OK Sham Perhaps you might receive a copy of the order on the morrow or Saturday. Really need to see the directions therein because you are only obligated to comply with these directions. Might be prudent that until you receive your copy of the order, send the claimants’ sols a list of the documents that you intend to rely on for the September hearing of the application and request he confirms his agreement on the same and if he does not agree request that he states his reason(s) and post a copy of the authority file (including the Wilson case) to him. Your list of documents for the SJ hearing bundle should be in chronological order and include the following: Claimants’ particulars of claim ( always state the date of each document in your list) Your Defence Claimants’ reply to your Defence (if any) Claimants’ application notice for SJ Claimants’ 1st WS in support of SJ Your 1st WS in opposition of SJ Claimants’ 2nd WS evidence in reply Both of the credit agreements Copy of the default notice Copy of inter-party correspondence that is not marked “without prejudice”, (but only include these communications if they are relevant and further support your case against the SJ). Whether the claimant agrees or not with your proposed document list for the bundle, paginate your documents into a lever arch file (you will need 3 copies of the documents set out in the above list and so 3 files – one for you, one for the Court and one for Claimant) place a label on the front of each file and on the inside cover to state “claim no. xxxxxx for the hearing on 1 September 2014”. Make sure that you file and serve these pursuant to the order made by the Court (the one that you are awaiting service of). Godzilla Kind regards The Mould

Yes, sorry, can you pdf them please? Kind regards The Mould

Sham can you post up a copy of the Court order please. Thank you Godzilla Kind regards The Mould

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldjudgmt/jd090325/thorn-1.htm Dookist the above case is the leading authority on the doctrine of proprietary estoppel and the highest authority in England and Wales, you can rely on this judgment for your proprietary estoppel claim. The House of Lords has since been replaced by the Supreme Court, but the judgment in that case still remains as the highest authority. If you withdrew your claim then the matter has not been formally adjudicated on, it is not, therefore res judicata (as solicitors say in Latin) and so I believe that you can re-issue your claim through the Court process again without the need to obtain permission from the Court and without the need to seek permission to appeal. In this respect, you may be able to rely on the above as grounds to make an application (form N244) to the Court to stay the proceedings relating to the Final Charging Order pending the outcome of your proprietary estoppel claim on the land. Your husband must respond by witness statement to the Final Charging Order and request that it be allowed in those proceedings in his absence due to him not residing within the jurisdiction. Failing that, you will need the Courts’ permission to make representations on behalf of your husband; this will involve you making an application (form N244) for such in advance of that hearing, the sooner the better. Godzilla Kind regards The Mould

Back very briefly Can you please post up a copy of the Court order that they make reference to in their recent letter of today's date. Thank you. Catch up later on my dear fellow. Kind regards The Mould

With a barn full of carrots, so better off than being with the politicians. Kind regards The Mould

Just seen this Sham Have saved the doc and will peruse in a while then report back here thereon later this evening. Kind regards The Mould

Thank you Bun I am finally taking medicine that appears to be helping with my condition. Unfortunately, I have not had the full opportunity to peruse all of your case here and as of the date hereof I have only perused the same backwards from this last page to page 6. It is difficult to predict the Claimant’s next move in your case; however, his recent letter to you clearly shows that he is concerned as regards your allegations on the agreement so whether he is willing to take a risk and apply to lift the stay and proceed to trial is anybody’s guess. If and when he makes his next move, post here for further opinion/advice and support thereon. Godzilla Kind regards The Mould

OK Dookist, don’t worry about being new to this site or being new to civil procedure. As regards the hearing for the Final Charging Order in August, you could make an application (form N244) to the Court dealing with that and request that the Court stay those proceedings pending the outcome of your appeal against the judgment. The fee would be £55 without a hearing. And while you are waiting for the Court to make its decision on that application, both you and your partner should start preparing your witness statements in opposition of the Final Charging Order, so that you have them ready in plenty of time to file to the Court and serve a copy of the same on the Claimant (your opponent from the trial) in case the Court decides that it will not grant a stay in those proceedings. As regards the trial, did the trial judge refuse you permission to appeal his decision or is it the case that he dismissed your application to set aside your withdrawal from those proceedings? Come back on the above my dear fellow and we shall see what can be done to help you with this matter. Godzilla (this is a phrase I often say which in my world means all things good come from the heart that no man can make, Godzilla is a good thing then, bestowed upon you) Kind regards The Mould Will try and answer that Donkey after Dookist has replied to my recent post. CPR Pt 52 Appeals is the process. How is the swamp these days Donkey? Kind regards The Mould

Yes, disregard their request for you to respond. You have filed a Defence against the claim and you are not obligated to provide the Claimant with any explanation as regards your allegations on the agreement provided by him. Raise your allegations against the agreement at the trial in your submissions (set out in your skeleton argument). Kind regards The Mould

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1040.html YunezTeinaz v London Borough of Wandsworth [2002] EWCACiv 1040 is a key authority on adjournment at short notice on medical grounds where Lord Justice Peter Gibson and Lady Justice Arden said: LORD JUSTICE PETER GIBSON: [*]“Before I consider these points in turn, I would make some general observations on adjournments. Every tribunal or court has a discretion to grant an adjournment, and the exercise of such a discretion, going as it does to the management of a case, is one with which an appellate body is slow to interfere and can only interfere on limited grounds, as has repeatedly been recognised. But one recognised ground for interference is where the tribunal or court exercising the discretion takes into account some matter which it ought not to have taken into account: see, for example, Bastick v James Lane Ltd [1979] ICR 778 at 782 in the judgment of Arnold J giving the judgment of the EAT (approved as it was in Carter v Credit Change Ltd 1980 1 All E.R 252 at page 257 per Lord Justice Stephenson, with whom Cumming-Bruce and Bridge LJJ agreed). The appellate body, in concluding whether the exercise of discretion is thus vitiated, inevitably has to make a judgment on whether that matter should have been taken into account. That is not to usurp the function of the lower tribunal or court: that is a necessary part of the function of the reviewing body. Were it otherwise, no appellate body could find that a discretion was wrongly exercised through the tribunal or court taking into account a consideration which it should not have taken into account or, by the like token, through failing to take into account a matter which it should have taken into account. Although an adjournment is a discretionary matter, some adjournments must be granted if not to do so amounts to a denial of justice. Where the consequences of the refusal of an adjournment are severe, such as where it will lead to the dismissal of the proceedings, the tribunal or court must be particularly careful not to cause an injustice to the litigant seeking an adjournment. As was said by AtkinLJ in Maxwell v Keun [1928] 1 KB 645 at page 653 on adjournments in ordinary civil actions: "I quite agree the Court of Appeal ought to be very slow indeed to interfere with the discretion of the learned judge on such a question as an adjournment of a trial, and it very seldom does so; but, on the other hand, if it appears that the result of the order made below is to defeat the rights of the parties altogether, and to do that which the Court of Appeal is satisfied would be an injustice to one or other of the parties, then the Court has power to review such an order, and it is, to my mind, its duty to do so." [*]A litigant whose presence is needed for the fair trial of a case, but who is unable to be present through no fault of his own, will usually have to be granted an adjournment, however inconvenient it may be to the tribunal or court and to the other parties. That litigant's right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights demands nothing less. But the tribunal or court is entitled to be satisfied that the inability of the litigant to be present is genuine, and the onus is on the applicant for an adjournment to prove the need for such an adjournment. If there is some evidence that a litigant is unfit to attend, in particular if there is evidence that on medical grounds the litigant has been advised by a qualified person not to attend, but the tribunal or court has doubts as to whether the evidence is genuine or sufficient, the tribunal or court has a discretion whether or not to give a direction such as would enable the doubts to be resolved. Thus, one possibility is to direct that further evidence be provided promptly. Another is that the party seeking the adjournment should be invited to authorise the legal representatives for the other side to have access to the doctor giving the advice in question. The advocates on both sides can do their part in assisting the tribunal faced with such a problem to achieve a just result. I do not say that a tribunal or court necessarily makes any error of law in not taking such steps. All must depend on the particular circumstances of the case. I make these comments in recognition of the fact that applications for an adjournment on the basis of a medical certificate may present difficult problems requiring practical solutions if justice is to be achieved”. LADY JUSTICE ARDEN : “I agree with Peter Gibson LJ that applications for adjournment may raise difficult problems requiring practical solution. While any tribunal will naturally want to be satisfied as to the basis of any last minute application for an adjournment and will be anxious not to waste costs and scarce tribunal time or to cause inconvenience to the parties and their witnesses, it may be that in future cases like this a tribunal or advocates for either party could suggest the making of further enquiries and a very short adjournment for this purpose. I am not, of course, saying that that course would necessarily have assisted in this case, but it may be helpful to advocates and tribunals to bear this point in mind in a future case. No reference was made in argument to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which was incorporated into our domestic law with effect from 2nd October 2000, that is after the decision of the Employment Tribunal in this case. Article 6 guarantees to everyone in the determination of his civil rights and obligations the right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time. I do not think that Article 6 added anything to the argument in this case, but it does underscore the need to approach applications to adjourn on the grounds of applicant's health with great care. As the President put it in the Employment Appeal Tribunal in this case: "If the adjournment was improper then Article 6 would only strengthen the case for the merits decision arrived at in Dr Teinaz's absence being set aside." Kind regards The Mould For the record, DonkeyB does not have any personal contact details of mine and I do not have a pm facility. Kind regards The Mould

Watson old boy, so glad to hear that you are coming back out onto these moors. Catch up shortly then. Drive on Perkings and don't spur the horses Kind regards The Mould

Can you scan in and post up a full copy of the agreement on which the Claimant relies please, redact personal details. Check your own records/paperwork for the agreement to see if you have a default notice therein and if you do, scan that in also please. When you found yourself in financial difficulties did you communicate this to the original creditor and if yes, were any new or temporary agreements set up whereby you paid a reduced amount each month towards the debt and, again, if yes, did you honour any such new or temporary agreement but the original creditor sold (assigned) the agreement during this time? Kind regards The Mould

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/63.html&query=Mark+and+Levy+and+(Trustee+and+in+and+Bankruptcy+and+of+and+Ellis-Carr)+and+v+and+Ellis-Carr&method=boolean See the above case, in particular paragraphs 30 to 37 as regards adjournment at short notice on medical grounds. Further, see CPR Pt 39 r.39.3(3) as regards an application to set aside the judgment for costs on the grounds that, notwithstanding you being in attendance at the handing down of that judgment, the court was fully aware of your hearing inability and that the audio loop was not working at the trial and so you were deprived of your right to a fair trial because you were unreasonably denied a reasonable opportunity to put your case. The judge’s decision was plainly wrong and he should have granted your request to adjourn the matter, he erred in this respect and in doing so violated your right under Art.6.1 ECHR. Did you withdraw your proprietary estopple claim on the land at the trial solely because of your hearing impairment and the fact that the audio loop was not working at that time? Do you still have faith in your case? Can you scan in a copy of the Order in respect of the award for costs to your opponent please, minus all personal details? Adjourning hearings 3.1.3 In determining whether to grant an adjournment the court must have regard to the overriding objective. Therefore the court should deal with appellant's case in a manner which saves expense, is proportionate to the amount of money involved and allocates to it an appropriate share of the court's resources (Boyd & Hutchinson (A Firm) v Foenander [2003] EWCA Civ 1516; October 23, 2003, unrep., CA (court proceeding to hear appeal where appellant made late application for adjournment on basis that it would refuse an adjournment if it concluded that the appeal had no prospect of success, rather than simply putting the point off to a future occasion)). For an example of circumstances in which a trial judge's (1) refusal to grant a defendant an adjournment of a trial, with the result that the trial proceeded in their absence, and (2) their subsequent refusal to set aside that judgment under r.39.3(3), were upheld on appeal, see National Westminster Bank v Aaronson [2004] EWHC 618; March 9, 2004, unrep. (Royce J.) (neither decision exceeded the generous ambit within which a reasonable disagreement is possible). A refusal to adjourn a hearing pursuant to r.3.1(2)(b) was unsuccessfully challenged in Daisystar Ltd v Woolwich Plc March 16, 2000, unrep., CA. See also Lloyds Bank Plc v Dix 2000; October 26, 2000, unrep., CA (adjournment would have made no material difference to the outcome of the litigation in view of the weakness of the appellants' case). Where a litigant in person requests an adjournment on the ground of ill-health the court should be slow to refuse, provided that it is their first request and their case has some prospect of success: Fox v Graham Group Ltd The Times, August 3, 2001, Neuberger J.; as to the further proceedings in that case, see Fox v Graham Group Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1124. In Bowden v Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2012] EWCA Civ 245, liability had been admitted and trial on quantum was fixed to take place on January 12, 2012. On December 21, 2011 an order was made that the claimant's solicitors come off the record. On December 29, 2011 the claimant, acting as a litigant in person, issued an application to adjourn the trial to allow him to obtain fresh representation. The judge refused that application on January 4, 2012. The Court of Appeal held that the judge had failed to give adequate weight in the balancing of prejudice to the extremely difficult position that the claimant would be in if he had to represent himself. The overriding factor was the dilemma into which the claimant had been placed shortly before Christmas in circumstances which the judge expressly said were not his fault. Generally, no appeal from the decision of a court may be made without permission. Rule 52.3(2) states that, where an application for permission to appeal may or should be made to the lower court, it is to be made at the hearing at which the decision to be appealed against is made. Godzilla Kind regards The Mould

“So if an agreement cannot be enforced for failure by the creditor as to s. 86E(5) How will that effect registering a Default with the Credit Reference agencies after an 87(1) notice? If a Default notice has been issued on inacurrate level of the debt as levels as interest, charges etc have been incorporated into the total balance, in contravention of S.86E(5) and account terminated. Will that invalidate the 87(1) notice ?? It has been stated that the issue of a Default notice as to 87(1) is not enforcement, that may be true, but if that notice has been issued contrary to statutory provision 86E(5) Does that then invalidate the 87(1) notice” Capquest, I think you are slightly confused as regards the above and I shall try and explain those matters to you. Firstly, an agreement cannot be enforced by a creditor by operation of s.86E(5) on the grounds of his failure to satisfy s.86E(2); The above failure does not affect registering a default with credit reference agencies; Service of a default notice containing material which is not accurate does not constitute a contravention of s.86E or any of the sub-sections thereof; If the material set out in a default notice is not accurate then it will be invalid only by operation of either s.87 or s.88 of the CCA 1974 or both; What, exactly, are you trying to argue or achieve? Has a claim been issued against you, if yes, can you please provide the particulars of claim etc.etc? Kind regards The Mould

Non-compliance of s.86E(2) by a creditor will not invalidate the assignment of the agreement because s.86E(5) only provides that he shall not be entitled to enforce the agreement until the requisite notice is served on the debtor and the assignment of the agreement is subject only to the provisions of the Law of Property Act 1925. See relevant legislation below. However, because your agreement has been assigned and the assignee (the new owner) has commenced with proceedings to enforce the agreement, until the assignee complies with s.86E(2) of the CCA 1974, he is not entitled to enforce the agreement in contravention thereof by operation of s.86E(5) and that should form part of your Defence against his claim. See the Link v Jones case, as this provides you with an important and irrefutable point of law which you can rely upon as regards the circumstances of your case. The said case confirms that the claimant in your case, as the claimed assignee of the credit agreement, is a creditor within the meaning of s.189 CCA 1974 (as amended), therefore, he is under a statutory duty (s.86E(2) CCA 74 ) to serve a notice of default sum on you before he can become entitled to enforce the credit agreement. “86E Notice of default sums (1)This section applies where a default sum becomes payable under a regulated agreement by the debtor or hirer. (2)The creditor or owner shall, within the prescribed period after the default sum becomes payable, give the debtor or hirer a notice under this section. (3)The notice under this section may be incorporated in a statement or other notice which the creditor or owner gives the debtor or hirer in relation to the agreement by virtue of another provision of this Act. (4)The debtor or hirer shall have no liability to pay interest in connection with the default sum to the extent that the interest is calculated by reference to a period occurring before the 29th day after the day on which the debtor or hirer is given the notice under this section. (5)If the creditor or owner fails to give the debtor or hirer the notice under this section within the period mentioned in subsection (2), he shall not be entitled to enforce the agreement until the notice is given to the debtor or hirer. (6)The debtor or hirer shall have no liability to pay any sum in connection with the preparation or the giving to him of the notice under this section. (7)Regulations may— (a)provide that this section does not apply in relation to a default sum which is less than a prescribed amount; (b)make provision about the form and content of notices under this section. (8)This section does not apply in relation to a non-commercial agreement or to a small agreement.” Kind regards The Mould

Congratulations Zignafio, I hope that your wife and new-born child are in good health and doing fine. As regards any settlement with the Claimant, ensure that there is a clause therein which states the following: “This agreement is made between__________ ________ and ________________(put the names of the parties) in full and final settlement of_______________(put Claimant’s name) dated 19 June 2014 and made without any admission of liability thereto with the further conditions that______________ (put Claimant’s name) agrees to discontinue with his said claim and serve notice of such on______________________(put your name) within 21 days hereof and that the parties do bear their own costs in that matter”. If settlement terms cannot be agreed, then file your Defence against the claim in time otherwise the Claimant will be entitled to obtain default judgment against you. Kind regards The Mould

You now know of the angle that the Claimant is using as an argument against you Defence, however, you have an abundance of 1st class material to counter-argue against that and defeat his claim in its entirety. Use that 1st class material well and don't be afraid to use it. Kind regards The Mould

The new agreement supersedes the original agreement, and that original agreement and all subsequent terms and conditions thereof are extinguished for all time to come, including any rights thereunder of the 1st party to process and or disclose your personal information. Kind regards The Mould

Double dose there. Kind regards The Mould

Well that is a very basic WP letter and they are entitled to their opinion as regards the position the judge took against you at the recent SJ hearing. The Claimants’ SJ application is based on your Defence to his claim; however, as the Claimant learned at the SJ hearing, you filed a response to the same that meant he was unable to succeed on his SJ application. You did not ambush him at the SJ hearing, you simply filed an authority file containing the cases cited in your 1st witness statement and so both he and the Court were fully aware of these authorities in advance of the SJ hearing and that it was your intention to rely on the same therein. In my opinion, the judge was plainly wrong as regards his view of you and of your Defence and he had sufficient material before to make an informed decision on the Claimants’ SJ application, the fact that he did not and instead chose to belittle you and intimidate you and not raise any issue with the Claimants’ very late, on the day, submissions that he intends to rely on Rankine v American Express, is indeed a blessing in disguise for you because a judge with that type of disorder and non-interest in the proper administration of justice ought not to sit any case such as yours or indeed sit any type of case in any area of law. If I was in good health and faced with a case exactly the same as the circumstances of your case posted here, I would go all the way and Defend on the grounds of the agreement being improperly executed and therefore irredeemably unenforceable by operation of the provisions of statute, namely ss.61 & 127 (3) CCA 1974. Having had the benefit of the credit provided by the Claimant, regardless of the amount used, is irrelevant and of no importance in this matter whatsoever. The civil Courts are not there to deal with any issues of morality as regards good or bad behaviour; the civil Courts can only justly deal with any civil case by means of the relevant law applicable to that civil case. But that would be me and you must decide just what is the best course for you to take as it will be you in the Courtroom at the new hearing of the SJ, where, with God’s help, the judge will be learned on consumer law and fair to all parties and hand down his decision on this matter in accordance with the relevant law where he cannot find that your behaviour is bad simply because the 1974 Act provides you with unyielding protection from the Claimants’ claim. Godzilla Kind regards The Mould

Well that is a very basic WP letter and they are entitled to their opinion as regards the position the judge took against you at the recent SJ hearing. The Claimants’ SJ application is based on your Defence to his claim; however, as the Claimant learned at the SJ hearing, you filed a response to the same that meant he was unable to succeed on his SJ application. You did not ambush him at the SJ hearing, you simply filed an authority file containing the cases cited in your 1st witness statement and so both he and the Court were fully aware of these authorities in advance of the SJ hearing and that it was your intention to rely on the same therein. In my opinion, the judge was plainly wrong as regards his view of you and of your Defence and he had sufficient material before to make an informed decision on the Claimants’ SJ application, the fact that he did not and instead chose to belittle you and intimidate you and not raise any issue with the Claimants’ very late, on the day, submissions that he intends to rely on Rankine v American Express, is indeed a blessing in disguise for you because a judge with that type of disorder and non-interest in the proper administration of justice ought not to sit any case such as yours or indeed sit any type of case in any area of law. If I was in good health and faced with a case exactly the same as the circumstances of your case posted here, I would go all the way and Defend on the grounds of the agreement being improperly executed and therefore irredeemably unenforceable by operation of the provisions of statute, namely ss.61 & 127 (3) CCA 1974. Having had the benefit of the credit provided by the Claimant, regardless of the amount used, is irrelevant and of no importance in this matter whatsoever. The civil Courts are not there to deal with any issues of morality as regards good or bad behaviour; the civil Courts can only justly deal with any civil case by means of the relevant law applicable to that civil case. But that would be me and you must decide just what is the best course for you to take as it will be you in the Courtroom at the new hearing of the SJ, where, with God’s help, the judge will be learned on consumer law and fair to all parties and hand down his decision on this matter in accordance with the relevant law where he cannot find that your behaviour is bad simply because the 1974 Act provides you with unyielding protection from the Claimants’ claim. Godzilla Kind regards The Mould

Thank you Sham Will post again soon. Kind regards The Mould

Are you able to post up the Claimants’ WP save as to costs letter minus all personal details Sham? Kind regards The Mould

The Claimants’ case against you is that your Defence is a bare denial and that you have had the benefit of the credit provided. Of course you have had the benefit of the credit provided, this is not in issue in this case, and the only issue is this: is the agreement relied on by the Claimant a properly executed one or is it an improperly executed one. You have legislation of s.61 CCA 1974 and two House of Lords authorities in favour of your case against the claim which all prove that the agreement is improperly executed and therefore irredeemably unenforceable. The Claimant has no argument against the same. It’s your decision Sham; you do whatever you feel is right and best for you and your family. We will all still support you in whatever you decide to do in this matter. What track is the claim on and how much is the Claimant claiming? Kind regards The Mould