Abbey has 'frozen' my account!

[NeilP]

I did roughly the same, but then in the total boxes at the bottom i mis-calculated the claim amount.

 

Which figure do you think they will take?

[NeilP]

History:-

 

5th march Initial Letter

14th March Letter before Action

30th March Small Claims Court Application

20th April Judgement Entered by Default

25th April Warrant of Execution granted

 

4th May I have just received an e-mail from Abbey Solicitors :-

 

"Dear Mr Postlethwaite:

We have been instructed by Abbey National plc in relation to the default judgment you have obtained.

We are instructed by Abbey National plc to apply to court to stay execution of the judgment, and in due course to apply to court for judgment to be set aside.

Our client has a defence with a real prospect of success, and therefore we anticipate that the court will subsequently agree to set aside the judgment. We have no doubt that in the meantime, the court will agree to stay execution pending the hearing of the application.

To this end, we would invite you to agree to a stay of execution, and agree to our client's application to set aside judgment, without our having to incur the costs of making representations to the court. This will reduce the amount of costs, which will be incurred in relation to this case.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully

Andrew Horton

Associate

DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary UK LLP

T: +44 (0)113 369 2204

F: +44 (0)113 369 2299

E-mail: [email protected] "

 

The Baillifs have not yet issued the 7 day Final Notice, nor visited Abbey yet. I have chased them up and am due to speak to them at 7am tomorrow morning.

 

WHAT DO I DO NOW? Help!

[MondeoST24]

Tell them to *?!?!*?!!!

[whizzkid001]

I concur totally with MondeoST24!

[Guest Lueeze]

but you won the default on 20th April...why did they wait so long then if they had such a good defence! What a load of prap!

[Guest Lueeze]

Just ignore it! They are trying to get you to back down! If they want to contact the court to ask then so be it, but they are just pushing their luck...

 

Send in the bailiffs I say!

 

(dont know where you stand legally on this)

[whizzkid001]

Do not agree to their demands, they are in NO position to dictate terms to you now, especially at this stage. Besides anything else, they haven't even said if you do as they ask, that they'll give you a settlement!!

[Guest Lueeze]

They have no intention of settling then in that case...

[alanfromderby]

I would refuse their request, and let them apply for judgement to be set aside.

 

That will force them to put in a reason for setting aside. Assuming it is the old chestnut that they did not receive the paperwork, it will help to start to build a case against them for abuse of the legal process.

[Guest Lueeze]

is there a time limit for them? as this is happening quite alot...

[NeilP]

How does this sound:-

 

Dear Mr Horton,

 

I will not agree to a stay of execution to the Judgement made by Northampton County Court on 20th April 2006.

 

Your client has failed to answer my requests within a reasonable time frame on two occasions, plus has totally ignored both the initial Court documents from Northampton County Court and again after notification of Judgement and now seems that it thinks it is above the law and can simply push aside judgements made by a County Court.

 

Abbey has a history of this, and then settling the claim in full just prior to the Court hearing. Why not save both parties the hassle and simply settle as has been ordered by an English Court of Law.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Neil Postlethwaite

 

 

I have not mentioned the Warrant of Execution yet.

[Guest Lueeze]

Id just ignore it compleatly if it was me

[whizzkid001]

Sounds good to me! You need the first bit to read that you don't agree to a Stay of the Warrant of Execution, not the judgement.

[Bookworm]

Ok, don't all howl at me because you won't like what I'm about to say:

 

When Abbey asks for judgment to be set aside, they will in all probability get it. The reason is that if, on balance of probability, Abbey can offer a defence, they have to be allowed a chance to put it forward, and therefore, they will get the judgment set aside and a trial date will be set.

 

I know, you know, that it does make a mockery of the legal deadlines when used like this, and that Abbey are now doing a lot, but it works both ways. Disneyman got a judgment against him set aside weeks, if not months, after it had been granted and in the end, he walked away the winner. He had a valid argument, which he didn't know he had when the judgment had been given in the 1st place, and the judge set the judgment aside so that he then had a fair chance to put forward his argument.

 

In Abbey's case, they are abusing that system, but for the time being, this is how it stands. Sorry.

 

EDIT: Sorry, forgot to say that as far as I know, there is no reason whatsoever for you to be reasonable and agree to save them money with a stay of execution, unless it could prejudice your case.

[whizzkid001]

I agree, although personally, I think this is actually the first deliberate attempt we see by Abbey to avoid applying for all these set asides themselves, knowing that it's only a matter of time before the courts cotton on to their abusive manipulation in the courts.

[NeilP]

Whizzkid,

 

They have only asked to put aside the Judgement, they have not even mentioned the Warrant of Execution.

 

I don't want to let them know that they are about a month out of touch with what is goin on!

[whizzkid001]

Neil - despite their wording, the stay they refer to IS on the warrant of execution, they then go on to mention setting aside the judgement.

[alanfromderby]

The Warrent would be automatically suspended once they apply for judgement ot be set aside. Bailiffs always carry a supply of forms for setting aside judgements since the main excuse, when they arrive on the debtors doorstep, is that they did not receive the paperwork.

[NeilP]

If their main excuse is that they have not received the paperwork, is it not an idea for us as claimants to ensure that they do - copies by registered post, e-mail etc etc?

[Bookworm]

You'd think...

 

But it makes no difference. Even if they have been negligent, they can still get it set aside. Re-read my explanation as to why, and you'll see it makes no difference.

[alanfromderby]

The system does not allow you to really be able to get proof. Yes, you can serve it personally, if you ask they court for permission to do so - of course this delays things. You then have to send a form in confirming that you have done so - but it still comes down to your word against theirs and they could still claim it hadn't reached them.

 

They used to have a system where you could pay for a bailiff to actually serve the summons for you - but that has been stopped.

 

Stupid system really.

[NeilP]

So, basically i can expect the following to happen?

 

Judgement to be set aside (as Abbey feel that they are above the law)

Court Date set

 

I turn up at Court to be offered a partial or full settlement prior to the hearing

 

We both go in and say 'sorry your honour, Abbey National have wasted your time and have made an offer of full and final settlement that both parties have agreed whilst waiting in the waiting room outside.'

 

Is this about it?

[Guest Lueeze]

Sounds like it! They are just trying to scare you, I say bring it on!

 

Dont worry you will get your money, just might be longer than anticipated!

 

[Bookworm]

Sounds about right, except that if they try "partial", you smile at them and say: "Nice try, boys, shall we go in?"

[whizzkid001]

Mine was dealt with by 1 order - first to stay pending their production of a defence into court & second, that if they didnt produce by a certain time/date then the stay to be lifted.

 

Yes, in hindsight we could have sent our own registered copy to them to prove service, however that's only 1 of the grounds they are using, even if the judge dismissed on the service grounds, he still has to consider granting it if he thinks they have a merititous defence "a realistic prospect of success", and further, even if that failed, he could still grant it where "in such circumstances, it would defeat the overriding objective for the judgement to stand and for the claimant to be allowed to enforce it"!