well, otherwise tomorrow i'll look rather silly to find out that it was yesterday that i should have been there and that yesterday i actually should have saying i was in court today!!!!

[Spiceskull]

Yes - good luck Neil.

[Odd Fellow]

The suspense is killing me! I've gotta go out for the night now! Damn

[Spiceskull]

Neil - how did it go?

[NeilP]

I'M BACK!!

 

Hold your horses, i've only just walked in the door!!

 

Needless to say, Abbey got the Judgement put aside. Not a surprise really as quite how i'm suppose to argue that they don't have a 'meriticious' defence when the Judge doesn't want ti discuss the case is beyond me. So really it was a done deal before i even got there.

 

I have 7 days in which to let Abbey have a breakdown of my claim. They then have a further 21 days in which to file a proper defence (which they said they couldn't do as they didn't have a proper breakdown of the claim total).

 

There were a couple of eye openers, which i will share with you, however......

 

I've got to straight out to A&E with my son now (the day only gets better!) so i will be back online later on...... i hope.

 

Neil.

[Seminole]

I'll wait to post my notes until I've seen yours.

[Spiceskull]

I gather they weren't the most accommodating of defendants then...can't wait to hear the details, as we will be popping down for Whizz's hearing on Friday.

[boatgirl]

Waiting with baited breath, need to stop just refreshing this thread to find out what happened!

[NeilP]

Abbey had sent a Barrister to do their dirty work, so i take that as a sign that they were serious about getting the Judgement set aside.

 

At about 2.45pm, with only 15 minutes remaining until we were due to go in, their barrister hands me a ringbinder with their 'outline submissions in support of application to set aside judgement in default'. This was basically the 'skeleton defence' that their barrister had put together thus rendering the scathing defence with regards their Witness Statement that i had put together with Whizzkid and Bankfodder virtually useless as it would be this new document that the judge would be focussing on.

 

(Well that is what i thought. When we got in there it was commented on that i hadn't sent in a reply to the witness statement)

 

Once inside (accompanied by Seminole and Whizzkid001) the Judge wrote down the names of everyone, and asked the barrister if she had any objection to Seminole being there, she said no, and to Whizzkid - to which she said, 'If it's the same person as i am seeing in court on Friday under similar circumstances then yes i do!' So unfortunately, Whizzkid was sent out of the hearing. Quite why, as presumably Abbey have nothing to hide, and she must realise that we would be talking afterwards...... Oh well.

 

Abby tried to sneak the fact passed the judge that it took them 21 days to send my Claim Papers to the wrong department, and then another 6 days to forward it onto their Legal Dept. Needless to say we put them right on that score - and the Judge was not impressed and made some rather scathing comments about their lack of professionalism!!

 

The Judge then asked why the Defence (Abbey) had not submitted a full defence yet. Their answer was that they did not have the full breakdown of my claim, and therefore could not complete their defence (regardless of the fact that they have it all at their fingertips on their computer system!!).

 

And having made it perfectly clear that she didn't want to discuss the case, she asked me what i had to say about their defence. What can i say to that will blow apart their defence, if i'm not allowed to challenge it then and there? Nothing.

 

I even tried to state that this was Abbey's way of dealing with these things, get it into the Court System hoping that the claimant will give up, then realising that they wont they start to offer settlements. But the Judge said 'we are only talking about this case here though'. ()

 

So, after 20 minutes, the Judge ruled that as the case was 'complicated' she would set the judgement aside.

 

Could i prove what the costs were for (ie what were the charges doe bounced DD, Overdraft interest etc), she asked afterward judgement had been passed. Yes, but as i had had my original spreadsheet deleted (don't ask me how) and my new one didn't quite match, the particulars of the claim were now slightly different in Abbeys favour to the tune of about £200.

 

The judge ordered that my revised particulars of claim, particularised, to be submitted to the court and Abbey's solicitors within 7 days, and Abbey have to submit their defence within 21 days (ie. by 21st June)

 

I offered them to Abbey's Barrister who didn't want to take them, but that i should serve them on DLA Piper Rudnick (she didn't actually work for them) and i couldn't serve the courts copy as the court office was shut!

 

I also managed to get costs - just. Apparantly they should be served to the court and defence 24 hours beforehand.

 

So, the moral of my story so far is......

 

In general

 

Always list the particulars of your claim. If you are using Moneyclaim Online, i would mention that there is an Appendix being sent under seperate cover, and send it to the court and Abbey by Registered Post with your Claim Number.

 

With regards Set Aside Claims

 

In hindsight, bearing in mind that the majority of set aside hearings result in the judgement being set aside. Why not save yourself the hassle and agree to it. We all know that Abbey won't go to court to defend these claims, so it will only aid to help you expedite your settlement!

 

However, if you still want to do it then....

 

1. If you go to a set aside hearing, lodge your costs (lost wages, travel etc) with the court and defence at least 24 hours prior to your hearing.

 

2. Reply to the witness statement. Whizzkid and I (and probably others) have copies of our own which can be e-mailed to you to crib from if you so wish.

 

 

So, back to square one (virtually), only 3 weeks to wait until i receive Abbey's Defence, and then onto the 'Do you want 50% sir', 'No Thanks, 100% will do nicely', 'Oooo Suits your sir, have 100% then'!

 

And it turns out that my son has Tonsilitis! 3 hours in Casualty - and it's nothing like the telly either!!

[sharont1]

ooh hope your son is ok, you have had one hell of a day, am right there with you all the best and don't let the b.....s get you down

[Seminole]

I think that covers everything I had written down.

 

I am bothered by the way in which Whizkid was excluded. I was under the impression that these hearings were in public.

 

I was also bothered by the way that the papers that were passed over today hadn't been circulated in advance. This hearing wasn't suddenly foisted on Abbey and it seemed like sneaky tactics to me.

 

Finally, I think you have a point about set asides which needs some thought. The system clearly favours the large company with a big legal fees budget. Today all they had to do was turn up with a big bundle of papers containing some pretty spurious arguments and they win. If a member of the public tries to get a judgement set aside they have a mountain to climb.

[Don Quioxte]

Neil my apologies this whole thread just went under my radar like a stealth fighter bomber.

 

Very very interesting read.

 

I am a London boy, so in the unlikely event the set-aside actually results in a hearing again... I will be there.

 

Look forward to reading an update and settlement figures!

[sharont1]

can someone let me know what a judgemnt set aside actually means, is it just a stalling tactic by abbey

s

[Bookworm]

It does exactly what it says on the tin: the previous (default) judgment is set aside, in favour of a hearing to take place at a later date, in which the defendant wil have a chance to present their defence.

 

Is it a stalling tactic? You bet. More gravely, it is an abuse of the legal system, and the banks are getting increasingly good at it.

 

But let's not forget that on principle, set aside are a part of the judicial system that also work in the little people favour. For those in doubt, please have a search for the Disneyman thread on this site, and you'll understand why.

 

Neil, it must be devastating, but sadly, IMO, it was pretty certain they would get it. You probably have a good point in asking whether it's worth defending that part.

 

.

[blueskies]

I have been watching this case in great detail and admire your stamina. We will all strive to beat the banking industry and their unlawful practices and I truly believe that there will come a time when we have a critical mass of cases which will make the banks give up and pay the claims when they are received rather than delay and force it through the courts (which we all know costs them more, in terms of staff time, barrister costs and interest that would not otherwise be payable, than settling the claim from the outset). These banks are funding free banking for the richer end of society by stealing from the pockets of the people who worry about how to feed and clothe their family.

[BankFodder]

I also think that the judge was wrong to exclude wizzkid. It obviously was enough space in the court room. What is most disturbing is that he was excluded on the basis of the objection by the bank the judge invited.

What was the objection? Did the bank give any reasons? Did the judge give any reasons when he made his decision to exclude?

I think that this is serious enough that some letters need to be written. I think that both of you should write letters to the Lord Chancellor's office and also to your members of Parliament. This is a very matter and should not be left to stand.

As far as set-aside is concerned, there is a presumption in favour of set-aside and it would be very unusual for the set-aside not to have been granted. However my own view is that it is always worth trying to resist it. If it happens often enough that the judges are more likely to understand what is happening. If you don't defend set-aside then it is simply handled by the court staff and the judge never finds out.

Although it is a lot of trouble, you have to keep the matter prominent.

By the way, the last moment service of documents was also a trick. However judges will almost always accept this kind of thing but normally they will at least criticise the party for it. Did the judge make any comment?

[Michael Browne]

I was under the impression that the SCC are open to the public, although it's rare for anyone else to be present.

 

Was Abbey's barrister the only person from thier side present?

 

If not why didn't the judge ask Neil if he objected to any of their side being present?

 

I agree that the matter should not be left to stand unchallenged.

[Spiceskull]

Regarding Whizz's exclusion, read this - rule 39.2. If the hearing was deemed to be private, then Seminole should also have been excluded. There may be a case for the set-aside hearing to be re-heard...

[joneshousehold]

Spicey, I can't get your link to work

[Spiceskull]

Try this - it is a PDF on a government website...you want rule 39.2

[Seminole]

It may or may not be relevant that there was someone else in the room- an elderly gentleman who sat at the back and took notes without being introduced.

 

The judge hearing the case was quite young (you know that you're getting really old when the policemen and the judges look young to you ). I think she may have been a trainee judge (if there is such a thing) and she was being monitored. It could be that she made a mistake.

[Seminole]

By the way, the last moment service of documents was also a trick. However judges will almost always accept this kind of thing but normally they will at least criticise the party for it. Did the judge make any comment?

You could tell she wasn't impressed. She asked Neil if he had read it and then took 10 minutes to go through it herself. Preumably it would be possible to ask for an adjournment in these circumstances although this would merely delay things further. Is there a way of forcing the bank to supply this information in advance?

 

 

[Spiceskull]

I'm certain that documents need to be served at least seven days in advance...will check my PP book...

[caro]

Oh Neil, what a day you had! Hope your son recovers soon, because he is obviously far more important than any amount of money or bank.

 

You held your nerve fantastically. I would have been a gibbering wreck unable to get my words out. I must admit I had missed your thread not being an Abbey customer (thank goodness). Keep up the good work. I hope that you are right in your assessment of how things will now proceed.

 

As for Whizzkid, if it is an open court, why on earth should members of the public have to give their name? You can understand witnesses not being able to attend trials, before giving evidence in the case they are a part of, but this is an entirely different case. Are you planning on going with Whizzkid tomorrow or do you think this might be considered inflammatory(sp?) behaviour and jeopardise your own case. At least he has some idea what to expect now.

[breadline]

Hi Niel

Just read through your thread and have to say you have so much confidence and stamina to deal with this big bank. Im sure i would be a wreck, but possibly would have a go for a nice big earner.

 

I wait eager now for the future.

 

i hope your son recovers son, and you can take him on a nice holiday with your recovered monies.

 

Regarding the older man in teh back of the court room.

Once in a court hearing i sat at the back and a lady was writting, later she spoke and advised she was to become a judge but before that they have to spend a certain amount of hours in the court rooms observing. May be this could also be a reason.

 

Good luck in the ring next time round

 

Jules