Defaults Including Charges And Interest Settled, Rbs And Equifax Refusing To Remove Info

[car2403]

It'll take them up to 5 working days to process the paperwork, so ringing Monday morning will be the best bet as they will refer your query to the Judge with the file along with the Defence.

[Hadituptohere]

Thank Chris

 

just been reading in the RBS part of the forum and this defence sounds like cobbetts standard defence against bank charges ever so slightly amended.... Its quite a joke really and there clutching at straws.....

 

Hadituptohere

[Hadituptohere]

Right been on to the court and asked the questions raised, they havent placed an application form or fee just presented what id received to the court.

I asked for the court to issue an order confirming the details and was told this would cost me a fee, I was advised to put the rest of the details in the allocation questonaire that will be sent to me within 7 days.

 

Hadituptohere

[car2403]

So, the Court hasn't accepted the Defence as an Application, but they want you to make a payment for an order saying so? What a joke these Courts are! Having said that, I bet that was a Court Clerk, who probably can't make that decision anyway.

 

Personally, I would ride this one out all the way. Should they continue to defend on this basis, they will lose in Court - it isn't your job to point out the failings in the Defence. That will become evident in the final hearing, should you get that far.

 

When you return your AQ to the Court, don't forget to send a copy to the other side. You can also include a without prejudice, save as to costs and subject to contract settlement offer at the same time.

[Hadituptohere]

No the court clerk (you are right, there not legaly qualified.....I was told) told me they had to accept the defence and that I had mis read the defence and that RBS was only saying that at a later date they may consider arequesting a strike out.

 

I will send whatever with the AQ, would appreciate some help with the without prejudice, save as to costs and subject to contract settlement.

 

Hadituptohere

[car2403]

I think a (legally qualified, but old and frail nonetheless) Judge will look at it differently if RBS decide to do that.

[Hadituptohere]

Haven't received anything as yet been in touch with the court and asked if I was to receive an AQ, was told probably....

 

Hadituptohere

[Hadituptohere]

received my AQ N149 today in the post.

 

 

'When you return your AQ to the Court, don't forget to send a copy to the other side. You can also include a without prejudice, save as to costs and subject to contract settlement offer at the same time.'

 

I guess this is along the same lines that RBS sent me prior to submitting their defence????

 

Hadituptohere

[car2403]

received my AQ N149 today in the post.

 

 

'When you return your AQ to the Court, don't forget to send a copy to the other side. You can also include a without prejudice, save as to costs and subject to contract settlement offer at the same time.'

 

I guess this is along the same lines that RBS sent me prior to submitting their defence????

 

Hadituptohere

 

Probably, yes.

[Hadituptohere]

Would you advise completing the AQ Chris or put something in writing to the courts and awaiting their reply as you pointed out in post 68?

 

Hadituptohere

[car2403]

my concern would be that the Court hasn't "seen" the defence yet - until it's shoved under a Judges nose, it won't be properly considered, as I mentioned in that post.

 

It might just be a call to the Court, probably speaking with the Court Manager to point out you need directions to move forward.

 

Having said that, the AQ directions would still stand. In fact, (I'm thinking while typing here!) the AQ submission wouldn't change even if the defence was taken as an app to strikeout.

 

I think the best way to go is to complete the AQ and just wait to see what happens next. If the Bank really think they can (and are applying for) get a strikeout, it would be up to them to point out the Courts error. I have a feeling this will follow the normal course of procedure and the rep from the other side (if you ever get there) will point all this out at trial and get a slap in the face (verbally!) from the Judge when they do.

[Hadituptohere]

Thanks once again

 

Hadituptohere

[Hadituptohere]

Would you advise sending a disclosure statement or anything under other information?

Thanks

 

Hadituptohere

[Hadituptohere]

Received from the defendants a copy of their AQ they have completed, I note it is an N150 yet I was sent a N149, is this right?

 

In the n150 Cobbletts claim they have complyed with pre-action protocol, they have gone small claims and estimated 4 hours for the hearing??? they have also completed costs incurred to date (1000.00)and their estimate(2500.00) and in their other information they have requested the claimants cliam to be struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2) (a) and 24.2 (a) (i) and (b)

 

is this right again, as Car has pointed out earlier arent they abusing the court protocol here????

 

Hadituptohere

[car2403]

Received from the defendants a copy of their AQ they have completed, I note it is an N150 yet I was sent a N149, is this right?

 

In the n150 Cobbletts claim they have complyed with pre-action protocol, they have gone small claims and estimated 4 hours for the hearing??? they have also completed costs incurred to date (1000.00)and their estimate(2500.00) and in their other information they have requested the claimants cliam to be struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2) (a) and 24.2 (a) (i) and (b)

 

is this right again, as Car has pointed out earlier arent they abusing the court protocol here????

 

Hadituptohere

 

The N150 is for larger claims, over £5k and on fast/multi track. The N149 is for small claims and under £5k. Seems they've used the wrong form.

 

Anyhoo, what's the basis on asking for a strike out and summary judgment? That's all wrong anyway, as it should have been on an N244 and not in an AQ - another attempt to confuse the Court, me thinks? They can't seek a strike out / summary judgment without applying for it!

 

The good news is they are saying small claims track - 4 hours is probably right if it stays SCT. :-|

 

I think I've run out of "smilies" that describe my utter confusion with what they are trying to achieve here...

 

:confused:

[Hadituptohere]

Is it worth pointing out the lack of relevence of their defence and highlight their wrongdoing on my N149 under other information:

'as it should have been on an N244 and not in an AQ - another attempt to confuse the Court'

Or should I just go ahead and put nothing under 'other information'

 

Im really really confused.....

 

Hadituptohere

[car2403]

Not at this stage - the AQ is only in relation to Allocation of the claim. From what I've seen, this will end on the Small Claims Track anyway. If that is the case, makine applications left, right and centre, (if, say, you wanted to query their defence) will only slow the process down.

 

If they are really serious about striking out, they will have to make a formal application on notice to you.

 

Any of the issues you've mentioned can be highlighted in your submissions, as you'll need a witness statement to be completed as per the Court order you'll get once the Court has allocated to track.

[Hadituptohere]

Thanks for clearing that up (again) lol

[Hadituptohere]

Sent my AQ149 to the court and a copy to the defendant's solicitor along with my without predjudice save as to costs and here is their reply....

 

 

You just cant credit it, an obligation under the banking code and a general obligation to the OFT, what about my rights under The Data Protection Act??? As if im going to take 50.00 less than the first offer to settle...dohhh

 

Hadituptohere

[car2403]

HIUTH,

 

I've sent you a PM

[Hadituptohere]

Sent out in todays post......Got to be worth a try, im struggling to let go with this one as i have proof that the rbs group have removed defaults in the past, they cant produce a contract or the legal documentation leading to the defaults being entered in the first place and the fact that if I knew then what I know now I would have fought the whole default issue back then.

 

 

Hadituptohere

[Hadituptohere]

Right guys, had a few days away at sunny Great Yarmouth with my wife and two kids, feel total relaxed and refreshed, in the post when I got back.... An offer from the Court for their free mediation service or alternatively the case has been allocated to the Small Claims Court on the 13th July 2009 and should take no longer than 2 hours 30 mins. along with this.......

 

do I read this right? that the judge is asking what Law the defendant will be relying on for their case?????

 

Hadituptohere

[car2403]

Although the wording is slightly different to the ones I've seen, these are pretty much standard directions for the small claims track.

[Hadituptohere]

No worries, I had looked at my Barclays allocation and the only difference was: 'The defendant must no later than 14 days before the trial file with the court and serve upon the claimant a skeleton argument setting out its submission in Law'

 

thats why I asked..

 

Thanks

 

Hadituptohere

[car2403]

I can see what you mean, but a defence needs a basis in law anyway, so I don't really see why they've moved away from standard directions for SCT under CPR, then.

 

It is slightly bizarre...