Jump to content


Oh The Audacity of DG


Audreygreeneyes
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5602 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

The big point you have to get over is HSBC (DG) have just been delaying things and using the court system to do this, They had no intention of defending any case in court and you believe they are using the OFT test case in the same manner.

 

If the banks refuse to accept the courts judgement it the test case and keep appealing to higher and higher courts the case could drag on for years (my thinking is six years and they will clean up there act in the mean time) this would efectivly time bar a lot of the claims they are looking at currently and you can bet they will try to get the time bar included in the outcome of the test case to limit their liability.

 

Where did you find those powers of management rules ? I need to look at the whole thing before I comment ;-)

 

pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

ERm those are exactly the points I made in my representaions Pete, but look where it got me. no wehre.......

 

according to the court they will knwo tomorrow exactly how many cases were listed for today and how many were stayed........ I am going to call to find out

rockin all over the world

Link to post
Share on other sites

That section deals with the courts powers to strike out a statement of case (your claim or the defence)

 

Your case has been stayed pending the outcome of the test case, what we need to do is get the stay set aside on the grounds that this is a further abuse of process.

 

Everyone expects the banks to loose but regardless of this if the BANKS choose to apeal this will take years to resolve.

 

pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you tried this one Auburn? Just pick out the bits you feel will add weight to your arguments(which could be all of it!)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/17065-application-removal-stay-updated.html

 

Best of Luck

John

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Go get 'em ;) - Stitch 'em up, Auburn! They've been doing it to us for long enough. :cool:

 

PS Unlike pete, I like your hat !

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Sir,

 

Claim Number xxxxxxxxxx

 

 

Please find attached Forms N244 in relation to both of the above mentioned case along with supporting documents. I would respectfully request that these are passed to the Judge for the allocation of a hearing date.

 

 

 

 

My concern’s in relation to this are set out in my part C statement attached as I really do believe that this stay would not maintain the status quo, as this stay favours the bank by preventing the claimant’s pursuit of its legitimate remedy without placing any restrictions on the banks activities whatsoever and allowing them to further abuse the court process.

They had no intention of defending this case in court and as they have not done so thus far and believe they are using the OFT test case in the same manner. By requesting stays quoting the test case is further delaying and abusing the court system for the banks own gain.

Attached is part C is my supporting evidence with this regards

ok how does that sound??????

rockin all over the world

Link to post
Share on other sites

19.012007

Hand delivered request hsbc telephoned

23.01.07

Hand delivered typed

Copy of claim No Response

22.02.2007 No Response

28.02.2007 No Response

Mcol claim filed

01.05.2007 defence submitted

05.05.07

Letter to DG No Response

07.05.07

Email to DG No Response

08.05.07

Email to DG No Response

09.05.07

Email to DG No Response

10.05.07 received from court notice of transfer

14.06.07

Letter to DG No Response

15.05.07 letter of allocation and order arrived from court

06.06.07

Letter to DG recorded delivery

Copy of previous email No Response

06.06.2007

Letter to DG recorded delivery No Response

Copy of previously sent email

06.06.2007

Letter to DG recorded delivery No Response

Copy of previously sent email

06.06.2007

Letter to DG recorded delivery No Response

Copy of previously sent email

17.06.07

Copy of draft directions request NO Response

10.07.07

Copy of the order made on the 15th May 2007 No Response

24.07.07 deadline for service from DG No Response

rockin all over the world

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks pretty good to me Auburn - the first part lays out your contentions and the reasons for them, the second puts the correspondence in chronological order, with DGs lack of response evident for all to see. Well Done, girl!:)

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

spellcheck - no apostrophe in concerns,, first line two case(s) or one case and no "both",,,, the bank's activities (this time yes to an apostrophe),,, and loose the and after court in the line starting with They had no... ,,,

in line starting with requesting... replace "is" with "they are",,,, and again an apolstrophe in bank's in last line..

 

i know you don't mind me proofreading

 

I've a feeling that second list didn't come out quite as you've put it in - that's fine - i see what you are doing with it and it will look ok lined up a tad differently

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Lat, I wasn't proofreading, just commenting on the content - but you know Auburn better than I do. :-)

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha-ha! Good one Auburn!

 

:D

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Sir,

 

Claim Number7QZ45507

 

 

please find attached Forms N244 in relation to the above mentioned case along with supporting documents. I would respectfully request that these are passed to the Judge for the allocation of a hearing date.

 

 

 

 

My concerns in relation to this are set out in my part C statement attached as I really do believe that this stay would not maintain the status quo, as this stay favours the bank’s by preventing the claimant’s pursuit of its legitimate remedy without placing any restrictions on the bank’s activities whatsoever and allowing them to further abuse the court process.

They had no intention of defending this case in court as they have not done so thus far and believe they are using the OFT test case in the same manner. By requesting stays quoting the test case they further delaying and abusing the court system for the bank’s own gain.

Attached is part C is my supporting evidence with this regards

rockin all over the world

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks johnny :D revamped version now up for approval...... and yes lattie it comes out as 2 cols in the printed version........

 

so basically what do you think that with the human rights and my list? is there anything else?

rockin all over the world

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...