DonkeyB, apologies to be coming back so late on this one, this did drag on. I did go for, and achieve, costs by default, as the claimant failed to respond to several informal and formal (n252) requests for costs. This was appealed by the claimant after the court order was achieved (they obviously thought I was bluffing for some crazy reason, the court order must have been a shock for them!!!) and a detailed assessment of costs was held at a hearing subsequently, where sadly the default sum was revised downwards substantially. I still got a fair amount though (and in appreciation of help here and in another thread have made a contribution to CAG). Thanks again for your help.

Hi, an update in this long-running and complex saga. Following set aside, the claimant discontinued, so there was no need for a SO. I have now successfully applied for and received costs, although that took yet another hearing! Many thanks to all at CAG for their help, especially Car2403 for his invaluable support, knowledge and guidance! Despite an initial threat by the claimant to reinstate the claim, this now appears to be finally over; in appreciation, a donation to CAG has been made.

bump?

Ok, an update on where we are at. My letter back explaining that they have not fulfilled their obligations under the SAR met with a terse - and likley templated - reply that they either did not have the 'information' I requested (what you mean you don't keep copies of your own terms and conditions??) or that I was not entitled to it under a SAR (without categorically saying that T&Cs were or weren't covered). However, they did suggest that if I wished I could apply under the CCA for this information to a new address - so I duly did. They have now returned my detailed and clear request for T&Cs (original and any subsequent amendments) under a CCA request s77-79, saying that under s77 (they only replied with relation to this, though I asked "under s77-79") I am not entitled to this information, as this is not a loan account and s77 applies to loans! Are they right? Is it worth continuing? Should I press ahead with applying to get the stay lifted through submission of a revised claim or keep going for this? I already have 1. Written evidence from Barclays that misrepresent their charges as administrative costs. 2. Charges from the period of this written misrepresentation. Moreover, were it not for these charges, I would not have been overdrawn in subsequent months, hence I was for this period trapped in a debt spiral. I should also point out that at the point this was stayed this was trackless, an allocation questionairre had been returned but the claim was then stayed before being confirmed for a hearing.

Just to update, the SAR info is back and I have checked thoroughly. There was a massive amount, but no T&Cs. I have written back requesting this and pointing out thye will soon be in breach. Will keep you posted. Soon in a position to submit amended defence hopefully.

Hi WCISM, just to clear this up for you: postggj's letter is perfect, he was referring to YOUR letter where you state He is correct in pointing out that the above is no longer true, no criminal offence is committed. The creditor merely has 14+2 days to respond. No need to edit postjjg's letter except the bits he has already marked in red. Hope this clarifies. Avi

Thanks DonkeyB, I will update when i get a response to my next letter.

Costa, sounds good to me. This way the judge will see how you operate correctly, even as a LiP, when the Claimant, despite representation, can't even be bothered to play ball, act fairly, and respect the law. IMO, their failure to adhere to the CPR here - as gh points out in last post - only strengthens your hand at the SO hearing, given that SO is based on their failure to comply with 'the rules' (in a slightly different context obviously).

DonkeyB, thanks for coming back to me. The confusion (I mean, my confusion ) over allocation was because of the merged threads (which I requested, thank you Cerberusalert). In the original thread (which started at post #1 above) I believed it was allocated due to my misunderstanding about claims set aside after judgement by default, I then subsequently realised that as the claim was back to square one, the claim was again trackless. To clarify, the claim has had a defence submitted by me, followed by an application for SJ/SO, and the claim has NOT been allocated to a track, as no AQ has been filled out. Before the application could be listed, the claimant has discontinued after receiving my defence and SO application. I have asked for costs in a basic letter with summary of costs, the claimant has replied with a derisory offer. I will now hit them for costs and revert to court for costs by default if they don't play ball. Thanks again.

Actualy, I've done some more reading and can see from several threads that if I decide not to set aside, a N252 with costs summary to the claimant giving them 25 days is the best way to go - I assume this applies even though I have already asked them for costs with summary in a letter without N252? I have already filed a defence but the claim is still trackless (no AQ). But the question still stands (and I really need an answer soon please if I am to get this off today if it is to apply for set aside) should I apply to set aside and go for SJ, or just accept discontinuance and apply for costs this way?

Hi Costa, this would just be my guess from my understanding of CPR, but please don't rely upon it as I have no personal experience of requests for dislosure - hopefully my thoughts will keep the thread moving and someone more experienced will come along: I believe you will need to disclose this, or the Judge at the hearing may make an adjournment with an order for you to disclose, and costs for the wasted hearing in favour of the other side. The Rules on disclosure of documents are set out in the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. They detail at Part 31, what disclosure is, what documents have to be disclosed and the disclosure statement that has to be signed. Taking each of those in turn: 31.2 Meaning of disclosure A party discloses a document by stating that the document exists or has existed. The first notable part is that, disclosure is stating the document exists, not the physical handing over of the document. 31.3 Right of inspection of a disclosed document (1) A party to whom a document has been disclosed has a right to inspect that document except where – [there is then a list of reasons where the need to permit inspection is not required] 31.6 Standard disclosure – what documents are to be disclosed Standard disclosure requires a party to disclose only – (a) the documents on which he relies; and (b) the documents which – (i) adversely affect his own case; (ii) adversely affect another party’s case; or (iii) support another party’s case; and © the documents which he is required to disclose by a relevant practice direction. Standard disclosure, as stated above, can be followed by a request for specific disclosure,where the party to whom disclosure is to be made can identify specific documents [or, but unlikely] a group of documents which he believes should be disclosed. On the other hand, the Judge may have an expectation that it is for them to produce evidence on which they rely, not you. In any case, this document is not central to your case: as you say, stick to the matters in hand, which is that this is a hearing for SO/SJ due to their non-compliance with the documents previously requested. With that in mind, I don't see why disclosure of this document should necessarily 'cloud' the main issues, especially if you ensure you have the arguments ready as previously suggested in the excellent advice from gh2008 and MandM. By disclosing you also show that you - unlike the claimant - operate in good faith and with respect to the rules and due process of the court system. What does everyone else think?

The creditor has discontinued and I am almost at the deadline for applying to have a notice of discontinuance set aside. I have an application for strike out pending listing. I have written to the creditor requesting costs and they have replied. The creditor has made an offer for my costs which is far below my assessment, and doesn't even cover my disbursements, let alone my time. How do I go about applying to have this set aside - what form, what's the court fee? Or should I forget about gaining SJ/SO, accept the discontinuance and simply apply for costs? Again, how should I do so? Thanks - this needs posting tomorrow to be sure of getting in on time (though I could do on Mon if posted by SD)

"WATERTIGHT DEFENCE" all other things being equal

When an alleged creditor discontinues after watertight defence submitted and there has been a hearing and allocation to the small claims track: What is better, 1. Apply for costs from creditor for discontiuing and if they fail to respond to offer satisfactorily, apply to court for costs OR 2. Apply for costs from creditor on basis of setting aside NoD if they don't pay, then if they don't pay apply to seta side NoD, apply for SJ against them, then get costs awarded after claim is struck out? Surely the latter is better if you have the stomach for a fight, on the basis that then it's even harder for them to resurrect the claim/less likely to sell debt on etc? I've read some horror stories on here of NoD from original creditor then a new claim pops up months later from a new creditor when the debt has been sold on.

I know it's an old thread, but worth asking - what is better, apply for costs from dca for discontiuing and if they fail to repsond to offer satisfactorily, apply to court for costs OR apply for costs from DCA on basis of setting aside NoD if they don't pay then getting SJ against them? Surely the latter is better if you have the stomach for a fight, on the basis that then it's even harder for them to resurrect the claim/less likely to sell debt on etc? I've read some horror storeis on here of NoD from creditor/DCA then a new claim pops up months later froma different DCA when the debt ahs been sold on.

Crikey, how worrying is this?!? Let's hope SCM don't see my top-secret defence... http://chud.com/nextraimages/braveheartrev03.jpg

kurvaface, post-1998 loans are subject to exactly the same rules under SoLA as pre-1998, as they are both simple contracts. The difference with post-1998 is that SLC has no need to take you to court as funds are recoverable through PAYE. Unless you don't pay PAYE, of course, then they have six years between after last payment/acknowledgment to obtain judgment. Otherwise, SB.

You need to put together an historical narrative of their failure to provide you with the information you need to defend this claim. This should build to give the judge a compelling picture of how the claimant has been obstructive and unreasonable, not to mention clearly in breach of their lawful obligations. Can you post up your intended defence for comment?

Steve, don't have time to check all 192 posts, so please just reacap what info, whether SAR, CCA or whatever, you have requested from them and on what dates. You may also be able to argue they have been reticent, if not unlawful, with providing you with the data you need to support this defence.

Martin, all done as agreed in PM

DD, I'd hazard a guess that he is totally genuine (but just maybe, I'm working in tandem with him to support the backstory...) - it's just that he isn't very good at helping himself (and Steve, you really need to re-examine your approach to asking for help from people who don't get paid to help you...). I've exchanged a couple of PMs with Steve and I can't say that there was anything there that rang alarm bells. Let's hope that he gets back from wherever, remembers what date his hearing really is on (I think the error was either genuine mistake or more about creating a greater sense of urgency for a quicker response than a nefarious misrepresentation), and he can sort this out. Some really great advice above...post up the actual details requested countless times and reiterated by Citizen B (or at least answer the questions about where they are) and make an effort to contact a solicitor. Come on Steve, there's still time to rescue this but it can't wait 'til Tuesday!

Sorry, I edited the above in after post, so you may have missed the questions above? Can you advise me on this please Martin? I'll leave you to enjoy your evening after this, promise!!!

Point taken. Also PM sent. One last Q - I have sent a SAR, not a CCA, to 1 Churchill Place. Should I also send a CCA request for the O/D facility on the current account. To Radbrooke Hall or Churchill Place? (okay, I know that's two questions!!) Thanks for your help. Determined to nail these guys.

magical! now, I don't mean to be cheeky....but could I please have a copy? And how what such a document stand up in court, having been provided by a third party (especially one that the court may consider has a vested interest)? Obviously, as stated, I am pursuing Barclays for the T+Cs, inc original from account opening, and am quite happy to force them to do so legally if necessary.

just saw this as well as on other thread, sorry. opened 2000. still open. no T+Cs whatsoever - never thought I's need to keep them - doh!