In the book that I obtained on tribunals, it describes four different types of hearings - case management discussions - pre-hearing reviews - full merit hearings (often split between 'liability and remedy' and - review hearings Case management discussions are held to discuss procedural and organisational aspects of the case. Pre hearing interviews (PHRs) are hearings on a preliminary point. Preliminary points are issues that are vital to the case, but can be dealt with in isolation. Full merits hearings deal with the main - or final - legal of factual issues that will determine the case. Also, if a case contains preliminary issues a PHR is likely to be listed as a matter of course. Preliminary issues likely to result in a PHR include: - was the claim made in time? - was the claimant an employee? - was the claimant disabled? - did the claimant comply with an applicable grievance procudure? The reasons for a PHR is practical. it is often more efficient to deal with preliminary matters seperately. It simplifies hearings by reducing the number of issues each has to deal with. Also, it details how a PHR can be made either by the judge or the respondant requests one however there is nothing to stop a claimant applying for a PHR themselves. So it seems that the Pre-hearing interview will be held to discuss the preliminary matter as to whether you are considered disabled or not. This is what the judge is trying to determine and the result of this would be that either the claim continues if your disability is established or your claim may be rejected due to the underlying complaint not being sufficient to bring proceedings against your employer. I hope this has helped.

Can you find anything out on facebook? Google his name? maybe conned many others as well so it may come up with something but probably need more than a name and picture.

no need to appologise for going on and on, these are the things that you need to be talking about and getting off your chest, it is good that you are now talking about it. Bankruptcy is a protection and a way for a fair and equitable solution to be established, whilst it is possible that you might lose some assets you wont lose any household items as long as they are reasonable and you wont have baliffs sent, alot of people dont lose anything but of course some people do, it depends on what you have or not. In particluar your car, the primary thing that the OR has to look at is not the value but for what reason you need it, the best reason is for work or to look for work, another is for your basic domestic need. To give you an example i have had a case where a person worked so you might think ahh they would get to keep it and they asked to, it came out though that the resteraunt they worked at was below where they lived hence they were not allowed to keep the car. Wheras someone who was disabled and just needed it to say do shoping may be allowed to keep it

Please be careful how you word things neil, if anyone from DX read that and did a screen shot CAG could be in the soft n smelly stuff I must admit though that I've never heard of anyone having such a problem with them before R (Silverfox sorted it LoL)

I put in a link in post 19 above, please read it....on the demand there should be a box which says 'PARTICULARS OF THE CLAIM'. And if you want to fight this then you ,must send off a CCA request and a SAR....

...and I am trying to multitask and spend far too long writing things!

Hi kyussinchains, and a big welcome to the great community of CAG. I think you are going to have to do some reading if you think that Bank Charges are "illegal". Bank Charges are crippling to the vulnerable, but they are not illegal. Read the HSBC judgement from the Test Case here ............good bedtime reading! The banks don't care how long you have been with them, just how much money they can bleed from you! Start a thread in the HSBC Forum here and peeps will be able to advise you. It may be worth doing an Income and Expenditure sheet to account for all your money coming in and going out. Sequencis blog on Debt is a very good read here Good luck, your on the first step in fighting back.

Providing that your cover was in force and all above board, then this should be a matter to be dealt with solely by Swift Cover. Rather than email, you might be best picking up the phone and getting the name of the person to send this demand to and insist that they deal with it. I had one of these a couple of months ago, phoned my insurer and then sent the letter to them. Never heard any more.

I must be getting soft in my dotage... Note to self: Outstanding victims ( oops DCAs/ CRas and freemans) need dealing with asap

And you need a full Statement of Account from the DCA!

See answer in red ims

You can do it as per my post #17 ims

Your case is almost identical to mine. I also had an original loan with Universal which had a CCJ on it that was taken over by Paragon. They accepted my reduced monthly payment for a number of years until I requested a settlement balance. They gave me the judgement balance and a further balance of £10,000 in contractual interest. I settled the Judgement balance in full and went to the CAB to see what could be done regarding the extra interest. They drafted a formal complaint letter for me mentioning the following points:Their lack of transparency regarding this additional interest and the fact that had I not requested a balance I would still be under the impression that no interest was being added and that the balance was reducing with each payment. I believe that there are doubts about whether a creditor with an existing judgment is permitted to commence fresh proceedings for recovery of interest charged after judgment. I am working together with the Citizens Advice Bureau who has taken further advice on the general issue of contractual interest. I understand that where a creditor wishes to claim contractual interest after judgment, there are 2 methods available 1) Request an interlocutory judgment at the outset and include a specific claim for post-judgment interest to be assessed at a later date or (2) Where the interest rate is fixed throughout the term of the loan, obtain a final judgment at the outset for the full amount owed under the agreement.Section 35 of the County Courts Act 1984 states that 'It shall not be lawful for any plaintiff to divide any cause of action for the purpose of bringing two or more actions in one or more of the county courts'. As a result, a creditor who fails to obtain the correct form of judgment at the outset is precluded from taking further or separate proceedings to recover that which s/he omitted to claim in the original action.I would also argue that a second action could constitute an abuse of process, due to the combined effect of CPR rules 7.3, 1.3 and 1.4 (2) (i). Such an action falls to be struck out on application under CPR.3.4 (2) (b).I pointed out that due to their lack of transparency and a lack of a legal basis to pursue this unlawful interest, I would not be pay8ing them another penny. They wrote back informing me that whilst they could add this interest, as a gesture of goodwill and down to my personal circumstances (!!!!!!! That I know my rights?!), they had closed the account and would not be pursuing it any further. So they wrote £10K off just like that.I would do the same if I were you and send a formal complaint to Paragon. And stop paying them if the judgement has been satisfied.

If the LL goes to court I will eat my hat. Call his bluff. He sends you threats, he has no contract. The man sounds like a complete di*khead. A court would be happy with £50 a month, but I cannot see him going anywhere near a court. It's all bluster. I would tell him to sue me or frick off.

Stick to whatever the judgements stipulated, ignore what Paragon send because obviously they don't know their derrière from their elbow. Make those complaints to the agencies I mentioned above.

Yes CCA to Freds if they they are still chasing after passing the debt to Carter us a £1 postal order unsigned get proof of posting.