discussion thread - Judgment granted then DG tries it on....

[Audreygreeneyes]

The Clerk to the Master of the Rolls

The Master of the Rolls' Private Office

Room E214

The Royal Courts of Justice

The Strand

WC2A 2LL

Fax 020 7947 6544.

http://www.civilappeals.gov.uk/.

 

 

If this had or was happening to my case this is what I wouldeb doing........ contact the MOR ^^^^^ and making a formal complaint as the courts are not applying their own civil procedure rules......... here are the 2 sections that in my own view are relevant......

When judgment or order takes effect

40.7 - (1) A judgment or order takes effect from the day when it is given or made, or such later date as the court may specify.

 

(2) This rule applies to all judgments and orders except those to which rule 40.10 (judgment against a State) applies.

 

 

and

 

Time for complying with a judgment or order

40.11 A party must comply with a judgment or order for the payment of an amount of money (including costs) within 14 days of the date of the judgment or order, unless -

• (a) the judgment or order specifies a different date for compliance (including specifying payment by instalments);
   
  (b) any of these Rules specifies a different date for compliance; or
   
  © the court has stayed the proceedings or judgment.

(Parts 12 and 14 specify different dates for complying with certain default judgments and judgments on admissions)

 

 

NOW THESE ONLY APPLY IN THE 2 FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES.............

 

A THE COURT STRUCK OUT THE DEFENCE OF IT'S OWN INITATIVE

OR

B YOU APPLIED OT HAVE TI STRUCKOUT AND THIS WAS GRANTED........

 

INTHE FIRST INSTANCE THEY FAILE DTO COMPLY WITH THE 1ST CORT ORDER..........WHEN YOU MADE YOUR APPLICATION THEYW ERE WRITTEN TO AND GIVEN AGAIN A SPECIFIC TIME TO RESPOND. THEY DID NTO. HENCE JUDGEMENT......

 

UNDER THE 2 ABOVE RULES THEY CANNOT APPLY TO HAVE IT SET ASIDE USING THE OFT "WAIVER" MY REASONING FO RHTIS IS......

 

THIS IS NOT A BREACH OF THE BANKING TERMS AND CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE "WAIVER" APPLIES...

 

THIS IS BREACH OF COURT CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES............ TOTALLY DIFFERENT AND THEREFORE THE OFT WAIVER HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS........IT IS FURTHER PROOF OF "ABUSE OF PROCESS" AND MANIPULATIONS.....

 

Now sorry forgot the caps......lol.... if ti was me they way I woudl be procceeding is A write tothe court pointing this out( anyone who wnats help compose a letter jsut shout)

my next move would be to write or fax the MOR as he is the seinor judge in charge of this.............. he has to be made aware of these breaches he has the power to act and he will ahve to........

 

next contact the OFT and this is urgent as they 2 month trial period is up ont he 27th sept...........

 

this again shows clear breach of the "waiver" it shows clearly they are abusing the OFT waiver............. it is not relevant in your cases.......the more that do complain the better the chance of the "waiver" being withdrawn and all cases would then have to progress as they woudl have prior to this deal...........

 

again this is only my view and if ti was me, I would also be throwing in the fact that Article 6 of the human rights act 1998 is definately cominginto play here as it is looking like active discrimination.............PLEASE READ THAT CAREFULLY I DID SAY IT IS LOOKING LIKE.....

 

now all the above is onyl my own thoughts and views at theend of the day it is down to the individual to make their own choice.........

 

if any of this has been helpful ro you think I can help you in any other way, composing letters about the obve or just to soundoff at, please feel free.........

 

I do hope this is of help:)

 

Age

[Audreygreeneyes]

The OFT is based in central London at:

Fleetbank House

2-6 Salisbury Square

London

EC4Y 8JX

For the OFT switchboard or to contact OFT Enquiries via the switchboard, please ring 020 7211 8000.

 

I cannot find an email addy or fax number on their web site but it might be worth a call to the switchboard and ask for it:):)

[Audreygreeneyes]

ok baased on what appears to be coming a common problem, have composed this letter for you tosend to the OFT...........NOW THIS IS ONYL MY SUGGESTION. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO ALTER IT OR DELETE WHAT EVER AND WHERE EVER YOU FEEL.................

 

Your name and address here

 

 

 

 

 

Your claim reference number

 

 

Dear Sir

 

 

I am writing with regards my bank charges claim, whilst being aware of the OFT announcement of the 27th July and the waiver given to the banks.

 

 

I wish to make you aware of their abuse of this waiver, judgement was awarded to me on the courts own initiative as “Abuse of Process” the court took this decision based on the fact that the service of the required paperwork on myself and the court had not been met.

 

The court then sent out this order and it gave the defendant a further 7 or 14 days to respond if they wished to have it stayed, varied or set aside, the defendant failed to comply with this order also. They submitted their request late “alleging” that it was administrative error. The grounds for this request are the OFT waiver.

 

The OFT waiver does not apply as these are breaches of the Civil Procedure Rules,

 

When judgment or order takes effect

40.7 - (1) A judgment or order takes effect from the day when it is given or made, or such later date as the court may specify.

 

(2) This rule applies to all judgments and orders except those to which rule 40.10 (judgment against a State) applies.

 

Judgment against a State in default of acknowledgment of service

40.10 - (1) Where the claimant obtains default judgment under Part 12 on a claim against a State where the defendant has failed to file an acknowledgment of service, the judgment does not take effect until 2 months after service on the State of -

(a) a copy of the judgment; and

 

(b) a copy of the evidence in support of the application for permission to enter default judgment (unless the evidence has already been served on the State in accordance with an order made under Part 12).

(2) In this rule, "State" has the meaning given by section 14 of the State Immunity Act 1978[50].

This is yet further evidence of the banks continual manipulation of the waiver and the courts system, you cannot allow this to continue and I respectfully request you inform

DG Solicitors, 12 Calthorpe Road, Edgbaston BI5 1QZ that in case (quote your case reference number here ) the waiver is not applicable due to the fact it is breaches of the Civil Procedure Rules, which is in fact an act of parliament.

 

It is also possible that under section 148_7.c of The Financial Service and Markets Act 2000 there has been a breach also, here is the relevant section

 

Modification or waiver

148 Modification or waiver of rules

(1) This section applies in relation to the following—

(a) auditors and actuaries rules;

(b) control of information rules;

© financial promotion rules;

(d) general rules;

(e) insurance business rules;

(f) money laundering rules; and

(g) price stabilising rules.

(2) The Authority may, on the application or with the consent of an authorised person, direct that all or any of the rules to which this section applies—

(a) are not to apply to the authorised person; or

(b) are to apply to him with such modifications as may be specified in the direction.

(3) An application must be made in such manner as the Authority may direct.

(4) The Authority may not give a direction unless it is satisfied that—

(a) compliance by the authorised person with the rules, or with the rules as unmodified, would be unduly burdensome or would not achieve the purpose for which the rules were made; and

(b) the direction would not result in undue risk to persons whose interests the rules are intended to protect.

(5) A direction may be given subject to conditions.

(6) Unless it is satisfied that it is inappropriate or unnecessary to do so, a direction must be published by the Authority in such a way as it thinks most suitable for bringing the direction to the attention of—

(a) those likely to be affected by it; and

(b) others who may be likely to make an application for a similar direction.

(7) In deciding whether it is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (6), the Authority must—

(a) take into account whether the direction relates to a rule contravention of which is actionable in accordance with section 150;

(b) consider whether its publication would prejudice, to an unreasonable degree, the commercial interests of the authorised person concerned or any other member of his immediate group; and

© consider whether its publication would be contrary to an international obligation of the United Kingdom. Possibly The Human Rights Act 1998 Article 6 of the convention….

(8) For the purposes of paragraphs (b) and © of subsection (7), the Authority must consider whether it would be possible to publish the direction without either of the consequences mentioned in those paragraphs by publishing it without disclosing the identity of the authorised person concerned.

(9) The Authority may—

(a) revoke a direction; or

(b) vary it on the application, or with the consent, of the authorised person to whom it relates.

(10) “Direction” means a direction under subsection (2).

(11) “Immediate group”, in relation to an authorised person (“A”), means—

(a) A;

(b) a parent undertaking of A;

© a subsidiary undertaking of A;

(d) a subsidiary undertaking of a parent undertaking of A;

(e) a parent undertaking of a subsidiary undertaking of A.

It is my understanding that in the first instance this “waiver” is for a 2 month trial period and its continuation is dependant on the bank’s conduct and compliance of the terms set out in the said Waiver”.

 

This case alone is clear evidence that they have not complied with those agreements and will continue to further abuse the courts and your “waiver”. It is my understanding that mine is not the only case they have used this tactic.

 

I await your response.

[Audreygreeneyes]

ok vin firstly what are the dates the court issued judgement and what does the order say............ like you have 7 days to apply to have this order varied,ste aside or stayed...........

 

basicly once the judge orders it struck out it is in actual fact effective from that date............ as the section i pasted in here says.......

 

now you are objecting under the courts own cicil procedure rules, which is totally different to the oft waiver............ the 2 have no relevance on each other..............

 

the civil procedure rules are an act of parliement and nothing can interfer with that or over rule it............they are manipulating the waiver to siut their needs......... which under the cpr they cannont..........

 

now it is possible that the judges are not inactual fact aware of this, it coudl be thatmost are being seen by junior judges, and lets face it there are a lot of rules in the cpr (trust me on that).......

 

I also think there is a touch of niaveity on the courts parts in that they actually believe that DG or any of them would not actually attempt to pull a stunt like this..............

 

NOW THIS IS THE VITAL PART YOU MUST REMEMBER THAT THEY WERE ONYL GIVE THIS WAIVER FOR 2 MONTHS TRIAL PERIOD........... IF THEY BREACH IT IT MAY VERY WELL BE REVOKED WHICH IS WHY IT IS VITAL YOU MAKE A COMPLAINTOT THE OFT......... THATS WHAT THE ABOVE LETTER IS FOR ............

i AM NOW GOING TO DRAFT A LETTER FOR THE mor , THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS, THE 3RD HIGHEST JUDGE IN THE LAND AND IT WAS HE WHO SAID NO BLANKET STAYS ETC ETC.........

 

right back to the drawing board.............:)

[Audreygreeneyes]

Your details here

Claim ref no…………

Dear Sir Anthony Clarke,

I am writing to you with regards the above mentioned claim and believe that the Civil Procedure Rules are being breach and abused.

My claim was dealt with in the following manner, the Judge struck out the defense as an “Abuse of Process” this was on the 25th July 2007, they had failed to comply with the courts original order. The defendant was sent a copy and had the time specified by the judge in which to respond and have it stayed, set aside or varied.

They failed to comply with this order also, submitting it late and claiming it to be an error in their office, they also stated the reason for this stay was the OFT ruling.

The OFT ruling does not apply in this instance as it is a breach of the Courts Civil Procedure Rules in specific the following.

When judgment or order takes effect

40.7 - (1) A judgment or order takes effect from the day when it is given or made, or such later date as the court may specify.

 

(2) This rule applies to all judgments and orders except those to which rule 40.10 (judgment against a State) applies.

Judgment against a State in default of acknowledgment of service

40.10 - (1) Where the claimant obtains default judgment under Part 12 on a claim against a State where the defendant has failed to file an acknowledgment of service, the judgment does not take effect until 2 months after service on the State of -

(a) a copy of the judgment; and

 

(b) a copy of the evidence in support of the application for permission to enter default judgment (unless the evidence has already been served on the State in accordance with an order made under Part 12).

(2) In this rule, "State" has the meaning given by section 14 of the State Immunity Act 1978[50].

Mine is not the only case this is happening to currently and feel that clarification is needed from your office in this regard, it is clear that the bank’s are playing fast and loose with the judiciary and continuing to manipulate the system to their advantage.

 

I wait your response.

Yours Sincerely.

[Audreygreeneyes]

The court has made this order of its own initiative without a hearing.If you object to the order ,you must make an application to have it set aside,varied or stayed within 7 days of receiving it .IT IS ORDERED THAT 1 the defence be struck out 2Judgement for the amount claimed plus interest plus court fee.. erm am I missing something here. if judgement has been awarded then why is there a hearing???...........

 

and yes get yourself down to the court first thing in themorning and get the baillifs sent in.......... asap...........:)

[Audreygreeneyes]

well there is no mention of the stay being applied for the 1st 2 only the 3rd........... so not sure.........

 

yes "Duke" thats why I did the 2 letters ^^^^^^^^^^^ there. one for the oft and 1 for the MOR:)

 

and yes I would say it coudl well hit the fan sometime in the next 4 weeks. as the "waiver" was onyl for 2 months in the first instance:):)all those who have had deadlines missed should write to the OFT and complain............that they are using their waiver to get out of missing deadlines:)

[Audreygreeneyes]

thanks freaky, I spenmt a lot of time researching the facts and composing the letters.......lol........... yeah I know........ bad form......

 

 

thanks for the congrats Duke x........

 

now my mind is in overtime, having read those articles freaky about the students and how they used facebook to their advantage...........

 

perhaps it is time we took a more pro-active role, altong with mse and pc............if everyone in the courts system just now was to move their account from HSBC this would seriously affect their profts. wouldnt it? am sure the shareholders will not be too hapy if they see the peasents revolting and it hitting their pockets?........... just a thought........what does anyone else think?

[Audreygreeneyes]

The HSBC bank said it was not too big to listen to its customers.

oh really!

[Audreygreeneyes]

thats tomorrow you..... the concert is tomorrow I am leave about lunchtime to drive to it.................. why you in a hurry to get rid.............. you got one of those saloon gals a comin in???

 

Maureen

[Audreygreeneyes]

[Audreygreeneyes]

oh swoon swoon lattie

[Audreygreeneyes]

oh yeah not thats a good one lattie. and course I did:):)

[Audreygreeneyes]

am a huge fan of his always have been. somthing very ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh rugged and sexy about that man:o

[Audreygreeneyes]

[Audreygreeneyes]

[Audreygreeneyes]

now this one i jsut love. aint he cute:):)

 

[Audreygreeneyes]

Image edited as requested.

[Audreygreeneyes]

your memory is excellent Duke.... adn as if we would do sucha thing!!!!

[Audreygreeneyes]

Hi Vin,

 

have gone back to page 1, both those cases were struck out correct? do you have anything from the court in writing confirming this..........lets get that bit done first because the answer to that kind of has an effect on the rest.......

 

my thoughts would be yes I would continue withthe letters (if you have confirmation).......... how can they issue a court date if judgement has already been awarded.............. this might require informing hte court they have already granted judgement by sendign them a copy of the order..........

 

with regards the dreaded bundle, we need to know what the order says. thats the one giving you the court date soem where on it there shoudl be a paragraph that says it is order that either party blah blah blah...........

 

soon as we have these answer we can help further............

 

is it possible you have taken your favourites off the left hand of the screen? thisis why the whole cag page appears wider?

 

age:)

[Audreygreeneyes]

Opps that nameless would be me................... Apologise vin, sorry I did nto realise that would happen...............:o

[Audreygreeneyes]

I feel a twerp thats what I feel..................lol

[Audreygreeneyes]

ok have you got that in writing for the strike outs????..........sorry to be a pain here but does it say what the hearing is for? and if not phone the court on monday morning and ask?.......

 

if it was me I would go ahead with the 2 letters. but that is me...........

 

most importantly I would seek clarification on monday as to what exactly this hearing is for.............

 

what do you guys think?

[Audreygreeneyes]

you should be so lucky lattie:p :o

[Audreygreeneyes]

vin give me 5 or 10 and i will have it for you......