Penfold V Amber Home Loans

[Penfold92]

I guess on the flip side, if I supply the info on my arguements against the set aside of the judgment early, then I can argue the points at the hearing and if they have not got replies ready I can further push the "wasting everyones time" and "vexatious defendant" issue? If I send it even 14 days early they have plenty of time to prepare OR even settle knowing their fate?

 

Prabs

[Penfold92]

Hi all,

 

Got a lovely letter from Amber's sols to say "quit now mate you'll lose..."

 

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn275/pmflkapskycom/OptimaLmarch08.gif

 

Nice eh? They even produced the page for me to sign (I do not bother scanning that though...)

 

Penfold

[car2403]

Hi all,

 

Got a lovely letter from Amber's sols to say "quit now mate you'll lose..."

 

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn275/pmflkapskycom/OptimaLmarch08.gif

 

Nice eh? They even produced the page for me to sign (I do not bother scanning that though...)

 

Penfold

 

I read this as;

 

"We're cacking our pants and you've got us on the run, so we're hoping that you don't actually have a clue what you are talking about and we intend to confuse the heck out of you by throwing you a "lifeline" to make our lives easier.

 

We also don't believe our application to set judgment aside will be successful, so we don't want to go to the costs of travelling to X County Court as our client probably won't like that idea.

 

Having said that, we're still going to try our hand at manipulating you in to submission. We're also hoping that you don't tell the judge about this, as he will probably be mad as hell and kick our arses"

 

I notice the letter isn't "without prejudice", so I'd suggest a strongly worded letter in reply, sent to the Court, with a copy of this, claiming they are attempting to abuse the Courts process under CPR Part 3.4, in that they are perverting a litigant in person in to believing their side. Don't forget to send a copy of all that to them, just to be nice...

 

[gh2008]

I

I notice the letter isn't "without prejudice", so I'd suggest a strongly worded letter in reply, sent to the Court, with a copy of this, claiming they are attempting to abuse the Courts process under CPR Part 3.4, in that they are perverting a litigant in person in to believing their side. Don't forget to send a copy of all that to them, just to be nice...

 

 

I would agree with car 100% play the litigant in person card and complain very loudly copied to the court.

[Penfold92]

Thanks guys, How's this then?

 

Dear Sir,

RE: Claim Number: 8LU00XXX – Penfold V Amber Home Loans

Please can the Court make note the letter that we received on Friday 11th April 2008 enclosed. We take strong objection to this sort of intimidation as this is clearly an attempt to abuse the Courts process under CPR Part 3.4, in that they are perverting a litigant in person into believing that their clients have acted correctly and we do not know what we are saying.

We would also like to bring to the Courts attention that our letter mentioned in this correspondence did mention the continued processing and our Statutory Notice pursuant to Section 10 and 12 of the Data Protection Act was on a separate page. Given the Defendant’s claim that they did not receive the claim form nor the judgment, both sent by the Court, are we to believe that they have also conveniently not received our Notice as well?

This sort of behavior is clear and blatant intimidation of litigants in person. The reference to costs is clearly meant as a tactic to try and scare us and luckily we have read up about this matter. Surely such legal counsel should be aware that being on small claims track even if they were to win the Court is highly unlikely to issue those kinds of extortionate legal costs they are trying to threaten us with? We have read the CPR’s and in particular CPR 27.14 “Costs on the small claims track” and to fixed costs under Part 45. We truly hope that the Court will note this behavior and even address this at the hearing on the 28th May 2008.

Yours faithfully

Penfold

[Penfold92]

Changed it a bit:

 

so re read if you read it before...

 

Penfold

[Bona]

Well witten I will watch there reply with interest

[Penfold92]

I doubt they will reply, but at least the Court will be aware at the hearing of their tactics and I will add it to me argurements as well now.

 

I do tend to agree with Car that this is a mere desperation attempt to get me to fold. After all what do they really think....I have judgment against them and they have everything to prove and do, whilst I have relatively little to do as they are the ones that messed up by not responding in the first place...

 

It will be an interesting hearing...

 

Penfold

[Penfold92]

Ok,

 

I am about to put the letter into the Court today regarding their letter saying to cancel the hearing to set aside the judgment.

Penfold

Edited June 14, 2008 by Penfold92

[Penfold92]

Anyway how about this for the letter to Amber's solicitors in response to their letter:

 

Ms Pamela Broadley,

Optima Legal,

Arndale House,

Charles Street,

Bradford,

West Yorkshire,

BD1 1UN

 

Without Predujice

 

 

 

 

Dear Ms. Broadley,

RE: Claim number 8LU000XXX Penfold V Amber HomeLoans

 

Thank you for your letter dated 09/04/2008 regarding us withdrawing from the hearing and setting aside the judgment based on your word that we have no case. We respectfully decline that offer as litigants in person we feel the Judge is best positioned to declare that. Please find enclosed our letter to the Court in response to, what we felt was, your intimidating letter.

 

This is not helpful nor have did it contain any merits or evidence. We offered your client an option to settle several times prior to Court action with regards the charges on the account. This was declined at every occasion, which will be shown to the Court on the 28th May 2008. We resent the fact that your client is now claiming that apart from not receiving the Courts two letters is now saying it did not receive our Statutory Notice to cease processing our information yet it received the letter it was with. We find this, yet again, very convenient and suggest that your client perhaps looks into its processes within the mailroom. We are also sure the Court will take a similar view on this. We will be submitting a Court bundle to you seven days prior to the hearing so you can prepare for our arguments even though this has not been requested by the Court.

 

Once more we will only agree to set aside the judgment on full payment of the Judgment as it stands. If your client wishes to try to defend this Claim then we will be looking for to add the extra costs that were omitted on the original Judgment. This has already been pointed out to the Court and will be once again at the Hearing.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Penfold

Edited June 14, 2008 by Penfold92

[gh2008]

Might this one be usefully headed "Without Prejudice Save As To Costs"?

[Penfold92]

Hi Gh,

 

but does that not mean they can show it if they want to try their luck for costs, or you feel I should do so anyway? Funny originally I did do that then I had second thoughts on it...

 

Prabs

[gh2008]

Not sure they would want to show your letter to the Court ;-)

 

You are still making a genuine offer of settlement and if they refuse it and then you win ......

 

There's nothing in your letter that benefits them, you're not saying I won't agree 'cos I'm being awkward, you are not agreeing as you've already got Judgement against them and do not see that they have any chance of successfully defending the action, should the original Judgement be set aside, seems fair enough to me.

[Penfold92]

Thanks for that gh, about the way I see it, but always nice to hear it from someone else...

 

Penfold

[car2403]

They can't show your without prejudice letter to the Court, but you can if you agree to waive privilege over the content of that letter.

[Penfold92]

...

Edited June 14, 2008 by Penfold92

[Bona]

im not sure I follow the problem

[Penfold92]

I ...

Edited June 14, 2008 by Penfold92

[Bona]

I doubt it They will stick anythin on you credit file later you can only drop your claim for damages if they sign an agreement saying they wont put anything on your credit file you are suffering due to the expectation of the entry

[Penfold92]

...

 

Penfold

Edited June 14, 2008 by Penfold92

[car2403]

Edited, at the OP's request

Edited June 14, 2008 by car2403
Edited, at the OP's request

[Penfold92]

Ok further to my letter to the Court and copy to Optima Legal here is their swift response...bless them:

 

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn275/pmflkapskycom/OptimaLegalApr08.gif

 

Penfold

[Penfold92]

...

 

Penfold

Edited June 14, 2008 by Penfold92

[car2403]

You could to that as one way of approaching it, but surely you don't need to show damage (and resulting distress that "flows from" that damage) after Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119?

If the dishonouring of a cheque resulted in damage to K, surely an inaccurate default notice must be more damaging.

Is this part of your POC, or are they just playing games?

[Penfold92]

You could to that as one way of approaching it, but surely you don't need to show damage (and resulting distress that "flows from" that damage) after Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119?

 

If the dishonouring of a cheque resulted in damage to K, surely an inaccurate default notice must be more damaging.

 

Is this part of your POC, or are they just playing games?

 

 

No I put it in the POC's and remember they have not seen them officially as they said they could only accept the sealed Court version even though I kindly posted them a set...

 

So are you saying I say the precedence has been set in the Kphor case? After all I can asking for damages for continued processing of data, inaccurate data processing...

 

Penfold

Edited June 14, 2008 by Penfold92