Oh The Audacity of DG

[chunkylinc]

Hi A..G..Eyes,

 

I hope you dont mind me crashing your thread, but I also have a prelim hearing on the 7th Aug and I've not received anything from DG, so was also going to send a copy of your letter to my court...hope you dont mind?

 

However the section of your letter which starts.... "Please find attached a copy of an order made by Lincoln County court..." and "The court considered the authority of Mullen-v-Hackney London Borough Council (1997)2 A11ER 906..."

 

Do you have a link to these at all so that i can print them out and attatch to my letter also..?

 

Good Luck with your hearing.

 

Ta Dan

[Castlebest]

copy corespondence isnt going to add much to your "mini bundle" its not like any of it has been answered and it is a core point of your request for a defence strike out... you have tried to resolve things... HSBC/DG have ignored everything.

 

pete

[freakyleaky]

If it is a core point that she has done all the running then surely it is crucial that the copies are included? Or am I missing something?

[pinkduchess]

i think hes saying its not going to add many pages / time in doing it - but yes to include it.

[Castlebest]

correct PD you know me so well

 

pete

[freakyleaky]

Thanks PD! I sometimes skip read and totaly miss the point!:o

[freakyleaky]

Are you 2 husband and wife? LOL:D

[pinkduchess]

yes but not to each other :o

[freakyleaky]

You sure????

[Castlebest]

[Audreygreeneyes]

Dan If you pm me your email addy I will send you it, or if you would rather I will copy and paste it on here so you can copy it.... and no please feel free to copy my letter, but I am doing a new one as that is the one I submitted on the 25th the day after the missed the deadline..........

 

A new one for the representations but again will post it so you can take it...........

 

Yeah good point Pete & freaky, will now copy them off and just before you ask.... hahahaha not a dicxkie bird from DG............

 

I was trawling through the FOS and HSBC stufff and it seem they have to apply for the waiver and they also have to apply for each individual stay. on the HSBC site in the small print it said it would take 20 days:)

[Audreygreeneyes]

oh yeah bought some lovely ring binders yesterday and will put them all in it for DG & the court.......

[johnnymitch]

Are you 2 husband and wife? LOL:grin:

 

That is weird, Freaky, I asked that PD very same question on Russjo's thread last night! LOL . Funny we should both come up with that within hours of each other , Eh?( Laffin )

 

Even weirder, I've just checked - it was within 17 minutes of each other!

[freakyleaky]

I thought you had seen my question first! Now that is wierd! We can't both be wrong! LOL:D

[pinkduchess]

err... excuse me!! stop gossiping!!

[freakyleaky]

Me thinks you protest to much PD! LOL:D

[johnnymitch]

Bump :grin: :grin:

[pinkduchess]

stop it johnny!!!!

[johnnymitch]

Yes, Dear!

[Audreygreeneyes]

ok here it is............ this is what I have spent all day draftingthis and printing off all my letters emails and faxes. so here is my masterpiece........

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

We write today with regards the Court Directions of the 15th May 2007 with regards the above reference number in which we can make written representations to the court with regards this claim. We do this in this letter and its enclosures

We submit that the defendant’s litigation strategy has been flagrantly abusive of the public resource, and further, contrary to almost all of the Overriding Objective’s of the Civil Procedure Rules. It is respectfully submitted that the Defendant not be allowed to continue to conduct litigation in this manner with impunity.

We would aver that if the Defendant had the serious intention of defending this claim at trial, as is indicated by its defence, then it is incumbent upon the defendant to comply with the directions and requests of the court and deadlines thereby set.

It would be most unfortunate if HSBC were allowed to manipulate the system any further. It would seem the equitable ruling to disallow the defence and the granting of a stay should the defendant apply for one, when the defendant has done absolutely nothing to reach a resolution on this matter over the past months rather than to reward such lack of regard for the court and the claimant with a stay of any sort.

The defendant has already had more than enough time to move this case forward and it is believed that the defendant has purposefully stalled in this case.

The defendant has had several opportunities to move this case forward: this is supported by the letters, faxes and emails the claimant has sent to the defendant. Copies of these are included for your review.

The claimant believes the defendant has settled many similar claims in a much shorter period and given there were two options in the order of the 15.05.2007 and they failed to inform the courts and ourselves of their intentions by the due deadline they have waived all and any right to defend or stay this claim.

We also believe that the defendant has also behaved in an unreasonable manner by failure to respond to the claimant’s letters, faces and emails, failure to negotiate prior to the court hearing.

We ask the court to award judgement in our favour given the exhaustive lengths we have gone to in order to resolve this issue without the courts involvement and the defendant’s blatant refusal to adhere with the court order of the 15th May 2007.

Yours Sincerely

now I have checked it thrice times over but my eyes are shot now but am sure Uncle Pete and Big bro Freaky will point any tying erros I have made...............lol

[freakyleaky]

Spelling is spot on! I hate to say!

 

But what about the presentation? Would it not look better and more professional like this:-

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

We write today with regards the Court Directions of the 15th May 2007 with regards the above reference number in which we can make written representations to the court with regards this claim. We do this in this letter and its enclosures

We submit that the defendant’s litigation strategy has been flagrantly abusive of the public resource, and further, contrary to almost all of the Overriding Objective’s of the Civil Procedure Rules. It is respectfully submitted that the Defendant not be allowed to continue to conduct litigation in this manner with impunity.

 

We would aver that if the Defendant had the serious intention of defending this claim at trial, as is indicated by its defence, then it is incumbent upon the defendant to comply with the directions and requests of the court and deadlines thereby set.

 

 

It would be most unfortunate if HSBC were allowed to manipulate the system any further. It would seem the equitable ruling to disallow the defence and the granting of a stay should the defendant apply for one, when the defendant has done absolutely nothing to reach a resolution on this matter over the past months rather than to reward such lack of regard for the court and the claimant with a stay of any sort.

 

The defendant has already had more than enough time to move this case forward and it is believed that the defendant has purposefully stalled in this case.

 

The defendant has had several opportunities to move this case forward: this is supported by the letters, faxes and emails the claimant has sent to the defendant. Copies of these are included for your review.

 

The claimant believes the defendant has settled many similar claims in a much shorter period and given there were two options in the order of the 15.05.2007 and they failed to inform the courts and ourselves of their intentions by the due deadline they have waived all and any right to defend or stay this claim.

 

 

We also believe that the defendant has also behaved in an unreasonable manner by failure to respond to the claimant’s letters, faces and emails, failure to negotiate prior to the court hearing.

 

We ask the court to award judgement in our favour given the exhaustive lengths we have gone to in order to resolve this issue without the courts involvement and the defendant’s blatant refusal to adhere with the court order of the 15th May 2007.

[Audreygreeneyes]

Thanks freaky its no re done and there was a mistake in the last para. faces instead of faxes...............lol

[freakyleaky]

Ah yes! Missed that! But at least it was spelt correctly!

[Castlebest]

Wondering why a judge would like Freakies pink font.....

 

I thought you had been sticking your tounge out at them Auburn

 

pete

[johnnymitch]

Hi Auburn, just one little point - last para - I think it's 'adhere to' not 'adhere with'.

 

Sorry if that sounds pedantic - just had to get one over on Freaky LOL