Taking Cabot to court for failing to supply HSBC CCA + Distress etc

[make them aktiv runners]

edit

[andrew1]

But Hodson's are and under part 42 notice has to be given to remove them? Maybe I amgetting a little mixed up but I thought this is not the first defence UK have had to file.

 

Can you point us to some others Aktiv?

[make them aktiv runners]

edit

[tbern123]

Aktiv is right, this is the second defence filed in relation to my claim.

 

However, has confirmed by their defence, Hodsons are they legal representatives.

 

I am just sent an email to both WW and to Hodsons asking them to clarify...

[elizabeth1]

I don't understand how they need a solicitor and a litigation friend at all - surely they'd only neeed one or the other?

 

If Hodsons are their solicitors - why do they need WW as a L F ?

[tbern123]

I don't understand how they need a solicitor and a litigation friend at all - surely they'd only neeed one or the other?

 

If Hodsons are their solicitors - why do they need WW as a L F ?

 

Is it possible for him to be a LF ? I have read through the CPR very quickly and the only mention I can find relating to a LF is children and mental health patients.. nothing about companies

[Cornucopia]

Is it possible for him to be a LF ? I have read through the CPR very quickly and the only mention I can find relating to a LF is children and mental health patients.. nothing about companies

 

I haven't heard of a case either where a litigation friend would be used by a company, a litigation friend would usually be used in a case where the person is underage (as above), has mental health issues (as above) or where they are incapacitated as, for example, in a medical negligence case ie : a persistent vegetative state.

 

I think using an LF in a case like this would be very odd.

 

Sorry for butting in!

[tbern123]

Don't apologise..

 

I thought I was getting it all wrong..

[andrew1]

Just as a matter of interest I was assisting a Director of a company in a matter of a winding up petition in Liverpool High Court a couple of months ago and the Director was a builder and not so conversant with addressing a court. He asked me to represent him or speak for him. I applied to the court and this is what the judge replied :

 

"I am happy for this person to appear as a Mackenzie friend at the hearing together with one of the directors of the company. I will permit the director to present the company's case and I will permit this person actively to assist the director."

 

Needless to say after the first couple of sentences the Judge was happy for me to continue, but I was referred to as a McKenzie Friend rather than a Litigation Friend - but then I'm not a solicitor.

[tbern123]

Don't quote me but I think they are the same thing...

 

I will wait to see what WW and Dean Spencer have to say for themselves

[make them aktiv runners]

edit

[tbern123]

I know what you mean Aktiv. But is nothing personal against. He is just doing a job to pay the bills like the rest of us. I have no ill feelings about him.

 

Wouldn't be surprised if he was an ok guy..

[make them aktiv runners]

deleted

[Seahorse]

A higher interest paying account where the monthly fees far outweigh the monthly interest the account generates?

 

Or am I being way too cynical before I've had my cornflakes this morning.

 

And way off topic too. Sorry tBern.

[debt_mountain]

I haven't heard of a case either where a litigation friend would be used by a company, a litigation friend would usually be used in a case where the person is underage (as above), has mental health issues (as above) or where they are incapacitated as, for example, in a medical negligence case ie : a persistent vegetative state.

 

I think using an LF in a case like this would be very odd.

 

Sorry for butting in!

 

Is this litigation friend just a way for them to get an "expert" in the room without having to call a expert witness. 2 heads are better than 1 etc.

 

I am guessing that as they are a lit friend they will be in addition to the legal person too?

 

My take on this with my previous court cases is that for small claims the process is allowed to give a little and not all T's and i's need to be perfect. For multi or fast I am not sure though.

 

For 2 of my hearings the representative solicitor did give me their form saying they were fit to act and were acting for..... but for 1 the solicitor just walked in and I had no idea who he was. Not sure if he told the court or not.

 

I think you are onto something but I am guessing that it will only cause a little fun and you can wind them up a little becuase of it, I don't imaging anything to change the course of your case will come out of it.....but I am very often wrong.

 

I just get the overwellming fear that when things like this are chased up through official channels, like using the Law Society, ICO or TS unless it is something major or there is a significant trend very little will happen.

 

I am trying not to be negative, just realistic.

[Guest Battleaxe]

I have been trying to think of an easy way to explain this to you.

 

WW has the authority by virtue of his job to act for all of the Cabot entities, whether as a Litigants friend or klegal representative. Hiring Hodsons, who are the inhouse legal eagles for the Cabot Group (from what I can gather, I could be wrong) is just confusing the issue.

 

We all know Mr W Wareing at MBNA he is the Senior Legal Assistant, but if they went to court they would get another law firm to represent them, BUT Mr W Wareing can continue to sign the documentatationm required for lodgement with the court.

 

I hope this simplifies matters.

 

I worked for the NHS, but in that role I also represented a certain Deanery regarding Post Grad education, which was not NHS, I also had a role to do with a certain Medical School, whose students I supervised; same person, same job title but able to sign for three entities by virtue of my position.

 

This would be the same for WW in the Cabots/Kings Hill set up.

 

Ah, what tangled web we weave.

[ODC]

The only positive spin I can put on this is that you really have them rattled and they are pulling out all the stops but remember sometimes too many cooks can spoil the broth.. Imagine what a judge will make of them using all this power to attempt to destroy a mere Rogue Customer. You have right on your side and no doubt afew little surprises of your own. Keep your chin up, you have come all this way and at the end of the day you will wipe the smile off their overpaid faces. Dont forget they are supposed to know about the law. A judge will give you a wee bit of leeway against them.

[NailPost]

A Mackenzie/Litigation Friend is not normally a solicitor. WW, as he keeps telling everyone on his webpages, is a barrister by training though not by qualification. If he turns up at court and asks to speak then he should be asked to explain his qualifications.

 

Do you have a court date yet, TB?

[ODC]

A Mackenzie/Litigation Friend is not normally a solicitor. WW, as he keeps telling everyone on his webpages, is a barrister by training though not by qualification. If he turns up at court and asks to speak then he should be asked to explain his qualifications.

 

Do you have a court date yet, TB?

 

What a supercillious fool. You cannot become a barrister by training or indeed by qualification alone.

 

A barrister is specialist legal advisor and advocate.

Only those who have passed all the qualifying exams and have been ‘called to the bar’ may call themselves barristers.

 

 

Called to the bar is usually done by the Lord Cheif Justice or the Attorney General. Ken asking him out for a pint in the evening is not quite the same. I think the term he is searching for is Barsteward. Something totally different. Im sure the Lord Chancellor's Office would be interested to hear WW's opinion of himself. Bet he dresses up in the wig and gowns:-D

[louiboy]

Pass the BVC, eat lunch at the INN 12 times and Barrister become shall you.

Then pupillage my potential young Barrister Master.

Training with a master or mistress with 5 years experience.

Pupillage is essential for all those who wish to practice.

 

Bar Standards Board

[ScarletPimpernel]

Could it be that WW has been a barrister in foreign parts, but is unable to practice here because he has not registered with the appropriate UK professional body?

 

Even if this is the case, he surely should not call himself a barrister in a country where he is not allowed to practice.

[ODC]

Maybe he got it over the internet. Or he is like one of those Nigerian Barristers who write to me all the time telling me of untold millions in secret bank accounts in Benin

[elizabeth1]

Qualifying for the Bar

 

The Bar Standards Board oversees the three stages that must be completed to qualify as a Barrister and the process of transfering to the Bar from practice abroad or as a Solicitor in practice in England & Wales.

 

1. Academic Stage

Either an undergraduate degree in law (2ii minimum), or an undergraduate degree in any other subject (2ii minimum) and the one-year conversion course (CPE). Please see the degree/cpe section for further information.

2. Vocational Stage

The Bar Vocational Course, which can be completed full time over one year or part time over two.

Once you have successfully completed the BVC you will be Called to the Bar by your Inn. During the BVC year and before Call can take place you will also have to undertake 12 qualifying sessions (previously known as "dining") with your Inn.

Please see the BVC section for full information on the BVC, the Inns and qualifying sessions.

3. Pupillage

A one-year training period spent in an authorised pupillage training organisation (either barristers' chambers or another approved legal environment). See the Pupillage section for full information.

4. Transfer to the Bar

Qualified solicitors, qualified lawyers from other common law countries and legal academics are able to transfer to practice at the Bar. For further details please see the Transfer to the Bar section.

 

Looks like WW got to stage 3 ??? "ish" must be very frustrating to get that far and be waiting to get called to the Bar? Legal education is very expensive and very little amount of funding available for it etc...

[make them aktiv runners]

edit

[Seahorse]

He HAS been asking around on t'internet if he can get to be one without having to bother about pupillage.

 

Lazy? Inept? Any other word spring to mind?