LD's letter to Fred which arrived at the same time as the court order came by normal first class post. Is DX a sort of private courier service?

Thanks for mentioning that Alphageek. We've been concerned about that and also about the length of time it typically takes for Fred's applications to get a response as opposed to LD's. These last two for instance were handed in to the court on 1st October and the response arrived on 17th. We still don't have an answer though because the claimants have till 2nd November to make representations. Presumably shortly after that the judge will make a decision, but by then the bundle for the final hearing will have had to have been sent in.

Now that's a very good point caledfwlch. I hadn't thought of that as a possibility, but by sheer coincidence our letter to the Principal was delivered on Wednesday 14th October, maybe she took exception to a bill of £10,500 and rising.:eek:

HI Yorky, glad to see you back. I agree you're absolutely right. We didn't ask them to contribute to the cost of our transcript. They can just fork out for it when they lose the case:p Your second point expresses the situation in a nutshell.

Ok there's a mystery prize for the first person to find an abuse of process rule we can get them for on this:D:D

Hi Royboy,Fred has never denied being cautioned, but he has always believed he was wrongly cautioned. At the outset if you remember he applied for a stay in proceedings in order to challenge the caution. That application was never responded to by the Judge and he asked the Judge about the outcome of that application at the Directions Hearing. LD's representative pretended to know nothing of this or of the caution and insisted she needed to know what Fred was referring to.(despite the fact that LD had known for some 7 months at that point that no evidence of any caution existed.) She tried to twist things to get him to admit causing criminal damage and he was very clear in telling the court that he did not accept that he had caused damage. The Directions Hearing was the only time so far that Fred has had personal contact with anyone from Lyons Davidson. Hope this clarifies things a bit.

Great to hear from you Wobbly. Hope you're having a great time and a big hello to all our new Australian friends. No change at the moment in the final hearing date. We're still waiting to hear from the Police and are chasing that up. Enjoy your holiday and tell us all about it please when you get back.

Hi raydetinu, thanks for your suggestion. That's a good point you make and we have been pondering what response to make. Lyons Davidson first claimed that Fred completely denied ever receiving a caution (this was in their letter to Devon and Cornwall Police in 2008, when they were trying to get a copy of it). Then they claimed in their court bundle that Fred admitted causing criminal damage and being cautioned, which of course he set them straight on and lodged a copy of it with the court. So now they are saying he admitted being cautioned......well Lyons Davidson,you're the ones who kept telling Fred he'd been cautioned and continued to do so, even after you were fully aware that no caution existed on record. It wouldn't surprise me if they've got some devious,cunning little plot in mind just like the way their representative tried in the Directions hearing to trap Fred into admitting having caused criminal damage to the barrier. To his credit Fred didn't fall for her ploy and that was one of the reasons why they then introduced the caution into their statement of case, knowing full well there wasn't one on record.

I think we should have a whipround for LD, they're obviously desperately hard up and too proud to admit it.

Thanks Kiptower, you're a star.

Thanks Kiptower. I've sent the letter to you. With any luck everyone, the famous letter will be revealed in all it's glory shortly, thanks to Kiptower. Let's send him a drumroll to help him

Yes I think you're right. They've actually realised what fools this letter makes them look so they've hidden the upload function on photobucket. I keep trying other image hosting sites but being a bit challenged in the technical ability department, I can't get them to work properly either.

What also strikes me as very peculiar is how fast they have got this letter out. It arrived today, the same day Fred received the actual order, which seems to me they may have got the order before he did. I'd be very interested to see what others think the wording of the order actually means too... Bearing in mind one of them is about strict proof of the caution and the other is asking for a proper defence to be filed to the counterclaim.

Still having trouble uploading this letter, which keeps coming out massive

Just trying to upload the LD letter but for some reason I'm having trouble with photobucket

Hi, Nothing has been deducted from my account as yet. I've just received notification that I have incurred the charges. The notification came in two letters, one for the Guaranteed Card Payment Fee of £35 and the other for the Paid Referral Fee. I know they must refer to the cheque because I haven't gone over my limit on any other occasion for at least 6 months. I don't know if it's just me, but I get sooo confused trying to work out when charges and interest are debited:confused: and can't help wondering if they've made it complicated in the hope they can claw in more money. When it happened at the end of the month, I knew where I stood and always made sure there was a bit of money spare left in the account to cover interest.

Errr yes:lol:

And I wouldn't blame you for thinking I was making it up, middenmess. When Fred was reading it out to me over the phone, I couldn't stop laughing. Just to prove it's genuine,as soon as I get my hands on the the letter, I'll post it for any sceptics out there.

Thanks spitfire. I think you're right and the Vet probably did use the same bank. When I've tried calling them previously, I've found them not very helpful, so I think I'll write to customer service, maybe that man who's name I've seen mentioned somewhere. Does that mean it's allowed to clear instantly I wonder? Because if so everyone needs to beware of this happening.

I agree LilyLou. I'd never heard of a Guaranteed Card Payment Fee, but I assumed it referred to the fact that I'd used my debit as a cheque guarantee card. I'll write to Customer Service and see how they respond. Thanks for responding.

I've just heard from Fred that he's received 2 letters this morning. One is an order from the court, dated 15th October, in response to his 2 applications of 1st October, and the second one is a letter from Lyons Davidson, also dated 15th October,written in response to this same court order. Their letter is posted second class and franked 15th. This therefore means that they either received their copy of the order before Fred did or they already knew about it some other way. The order reads as follows:- "Upon considering two applications from the defendant, it is ordered that both applications be dealt with by the District Judge as a paper exercise. The claimant is to respond with any representations by 4pm on 2nd November 2009" One of the applications referred to was worded as follows:- I intend to ask the court for an order to put the claimant to strict proof of the existence of a Police caution on which they wish to rely in court and which the court allowed to be introduced. If the claimant is unable to produce a true copy from Police records of the existence of a caution within 14 days, of being so ordered, then all reference to a caution be removed from their statement of case. If the claimant is unable to provide strict proof that the defendant was cautioned by the Police, I further intend to to ask the court to order the claimant to pay all additional costs which the defendant has incurred as a result of an unproven caution being introduced by the claimant as a result of the applications which the defence has submited to address the introduction of a caution. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The second one was worded as follows:- I intend to ask the court to strike out the claimant's response and defence to my Part 20 claim dated 9th September 2009, as the claimant has failed again to file a detailed defence to any and all the allegations set out in my Part 20 claim. I apply to the court to order the claimant to FILE A DETAILED DEFENCE to all the allegations set out in my fully particularised Part 20 claim. 1) I rely upon the whole of the CPR 16.5 as the rules pertaining to the content of a defence. 2) The defendant has supplied the claimant with two copies of his fully particularised Part 20 claim by first class post on 14.8.09 and 24.9.09. I also sent an attached copy to the court with my application of 7.8.09 for which we have an itemised receipt. The court was therefore obliged to serve my application with fully particularised part 20 claim attached, upon the claimant, together with the subsequent court order. 3) The defendant was ordered by District Judge ..... to file a detailed defence to the claimant's POC in April 2009, otherwise it was ordered that judgement would be ordered against him. We rely upon the principle of "Equality of Arms" and as such I respectfully expect the claimant to be finally ordered to file a detailed defence otherwise judgment be entered against them. 4) The defence avers that the claimant is attempting to continue avoiding the issue of filing a detailed defence by consistently relying upon the false excuse they have not received the fully particularised Part 20 claim. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is what the gem of a letter from Lyons Davidson says :rolleyes:....... "We refer to the Court order dated 15th October . We are prepared to request a transcript of the Directions Hearing in which you admit you received a caution for causing criminal damage to the claimant's barrier, on the basis that you are prepared to incur half the cost of that document. Please confirm that you are prepared to pay your contribution towards the cost of the transcript and we will contact the court in order to obtain it." It is signed by undecipherable squiggle. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Unfortunately this latest order will not be decided until after the date by which we will have to send in our court bundle for the hearing. A third application is still awaiting a response and that one is to ask the court to accept Fred's amended defence which he submitted immediately in response to the claimant's amended POC. As things stand currently, the amended defence application isn't due to be decided till the Applications Hearing of 17th November, which takes place immediately before the final hearing:eek:

Well today has brought a step forward for my friend's case as a claim has been issued in the county court. It looked very impressive I must say as the defendant is The Secretary of State for The Department of Work and Pensions. The solicitor has asked for the papers to be issued but not served yet as he needs a little time to polish up the statement of case. There has been a bit of a last minute rush as there's been a change of solicitor due to the original one leaving and there is a possible deadline of 19th October as part of the claim may be subject to a 6 month time limit. When I get sight of what has been claimed, I'll post the details, but I do know that part of it is asking for an injunction to force the Jobcentre to accommodate my friend's disabilities.

I was under the impression that Natwest had reduced their charges, but I've had two letters today telling me I'm going to be charged £30 one or more Paid Referral Fees, plus £35 for a Guaranteed Card Payment Fee. All this has come about because I wrote a cheque for £71 in the evening of 5th October (emergency vet's bill). I knew I didn't have sufficient within my overdraft limit to cover it there and then, but knew money was going into my account by the 7th. The last time I wrote or received a cheque they took several days to clear, but the £71 was deducted on 6th October. These charges mean I'm about to be charged at least £65 for going over the limit by £71 and I certainly don't intend to let them get away with that, so can anyone suggest the best strategy please? I'd rather stop it being taken than have to reclaim it as that much money would leave a big hole in my finances.

That's very true. LOL The approaching election may just bring out a helpful streak in even the most smug politician though.

As everyone will have realised by now the Police are dragging their feet, after having been very helpful to start with. Last week we sent them a stiff letter informing them that Fred won't wait forever before escalating his complaint to the IPCC among other optons. Unfortunately to date they haven't responded, so we will begin the process of complaining to the IPCC early next week. Instead of doing it directly we're considering asking Fred's MP to submit the complaint.