Now listen here Mistic Meg! On what grounds do they have to do or even claim that? They have not mentioned in their witness statements reference to any statues or Law's so they cannot claim to have any basis of law to rely on except the CCA no debt outstanding and so no requirement to provide the agreement. That does not evade the fact the Judge (IMHO) will not look well on mixed records, not keeping with Companies Act, Money Laundering regs etc... My claim is simple no evidence of a debt, no evidence of ammalgamated debt just some figures and a CMS report (whatever that is), that was not supplied to me in my SAR so really very thin case....Section 140 CCA 2006 ammended is clear, court can find agreements unfair and in doing so can refund all payments made.... We'll see what they do after this next letter and the fact I have sent copy to the the Court as I want them to see the evidence too of mulitple attempts to settle, "in terrrorem" offer by NW and an email from the IP clearly showing the dividend was paid, which discredits their witness statements straight away...

So there's not a chance in hell of the no costs rule NOT applying...right?

It appears you were right Chris: MATTERS RELEVANT TO ALLOCATION TO A TRACK 26.8 (1) When deciding the track for a claim, the matters to which the court shall have regard include --- (a) the financial value, if any, of the claim; (b) the nature of the remedy sought; © the likely complexity of the facts, law or evidence; (d) the number of parties or likely parties; (e) the value of any counterclaim or other Part 20 claim and the complexity of any matters relating to it; (f) the amount of oral evidence which may be required; (g) the importance of the claim to persons who are not parties to the proceedings; (h) the views expressed by the parties; and (i) the circumstances of the parties. (2) It is for the court to assess the financial value of a claim and in doing so it will disregard --- (a)any amount not in dispute; (b)any claim for interest; ©costs; and (d)any contributory negligence.

Shame I can't use them in my case...But I seriously doubt they would dare turn up, but you never know they may be feeling confident that day...

I tell you this all makes me laugh..how can they have the guts to do say certain things... I have just recieved the witness statements they will reply on in COurt on my Nasty West thread and the last point they make is the dividend for the settlement of my IVA was never received... I have just had confirmation from my old IP that the cheque was sent july last year and cashed within a week...Now how exactly are they going to explain that one in Court? Bless Nat West, RBOS and Cobblers...

Views please? Dear Sirs, RE: Claim number 7LU02XXX Thank you for your bundle which I received on 31st May 2008. I would like to point out it only contained two short witness statements and a schedule of costs for an unknown sum, but by the looks of it in excess of £3000. I am confused as to how, in the small claims track where costs are protected, you will try to justify such figures, but I am sure I will soon find out. I do however hope it is not another “in terrorem” action on your part. I will be forwarding a copy of this letter to the Court for their information as well as the offer I sent you with my bundle. I thought it prudent to point out an immediate error in your witness statement of Rachel Hoppett paragraph 11 (they said they had not recieved the dividend payment for the IVA that was settled last July!). I have checked with the Insolvency Practitioners and they sent cheque number 003XXX (for £317.08) to Telford on 18th July 2007 and it was cashed on 2nd August 2007 clearly within the time frame of this dispute and a clear breach of the Consumer Credit Act. They are happy to supply there bank statement to show this, but I have said there will be no need as I am sure your client will find this payment easily now and acknowledge this error to the Court on the day. I do not know which is more worrying the clear breach of the Law or the fact that nearly a year later you are entering a witness statement with clear inaccuracies in it whilst trying to defend a case? Yours sincerely, Penfold I have spotted a whole load more errors in the witness statements but I thought I'd save a few for the day in question....I think I am being more than reasonable and they are trying to play the judge...mind you this is not the first time we have heard about dodgy accounting/ record keeping by RBOS or NW....is it...

1675 + 1701 = 3376 Then I added court costs, interest of 1626 on the two accounts above so the total claim came to £5003.84 on the claim form Penfold

Ok it was their bundle, although a schedule of charges and 2 witness statements totaling about 10 pages seems a tad short of depth... They are not quoting any statutes, nor laws nor issues, just the facts as they have them...so I assume they cannot suddenly give me another arguement or papers on the day right? OK first thing I would like to discuss is the schedule of charges totaling £3000 upwards and increasing based on disbursments and counsel charges...bless them... OK so back to the order of 13th March 2008 by the DJ re the hearing this was his first order: This claim is allocated to the small claims track and the parties are referred to Part 27 of the CPR's and practice direction of that part for guidance on how the hearing of the claim will be conducted. So that says to me even though claim was over £5000 (just with interest) it is still no costs protected as he has not referred to 26.7(3), only the normal Part 27 Small Claims Track that rule says: The court will not allocate proceedings to a track if the financial value of the claim, assessed by the court under rule 26.8, exceeds the limit for that track unless all the parties consent to the allocation of the claim to that track. I did not give agreement and neither did NW. I said small claims they said fast track...court said small claims..so result? Where - a. the financial value of a claim exceeds the limit for the small claims track; but b. the claim has been allocated, for the purposes of costs, as if it were proceedingin on the fast track except that trial costs shall be in the discretion of the court and shall not exceed the amount set out for the value of the claim in rule 46.2 (amount of fast track trial costs). Am I understanding this correctly or not? Are they trying either in "in terrorem" letter once more or trying it on with the DJ? I have not taken their points apart yet, but will do so, but so far I have seen straight away they are including a CMS report on me that I was not sent in my 2 SAR's....What can I say or do about that? Perhalps a letter to Cobblets and the copying the Court in would be good? Advice please... Penfold

Got home today to find a couple of special del letters slips in the door so I am sure one of thoses will be from Cobblets...Oh well will post up tomorrow when I get them, Penfold

Midge, I am not saying it will be easy in the current climate, but there are mortgages out there for sub prime that WILL be cheaper then your soon to be NEW rate. Have you spoken to a broker to see what is possible? Obviously depends if you are also self cert and what loan to value. But a default should not be a huge concern when it comes to the remortgage. Penfold

yes they do sometimes do interest to end of month, or 1 months notice, still £4000 sounds very wrong....Call and ask them to explain Penfold

The nerveousness is good and you know your case best so let them try to squirm out of it and just stick to the points of Law and you'll do yourself proud! Over for weekend too so will check up on Sunday night Prabs

final contribution...Without Reason!!!!

wishful record???

Yup, good luck, but you know your case inside out and in this particular case I would definately not want to be the duty sol turning up on this one... Hope you get a nice judge! Prabs

One point also to make is if you still have the HSBC account they do not give a monkeys if they don't have the agreement they will still take payments....they will not let you cancel the DD's...take it from someome who once had such a thing and they made me go overdrawn paying their own dd's only! Penfold

oh HSBC love managed loans...

Is this the first of many to come then???? BBC NEWS | Business | Are banks set to capitulate over fees? Prabs

Thanks so mcuh for your efforts, kind words and help...I sincerely hope they see sense, but somehow after what happened with my Amber case yesterday I think these banks still think they can pull the wool over everyones eyes including the judges... Who know's and lets hope your right, but one thing for sure first thing Monday morning if I have not had their bundle I will be asking the court to strike out the defence or to stop them submitting any evidence at the hearing like the court did for me in my woolwich case. Some serious donations coming up in the next month me thinks... Prabs

That's what makes me laugh....they all think we have no resources or ideas when it comes to the law....that has been changing rapidly over the last year or so and it will not be much longer before the banks and mortgage lenders realise that the credit crunch is not their only problem...they have been getting away with murder for too long now...

Amber ignored the court claim form and judgment....boy did the counsel they sent yesterday to the court get a rollocking for that... Keep at them...you will get there in the end... Penfold

Hi, The trouble is if you check GMAC's offer you will see a "own insurance" charge as well...This is a suspect charge to say the least (take it from a mortgage broker as well!) but they have got away with it for years... You can write and complain, but unless you are going for other charges I don't think you will get anywhere (unless they are feeling generous) without going to Court and for £25 that is ridiculous... Sorry for not being much help on this... Penfold

Well done Vogelrok, I wish Amber could be so sensible...They managed to get the judgment I got against them set aside yesterday, but not their extortionate costs of £1300! Well done again! Prabs

cool...let's hope so eh?

Ok bundle off today with this letter for good measure: Dear Sirs, RE: Claim number 7LU02XXX Please find enclosed the Skeleton Argument and Witness statements I will be relying on in Court on 13th June 2008. I have sent this special delivery ensuring it reaches you by 30th May 2008 which is within the Court Order dated 13th March 2008 (page 186) for service and I hope you will have done the same. If you wish to settle this matter prior to the actual Court date then please do not hesitate to contact me either in writing or via email prabs@somewhere.co.uk as this will ensure a speedy resolution to the matter without wasting further Court time. All previous offer made by me (pages 25, 30, 50, 62, 77, 78, 85, 109,191 and 194) have been rejected without any counteroffer until your letter dated 26th March 2008 (page 188) offering to forego your clients costs of £2949.98, which in my view is an “in terrorem” offer, however I cannot show that letter to the Court at this stage. Should this matter go to Court then I will be bringing this point to the attention of the Court as it is, in my opinion, blatant intimidation of a litigant. This was allocated to small claims by District Judge Hewetson-Brown and under Part 27 of the CPR’s you will be well aware of the fixed costs possible under Part 45 and so the letter I referred to above would need to be explained to the Court. So I hope you will finally concede that a settlement can be achieved and I will now accept a rounded down offer of £6000 as per the breakdown from my arguments (page 6). This offer is open for 7 days from receipt of this letter and Court bundle. Yours sincerely, Prabs Surely the Judge will be unimpressed I have made 10 attempts to settle they have made 1 in terrorem offer at the end to not ask for costs AFTER it was allocated to small claims...