Post up the judgement again (minus the bit where you are identified) From what I saw it wasn’t “I did not win my counterclaim to the value of £16k , but win for £1,300 while the claimant won for £1,129.”, but instead “the claimant won for £2,429 odd, and then your £1300 judgement was deducted, leaving £1,129” so, if I’m correct your post is partial information / misleading, and the overall judgement against you is why you are then on the hook for 6k odds costs, as, overall, you lost, and lost in a case you made it be heard in the fast-track. Just to check, are you posting for you? Or posting on behalf of someone else?. That would have impact on how much credence we can put on the info you are giving.

Pattern of failed litigation (including where you SAY your legal advisors were at fault), but, with hindsight : perhaps you gave them limited / wrong / contradictory info, or didn’t adequately engage with them (certainly seen on this thread) Pattern of info provided by you that seems contradictory, and you haven’t explained why. So, pretty relevant. You could, of course, have just cleared things up by answering re: your marriage / marriages / both of your husband and wife (& being married to both at the same time!), but instead you choose to deflect, (pretty much in keeping with your posting history So, again: Pretty relevant!) Which leaves me wondering: A) At best you look like you and clearing up queries struggle to co-exist. B) Next best : you have a very interesting life C) next on : bigamy isn’t an issue for you D) next on: you aren’t able or aren’t capable of posting accurately, so little discrepancies (like cases being struck out or not mentioning the strike out having been set aside) creep in. Husband / Wife? Who cares about the small stuff. Sadly, though, tie that in with a year’s worth of ignoring people saying “and you are going to have to prove your claim is worth £17k” : and it lands you with a 7k CCJ E) wind-up merchant I’m not sure which it is, but even then ; I’m not sure which is worse!

What an interesting life Simeon leads. Looking at their posting history, their history of litigation seems not to be a happy one, beset with woes caused by incompetent legal advice : barrister (personal injury claim) and solicitor (builder claim) (so, for 2 separate cases), and multiple losses in court, the judgment order (hidden now, as it showed their name), adressing them as "Mr.". At https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/365449-decree-nisi/#comment-4384623 in July 2014 Simeon noted "My husband was the petitioner in our divorce case. The decree nisi was issued over 2years ago", yet at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/433555-legal-clarification/#comment-5103749 in April 2021 Simeon noted "My wife has been talking about divorcing me for many years. Our marriage is 27years old." So, you were married to your wife from 1994 to (at least 2021, 27 years minimum), and married to your husband from 2012 or earlier, to at least 2014. How so?, (since these dates overlap): did they undergo gender reassignment and are they one and the same person?. I could understand someone making a mistake in a post, but mistaking a wife for a husband, or vice versa, seems unusual.

So, you knew the hearing was taking place. you just also knew that there was the chance it might get postponed. There is a world of difference between that and “I did not know the hearing was even taking place.“ There is a world of difference between “claimant’s claim was struck out” and not. There was a world of difference between claiming 17k odd and being granted £1300 (& people were asking you to justify the value of your claim from the outset!). So, now you owe £7k odd. if you don’t pay it (or find some reason why you don’t have to pay, and you should be VERY wary of further court action, if you would deal with it in the same manner we’ve seen so far!) it’ll go onto the register as a CCJ. Expensive lessons, and I don’t think you can blame CAG when the blame lies with you repeatedly not being able to tell apart things where there is a “world of difference”.

2 (expensive) mistakes then!. a) not telling us the strike out was no longer in effect, making you potentially liable for costs, together with b) claiming for more than 10k (and you never really made it clear why anyone other than you thought you were owed more thna 10k!), leading to the claim being in the fast-track, not the small claims track where you wouldn't have been hammered for costs, costs beign strictly limited in the small claims track. As for "Was a total confused day as I did not know the hearing was even taking place" : how come you told us in advance the hearing was taking place and you are now saying you didn't know it was taking place. The two seem mutually exclusive!

Are you the litigant in person and you have to pay £7648.19? Or were you represented by counsel (which you didn't mention up until now!) and are owed £7648.19? if you are owed £7648 - you didn't tell us you had a barrister! If you owe £7648, how come the other side still had a claim? you told us it was struck out ....... as ever, you aren't making things clear.

You describe why you have had an awful time in terms of what went wrong to your family. However, you haven't said how / why your house got repossessed. Sadly, if you have suffered from mental health issues you kmght get some latitude, but your mortgage still need to be paid .... So, what happened in terms of the repossession, and what they said they'd do regarding your contents / possessions?. You cant expect them to put off repossession forever if you weren't paying (were you?), nor store your contents indefinitely, free of charge. The site will need the details in order to advise you.

Excuse my ignorance of detail of law regarding mortgages, but I don’t know why the Ombudsman is wrong. Since they’ve set out their reasoning (as to why MCOB and not CCA applies), on what basis is this wrong?, and since it is a provisional reply, can you point this out to the Ombudsman? If you do go to court the mortgage company may highlight the Ombudsman’s reply over this, so you are going to have to be able to show why this approach is incorrect to either or both of the Ombudsman and the court.

If she was paying £2000 for insurance, was she then insured? Or, had she stopped paying it?.

Are you aiming for: a) no ban at all?, but the points remain, or b) a ban (and wiping of those points) but getting it reduced below the 6 months that is mandated unless there is “exceptional hardship”. How will you answer if asked “did you know you were on 10 points, and faced a ban if you got a further 2 or more points?”

I don’t disagree. However, from their previous postings / behaviour: I can’t say I’m surprised (sadly).

Write, asking for their final response, or a ‘deadlock letter’ at the earliest of: a) a final response, b) a deadlock letter, or c) 8 weeks from asking for a) or b), you can escalate to the Ombudsman, even if you haven’t received a) or b) https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/docs/2020/10/euk_ose_8_week_and_deadlock_letter_guidance_-_feb_2020_update.pdf

Small claims track likely : doubt you’ll be able to make them hand over maintenance logs.

You need to fill out the 'sticky' : they may have failed to comply with the conditions to create 'keeper liability'. Have you identified the driver at any point, or just responded as the RK ?

They may well agree that they wish such serious cases got heard sooner. However, that doesn’t provide you with a defence provided the first NIP was within time, and the court received the request to summons you with the statutory period (6 months in E&W, 1 year in Scotland). Brave of you though to stress how serious the offence is, at the same time as pleading not guilty. If they then find you guilty it’s almost like saying “yup, fine me towards the top end of the sentencing guidelines, because I’ve reminded you how serious the offence is”!

You are 100% entitled to plead not guilty and introduce those arguments. are the 5-6 people going to appear as experts for you? (Is it 5 or 6? If you can’t count the difference don’t let on to the magistrates, as they might decide it makes it more likely you are also wrong over the weight if you have dyscalculia) The bench are entitled to agree or disagree with those arguments. Let the site know how you get on.

At least 2 months from receiving a correctly completed S21 notice to quit. Even then, if you choose to stay past that date he can’t evict you (at least, not lawfully!) without a court order if you want to stay. Then again, from what you describe, how long do you want to stay?

How often is your rent due? bear in mind he needs to formally serve you notice (under a S.8 or S.21 notice), and even then can only evict you with a court order (if you choose not to leave). Did you pay a deposit, and if so has it been protected in a Tenancy Deposit Protection scheme (TDP)?

I can’t tell how heavy the load is by looking at it (then again, I’m not an HGV driver either) your options are get it weighed as it is loaded, or check at a weighbridge….. What is preventing the load shifting? are the prosecuting you for overweight, the load / vehicle posing a risk of injury to others, or both?

Shoppers have an implied permission to enter shopping centres during their hours of opening. That permission can be revoked (as it has in your case). It can be revoked for whatever reason the land owner chooses, though it seems entirely reasonable to withdraw permission for shoplifters. It may affect you adversely, and you may have to come up with reasons why to tell your friends ("Security there were just so rude to me for no reason, they don't deserve my custom!, I wont go in on principle!" ?). However, it is a consequence of your own actions, so you may just have to 'suck it up'. If you go in with friends while banned, security may approach you and ask you to leave ... surely that'd be even more embarrassing?.

Always send a letter before action. if it does reach court it shows how you tried to resolve it without court.

“Dr X said the opposite, though, Dr Y. Perhaps you’d like to discuss it between you and come to a consensus, then you both can advise me on the risks / benefits of both approaches?” Posing it as a question, and as a risk/benefit equation can make it less confrontational and avoid risk of bruising their ego!

Though you both realised when you got home …. So might have realised the previous night, too. Sounds like a definite (& severe) penicillin allergy, unlike dx’s neighbour. Having previously asked an expert about a similar situation, I suspect they shouldn’t (wouldn’t?) even risk “relatives of the penicillins” for such a severe allergy, with one exception…… if someone had inadvertently prescribed one of those “relative” antibiotics AND “got away with it by luck” AND this was since OH’s allergy : they’d know they were safe for your OH. I’d had this explained to me as “this is because about 10% of people with penicillin allergy will also be allergic to antibiotics in those groups related to penicillin : I’d not take the 10% chance of killing someone if we don’t know, but if someone else already risked it, and as a result we know they are in the 90% who are safe, we can rely on that info!” Apparently this is important for some severe infections where the penicillins / “relatives of the penicillins” are the most effective choices, so they don’t have to use the less effective alternatives. Hence (above) “what matters is what happened with the penicillin allergy, when, and also what classes of antibiotic they’ve safely had since.” Mind you, if OH was tested for penicillin allergy : did they comment on / test for “allergy to those relatives of penicillins” too (I can go look up the name of those classes of antibiotics related to penicillins if you need)

USA data, but about 10% of the population states they are allergic to penicillin, but only 1 in 10 of that 1 in 10 (so 1 in 100 or 1%) actually are. https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/why-should-i-be-evaluated-for-a-penicillin-allergy/ Testing for penicillin allergy is available in the U.K. but is much less commonly done, though the “1 in ten, of 1 in ten” is similar https://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3402