Brilliant news, Silverfox. What a total and utter sh**b***tard he was and is.

Hopefully he can stick to running shabby hotels now.

And I hope he doesn’t act as a ‘shadow’ director of any companies, pulling the strings behind the scenes.

Great info, thank you. Interpretations change as time goes on, so what the ICO thought years ago might be different now. This is an excellent example.

So Blurred, do you understand their POC ?, does it make sense or partially make sense to you ? Im finding it hard to make head or tail of it and it doesnt IMO make the case that you owe anything, the claimant needs to show a clear contractual relationship and whilst the first half makes some attempt the second half wanders off into various accusations and these are not in any way legal arguments, just petty name calling and hearsay.

 

Some of it shows no legal knowledge. "we request we are awarded judgement in our favour accordingly", ha..pathetic

 

Their 6 points that then follow still dont show a concise legal argument that the monies are owning, they just refer to other LH and previous cases.

Quite agree. You can ONLY answer the PoC as it is presented – but it’s hard to work out what has been presented as the PoC.

Thank you MandM. Luckily – and thanks to CAG – I never got into a bad place, but I learned how bad it could get. It’s highly therapeutic kicking these b**tards.

Christ on a bike. Is this real? Someone has rather lost the plot...

1. Just keep a record of what he sends you and when. You can’t really do anything until 22 April.

2. I would await the outcome of this case and, when you win – which you must – ask the mortgage company to repay to you the monies it paid that were not owed, as judged by the court, on pain of you taking them to court. That would be simplest.

Past statute? Lowell or Link or some other leech would still chase that...!

Good news.

I think he got the fright of his life, and 45 minutes of lectures off the Judge. He was out of there like greased lightening after the hearing, I tell ya!

This is what happens when bullies come up against real authority, and people like you stand up to them. You’re very brave and resilient.

The cracks! They grow! They widen! Well done.

Get your costs together and in today – copy to defendant. Even in small claims, costs are possible if you can show unreasonable behaviour on their side, as mentioned in post #306 and others.

There is also the issue of whether they’ll turn up. Have they contacted you in any way?

Snap!

There’s plenty of legal precedence regarding costs on SCT. If a claimant or defendant ‘behaves unreasonably’, ie. protracts a case that is clearly unwinnable, then a judge can award costs. It’s a complex area, but since the demise of pro bono/success fee work, it’s more prevalent. I don’t think you will ever fall in to that category, fortunately – but they might.

Rule 27.14(2)(g) of the CPR is the key. Google “small claims track (SCT) costs order unreasonable behaviour” for some info.

Bear in mind, too, that judges have the power to allocate a claim to the fast track if they think it is complex and will need time and specialist expertise to resolve.

So at some point it may be worth writing to them to point this out, stating that you will apply for costs on these grounds if they insist on pushing on.

You are effectively applying to lift the stay and have the claim struck out as an abuse of process. Ask that if the strike out fails, you be allowed 28 days to enter a defence, and also request an order that the claimant provide the documentation you need to respond to the claim (which you need to specify).

Make sure your accompanying WS gives the appropriate background so the judge has a rounded view of the claims.

Keep it clear that it’s also the identical cause of action, ie. the PoC essentially, that causes the abuse of process, not just the claimant.

Even if this app fails, there will have to be a trial, so there’s nothing to lose.

A claim brought on the same facts is an abuse of process – the claimant is irrelevant.

The sticking point is whether a judge would allow it, though it should not be allowed.

I think there’s a clear case of abuse of process here. You can’t have two cases running at once on the same facts, even if the claimants are different.

The vulture debt collection companies that harvest the ‘penalties’ when charges aren’t paid is an even bigger scandal. Especially as they keep most of the penalties. As CAG well knows.

Did the judge actually strike out the case? Best to be sure. If so, as advised, you can start getting your ducks in a row.

After the incident mentioned above, HFO Services Ltd – whose shares were sold by the liquidator to its ultimate parent company, HFO Capital Ltd (Ireland) for just £6,000 – turned over £776,000, no doubt by selling on those accounts valued at peanuts. The director, Badri Nathan, pocketed £333,000.

See how it works yet?

I doubt the FCA would take an interest. They’re toothless. It’s the law that needs to be used. There’s clearly something very bad going on here.

Tell us more about your own case so we can help with that.

Given some of the issues have at one point been dealt with by the court, this sounds vexatious.

That’s useful in some ways. They have essentially denied all the points in your defence. So if they go to court and lose on one of those points, which you state you have repeatedly made clear to them – then ask the judge for costs on the grounds of their unreasonable behaviour, and failure at every stage to avoid using the courts.

Will look in properly when I can...

Thanks folks, useful. In my case, the MBNA refund was almost identical to the Barclaycard refund – but it should not have been. I ran double the balance with MBNA, so I would have expected a much greater refund.

I shall get writing – exhaust the MBNA route first, of course.

I also forgot to ask MBNA for refunds of excessive overlimiit charges (£25 vs £12), yet Barclaycard did it automatically. Weird.

Caggers – what’s the situation if you get a refund from MBNA, bank it, then realise you may have been short changed?

Thanks CB!