broken arrow
Registered UsersChange your profile picture
-
Posts
3,602 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by broken arrow
-
There was a couple of claims in Sept which came to CAG, HFO discontinued both when challenged.......
-
OFT still minded to refuse/revoke their licences, HFOC, current licence expires on 26/3/2013 and Roxburghe expires 4/3/2013, HFO Services expired Sept 2009.
-
Hi Fallback, who was the original creditor?
-
HFO - Turnbull Rutherford - Morgan Stanley ***DISCONTINUED***
broken arrow replied to geee's topic in Barclaycard
Probally for the best, the off forum advice you received, I am aware of, he is a top bloke and really knows his stuff, I still think argued well you could prove the claimants conduct had been unreasonable in making their claim. The main thing is you beat them and the alleged debt will now be stat barred, so have a good Christmas and a happy new year. -
HFO - Turnbull Rutherford - Morgan Stanley ***DISCONTINUED***
broken arrow replied to geee's topic in Barclaycard
You've tried to be amicable, now time to up the ante. -
HFO - Turnbull Rutherford - Morgan Stanley ***DISCONTINUED***
broken arrow replied to geee's topic in Barclaycard
I don't know if any would take it on, there is only one firm who I would recommend anyhow!!! -
HFO - Turnbull Rutherford - Morgan Stanley ***DISCONTINUED***
broken arrow replied to geee's topic in Barclaycard
If you are going to continue, you will have to be prepared to make that application, go to court and be able to understand and argue your points, I would make an issue of their misconduct in this matter. -
HFO - Turnbull Rutherford - Morgan Stanley ***DISCONTINUED***
broken arrow replied to geee's topic in Barclaycard
This claim had zero chance of ever going to the SCT, because they had no intention ever of it going to court, we know this because they discontinued on every part claim which was defended.If it had gone to court, there was a stong case for it to be fastrack due to the complexities of the issues involved and also the fact they where actually trying to claim more, an amount which was over the SCT threshold. -
HFO - Turnbull Rutherford - Morgan Stanley ***DISCONTINUED***
broken arrow replied to geee's topic in Barclaycard
Liability for costs38.6(1) Unless the court orders otherwise, a claimant who discontinues is liable for the costs which a defendant against whom the claimant discontinues incurred on or before the date on which notice of discontinuance was served on the defendant.3) This rule does not apply to claims allocated to the small claims track.Your claim was never allocated........... -
HFO - Turnbull Rutherford - Morgan Stanley ***DISCONTINUED***
broken arrow replied to geee's topic in Barclaycard
27.14(1) This rule applies to any case which has been allocated to the small claims track unless paragraph (5) applies.(Rules 44.9 and 44.11 make provision in relation to orders for costs made before a claim has been allocated to the small claims track) -
HFO - Turnbull Rutherford - Morgan Stanley ***DISCONTINUED***
broken arrow replied to geee's topic in Barclaycard
They are correct in that the claim does not fall within CPR 27.14 as it was never allocatedCosts on the small claims track27.14(1) This rule applies to any case which has been allocated to the small claims track unless paragraph (5) applies. -
HFO - Turnbull Rutherford - Morgan Stanley ***DISCONTINUED***
broken arrow replied to geee's topic in Barclaycard
What proof of a split claim do you have, it was only a partial claim for alleged arrears, they only stated there would be a balance owing after judgement, they never stated they would make a further claim for this balance, anyhow there is no need to mention this, you only need to ask for a figure between their original offer and your detailed costs, to save time and draw a conclusion to the matter. -
HFO - Turnbull Rutherford - Morgan Stanley ***DISCONTINUED***
broken arrow replied to geee's topic in Barclaycard
You should maybe have accepted their original offer, any hearing in the matter would be very informal. -
HFO - Turnbull Rutherford - Morgan Stanley ***DISCONTINUED***
broken arrow replied to geee's topic in Barclaycard
Without prejudice -
HFO - Turnbull Rutherford - Morgan Stanley ***DISCONTINUED***
broken arrow replied to geee's topic in Barclaycard
TR will try to convince the Judge this is a simple low value claim, but we know better, for starters if it was such a simple claim why did they not continue once you defended and allow the claim to be stayed and then discontinue....WHY? -
HFO - Turnbull Rutherford - Morgan Stanley ***DISCONTINUED***
broken arrow replied to geee's topic in Barclaycard
What do you want to do, I would go for a detailed assessment hearing, just to get them in court and throw a bit off xxxx at them, you would need to convince the Judge this would have had to have been allocated to fast track the guys have given you plenty of reasons why. -
HFO - Turnbull Rutherford - Morgan Stanley ***DISCONTINUED***
broken arrow replied to geee's topic in Barclaycard
Hopefully one day we get someone on here who did not respond to the claim for arrears and received a default judgment. -
HFO - Turnbull Rutherford - Morgan Stanley ***DISCONTINUED***
broken arrow replied to geee's topic in Barclaycard
Yes it will have dropped off. -
HFO - Turnbull Rutherford - Morgan Stanley ***DISCONTINUED***
broken arrow replied to geee's topic in Barclaycard
It's more than likely to have dropped off now geee, mine dropped off in September. -
HFO - Turnbull Rutherford - Morgan Stanley ***DISCONTINUED***
broken arrow replied to geee's topic in Barclaycard
I like the last one, threatening court action on an account which had already been to court. -
HFO - Turnbull Rutherford - Morgan Stanley ***DISCONTINUED***
broken arrow replied to geee's topic in Barclaycard
Remove last one as it had personal info -
HFO - Turnbull Rutherford - Morgan Stanley ***DISCONTINUED***
broken arrow replied to geee's topic in Barclaycard
Get the idiots into court and ask them why they start claims, then if the claim is defended, they ignore and or discontinue. there are plenty of these on this forum to refer to, they have clearly wasted your time and the courts, IMO they should be barred from ever making a claim again.Also they have already made you an offer and they have paid out previously on another defended part claim.
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS
The Consumer Action Group
- Create New...