Hearing to remove stay

[pinkduchess]

sounds like you did a good job this morning....well done

[freakyleaky]

Well that is a real eye opener for me anyway. How low can they get? Let the Judge think they are being reasonable and attempting to settle then once he has gone tell you no chance!!!!

If they happen to read this thread I for one think they are the lowest of the low!!

You did a great job Penfold. How could you expect to do any better when the court had lost your bundle! You should have hand delivered it to make sure it got there. Oh you did that didn't you!

 

Good effort though!

[Castlebest]

They are lawyers they play the game "yes your honour no your honour" but screw you because your just a customer.

[Penfold92]

How about this for a letter guys? Feel free to add remove reword!!!

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

Further to my telephone hearing with District Judge Hewetson-Brown I would like him to be aware that further to his instruction to discuss a settlement with Mrs. Watt of DG Solicitors after he left the conference call that she made it clear she or HSBC had no intention of doing so. I am disappointed with this attitude as I have already supplied the Court with ongoing settlements occurring as we speak. It seems unless they have been given no choice, but to defend they will not settle. I am disappointed with her attitude and also the professionalism of such an establishment. I have included a photocopy of the special delivery slip I sent to DG. This can be checked on the internet and you will see that they did indeed get it on the 16th October. This allowed them over a day to get it to the Lawyer/ Barrister who would be dealing with the call. I would like it noted that they only supplied my copy at 6.22pm on the 16th as well.

With regards the Court Copy of my arguments and submissions, I can only apologise and hope these have now been found? I do believe that the Court does confirm receipt of it on the 11th October.

I will try to address the specific points you raised regarding the figures involved with Section 187 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. I also hope you will see on reading the Judge Behrens case (specifically section 12 on page 101 of my bundle) that HSBC’s continued reporting and adverse notices on our credit files are indeed relevant here unlike the simple dismissal Mrs. Watts tried to imply. You will also see that our Court submission answers nearly all the Defence’s argument in full and we have further answers prepared should your Honor wish to see them.

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

Penfold

[Castlebest]

Address it directly to your Judge

 

Dear District Judge Hewetson-Brown,

 

Further to our telephone hearing this morning at XX o'clock I would like you to be aware that further to your instruction to discuss a settlement with Mrs. Watt of DG Solicitors after you left the conference call, she made it clear that neither she or HSBC had any intention of doing so. I was very disappointed with this attitude as I have already supplied the Court with ongoing settlements occurring as we speak. It seems unless HSBC and their representatives have been given no choice, but to defend they will not settle. I am disappointed with her attitude and also the professionalism of such an establishment.

 

I have included a photocopy of the special delivery slip confirming my arguments were sent to DG Solicitors. This can be checked on the internet and you will see that they did indeed get it on the 16th October. This allowed them over a day to get it to the Lawyer/ Barrister who would be dealing with the call. I would like it noted that they only supplied my copy via facsimile at 6.22pm on the evening of the 16th as well.

 

With regards the Court Copy of my arguments and submissions, I can only apologise and hope these have now been found? I do believe that the Court does confirm receipt of it on the 11th October.

 

I will try to address the specific points you raised regarding the figures involved with Section 187 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. More needed

 

I also hope you will see on reading the Judge Behrens case (specifically section 12 on page 101 of my bundle) that HSBC’s continued reporting and adverse notices on our credit files are indeed relevant here unlike the simple dismissal Mrs. Watts tried to imply. You will also see that our Court submission answers nearly all the Defence’s argument in full and we have further answers prepared should your Honor wish to see them.

 

With regard to the two cases which have been "won in court" by the banks I believe both of these cases involved Lloyds TSB and the judgments were arrived at due to deficiencies in the claimants submissions rather than the strength of the defendants arguments. In fact I believe in both cases the defendant was not even represented in court and mealy won by default.

 

I trust the forgoing answers all of the queries you raised during the telephone conference hearing.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

 

 

Penfold

 

How does that sound ?

 

pete

[jailbird]

Address it directly to your Judge

 

Dear District Judge Hewetson-Brown,

 

Further to our telephone hearing this morning at XX o'clock I would like you to be aware that further to your instruction to discuss a settlement with Mrs. Watt of DG Solicitors after you left the conference call, she made it clear that neither she or HSBC had any intention of doing so. I was very disappointed with this attitude as I have already supplied the Court with ongoing settlements occurring as we speak. It seems unless HSBC and their representatives have been given no choice, but to defend they will not settle. I am disappointed with her attitude and also the professionalism of such an establishment.

 

I have included a photocopy of the special delivery slip confirming my arguments were sent to DG Solicitors.put in date sent This can be checked on the internet and you will see that they did indeed get it and sign for the documents on the 16th October 2007. This allowed them over a day to get it to the Lawyer/ Barrister who would be dealing with the call. I would also like it noted that they only supplied my copy via facsimile at 6.22pm on the evening of the 16th October 2007.

With regards the Court Copy of my arguments and submissions, I can only apologise and hope these have now been found? I do believe that the Court does confirm receipt of it on the 11th October 2007.

 

I will try to address the specific points you raised regarding the figures involved with Section 187 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. More needed

 

I also hope you will see on reading the Judge Behrens case (specifically section 12 on page 101 of my bundle) that HSBC’s continued reporting and adverse notices on our credit files are indeed relevant here unlike the simple dismissal Mrs. Watts tried to imply. You will also see that our Court submission answers nearly all the Defence’s argument in full and we have further answers prepared should your Honor wish to see them.

 

With regard to the two cases which have been "won in court" by the banks I believe both of these cases involved Lloyds TSB and the judgments were arrived at due to deficiencies in the claimants submissions rather than the strength of the defendants arguments. In fact I believe in both cases the defendant was not even represented in court and mealy won by default.

 

I trust the forgoing answers all of the queries you raised during the telephone conference hearing.

 

Yours faithfully,

[Penfold92]

Thanks Pete and Jailbird!

 

Great as usual. I feel honestly good about today and the general vibe on here was one of not complete doom and gloom, but fairly negative. I believe that had the Judge had my bundle, just maybe the stay could have been lifted...

 

Be polite and respectful and most of all revise what and how you will say it.

 

Thanks,

 

Penfold

[Penfold92]

Ok, how about this for the S187 paragraph:

 

I will try to address the specific points you raised regarding the figures involved with Section 187 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, but I am inclined to say that the full amount taken over the years would account for payments made into the account on a month to month basis. If for example £30-£50 per month was taken, which occurred several times during the six year period we are talking about, then that is the equivalent of two weeks child benefit alone. Also if these charges are overdraft linked (ie the balance is overdrawn) then the Bank is a creditor as per the Act that was discussed at the hearing.

[Castlebest]

That looks fine Prabs, add it in and your ready to go

 

pete

[Penfold92]

Hi Guys,

 

It all starts now I guess: BBC NEWS | Business | Banks lay out overdraft defences

 

Penfold

[Castlebest]

well there's nawt new there I hope the banks are getting value for our money with all these high flying barristers they are hiring

 

pete

[Penfold92]

I know, do you really think they think they have a chance, or just stalling as much as possible and hope it will all go away?

 

I wonder,

 

Penfold

[freakyleaky]

I agree with Pete. There is nothing new there at all! I don't think they have a cat in hells chance! I thought they were going to come up with some amazing new defence and we would all be gutted but this is the same old drivel they have been coming out with in the past!

[Castlebest]

In my honest opinion I think the banks will come up with some sort of "clever" charges scheme. The OFT will buckle and make agreements with the FSA and the banks, the judiciary will have no choice but to ratify it into law because of the overwhelming mass of claims in the system and the banks are hoping they will get it retrospectively too .

 

in other words a sell out by the OFT the FSA and the FOS backed by the judiciary.

 

pete

[johnnymitch]

Hi Guys,

Do you think those 'August' bodies would survive the backlash of public opinion if they indulged in a sell-out like that? With media support it would expose them to intolerable publicity and even jeopardise their very 'reason d'etre'................

 

Incidentally , on another note, I think the third last line of Penfold's letter should read 'merely' not, 'mealy' . Oops! and 'forgoing' should be 'foregoing'

 

It's a good letter though, I hope the judge nails their hide to the wall - devious b***ers...........

[freakyleaky]

Hi Guys,

Do you think those 'August' bodies would survive the backlash of public opinion if they indulged in a sell-out like that? With media support it would expose them to intolerable publicity and even jeopardise their very 'reason d'etre'................

 

I hope you are right Johnny but what do you class as intolerable publicity! I would have thought they have had plenty of that so far to no effect! I think "hard faced" is the phrase I am looking for!

And stop speaking french!:o It doesn't sound right in your scottish accent!

[Penfold92]

Hi Guys,

Do you think those 'August' bodies would survive the backlash of public opinion if they indulged in a sell-out like that? With media support it would expose them to intolerable publicity and even jeopardise their very 'reason d'etre'................

 

Incidentally , on another note, I think the third last line of Penfold's letter should read 'merely' not, 'mealy' . Oops! and 'forgoing' should be 'foregoing'

 

It's a good letter though, I hope the judge nails their hide to the wall - devious b***ers...........

 

Hi MItch,

 

I hope the media and public opinion would not allow this and let them get away with it, but there is always that doubt...That's why we have to get these stays lifted and proceed so they settle ASAP...

 

As for spelling mistakes...ooops....Gone to the Judge already...hope he understands...LOL

 

Penfold

[johnnymitch]

And stop speaking french! It doesn't sound right in your scottish accent!:grin:

 

Oh, Awrigh' , Monsoor Freaky! :D

 

As for spelling mistakes...ooops....Gone to the Judge already...hope he understands...LOL

 

Not to worry, Penfold, hopefully it will bring home to the Judge that we are just ordinary people with a genuine grievance, not one of those 'high flying barristers' that Pete was talking about..........

[Penfold92]

LOL let's hope so. My Judge was nice.

 

Penfold

[johnnymitch]

I've just realised I owe you an apology Penfold, :o - it wasn't you who introduced 'mealy' and 'forgoing' ...... it was pete! And chris - aka Jailbird carried it on.......... .

[Castlebest]

[johnnymitch]

 

I should jolly well think so , Mr Castlebest............. Laffin....

 

 

Funny that, pete, I just this second logged in and caught your reply even before I got the e-mail......

 

But must go ,I'm off to Hitchin early in the morning... g'night mate , enjoy the rest of your weekend.

[jailbird]

Hi Jonny

 

How you doing ? Hope you ok.long time no hear:grin:

 

Chris

[Penfold92]

Jonny you are close indeed...Did not realise, how have you found our District Judges? Or the Hitchin ones nastier...lol?

 

Penfold

 

PS Thanks for the reputation...I am only merging Petes and Aud's info and adding small touches of my own...

[craigten]

hi there Penfold, can i ask how helpfull was the judge?

ie-did he question you a lot on the bundle and it's details?