Dolly v Redstone Mortgages (ERC Charge)*Closed*

[zootscoot]

If it was interest payable for terminating early its likely to be a penalty. It might be worth amending your claim to add this...although this would make it fast track.

 

All the best

 

Zoot

[dolly]

Had a letter from the solicitors today, basically saying that they will ask for it to be transferred to a court suitable for their client...that their client has taken advice from a leading barrister and that we WILL lose the case should we proceed, and that we will be liable for their costs which will be substantial.

 

Oh, but if we want to drop the case, as a gesture of goodwill they will give us our £120 court fees back!

 

Yeah right!!!

[paulpb123]

Yeah right! So that's it then Dolly! LOL

[dolly]

Edited: I am no longer posting on this thread.

[martin's little pupil]

Edited: I am no longer posting on this thread.

 

Why? where is it going to?

[dolly]

AQ filed - not adding any 'details' as I am definitely being watched.

[dolly]

Update:

 

Well, I have decided, stuff them. If they want to read what I put on here they can be my guest.

 

Received notice of Allocation Hearing this morning, to be held on 27/03/07.

 

Reasons:

 

1. Defendant says MULTI-TRACK because of complex matters of claim

2. Disclosure of advice to claimants by financial advisor at the time of redemption

3. Where the contract was made

4. Defendant asks for transfer to LONDON.

 

The first point is ludicrous - the claim is for £3k including costs and interest. 2 and 3 I have no idea about. The fourth, I knew would happen as they are trying to make it as difficult as possible - I live in Lancashire and the Solicitors in Newcastle....why London then???!!!!

[zootscoot]

Hi Dolly,

 

They're still playing silly beggars then!

 

27.03.07 before you even get an allocatiion hearing! Thats really dragging things out. Have a look through these threads to see some arguments to raise.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions/7223-sandy-gmac-rfc.html

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgage-companies/9207-reclaiming-abbey-mortgage-early.html

 

In fact it might even be worth writing to the court at this time objecting to this. Under the overriding objectives the court is required to deal with cases expeditiously and fairly. The dragging this out for so long for a claim of 3k is hardly justified.

 

Best of luck

 

Zoot

[paulpb123]

Dolly,

This seems to be their latest trick. My case has been transferred to Bradford. Shows how desperate they are. Surely this is an abuse of the court system. Have you had a look at the Citi forum? Very interesting. It seems they are trying to get everyone's cases transferred to Salford. Onwards and upwards Dolly. Oh, and a happy Xmas and a VERY prosperous new year! Best regards,

Paul

[gizmo111]

have you requested it is returned to your local court?

[dolly]

I only got the paperwork this morning. The AQ hearing is at my local court anyway before a 'final decision about allocation can be made'.

[dolly]

Requested copy of Redstones AQ and got it this morning....very brief to say the least:

 

A: They have requested a stay for a month to try and reach settlement.

 

B: Location of Hearing - want to be changed from Blackburn CC as :

 

The defendant intends to call one of its directors to attend as a witness and it is more convienient for him to attend a county court local to his office in Moorgate, London.

c: Track - they want it allocated to Multi Track instead of small claims as:

 

...the case involves some complex matters of law and could be regarded as a test case for the lending industry and could, as a consequence, save the courts valuable time if a ruling coud be made on the issue. Allocation to the Multi-Track, notwithstanding the relatively small amount involved, would be proportionate in the defendant's view.

 

G: Other Information : (and this is all of it)

 

The defendant would like to know who advised the claimants to remortgage to their current lender in March 2005 and incur the early repayment charge claimed from the defendant. Given the claimants remortgage took place some 18mths ago, their financial advisor would have been required under the FSA's mortgage conduct of business rules to advise the claimants as to the costs or repaying the defendants mortgage early.

 

Love that last bit - completely avoids the whole issue!!!

 

Going to draft a letter to the court as the AQ hearing is not for another 3mths almost.

[dolly]

Just a quickie - they asked for a stay for a month to attempt settlement but apart from the 'we'll give you £120 fees back if you close the case' there have been no further discussions. Anyone know where I can find a well-worded response to send to both the court and the solicitors?

[dolly]

I am thinking of giving up.

 

Very worried it will be allocated multi-track and I will lose.

 

Sent an email to the (very nice, actually) solicitor regarding the fact that they had asked for a month to try and settle and got this:

 

The allocation questionnaire we submitted indicated that we would try to resolve the matter with you by informal discussion or ADR. We have made the offer to refund the Court fees together with a referral to the Financial Ombudsman (the means of ADR required to be used by our client) in our letter of 24 November 2006 ( a copy of which was sent to the Court) but you appear to have rejected this approach. I would suggest, in the light of the potential costs implications if my client's application to go down the multi-track is successful, that you give this approach further serious consideration. For the avoidance of doubt, this is the extent of our client's offer to mediate this matter out of Court.

[paulpb123]

Don't give up Dolly - that's just what they want. I'm certainly no legal expert but their reasons for requesting multi-track seem ludicrous, just like their reasons for requesting transfer to London (you can bet if you lived in London they'd want it transferred to Lancashire). This is not a complex matter at all and your claim is only for 3K. Also, their efforts at negotiating a settlement have been absurd so far - offering you your court fees back and asking you to drop the case? This clearly demonstrates that they are not serious about negotiating - they are just employing delaying and intimidatory tactics. At least wait and see what happens at the allocation hearing. I know its all very frustrating but it will be worth it when you get your money back. Hang in there Dolly - its gonna be alright.

[ellielou]

Don't give up Dolly - everyone here is supporting you & they won't get it on multi track anyway.

 

If you give in now they've won - stick with it kid, we're all with you.

 

;-)

[Charbydis]

I agree with ellielou, I had the same response from Platform. Their solicitors asked for multi-track for exactly the same reasons i.e. the case is complex. I responded saying Oh no it isn't and asked for allocation to small claims track. Probably their next tactic will be to apply for the claim to be struck out.

You will panic, I did but then when you have calmed down remember if they had a case they would have made it by now! They want you to panic and give up.

Don't do it, you are not alone.

[sammyjammy]

Dolly, please don't give up, thats why they are making things so difficult so that people give up, don't let them win. When I returned home after Christmas I received a copy of IGroups allocation questionnaire, they also requested multi track for the same reasons as yours have said, they sugested their evidence would take 2.5 days to give, they also said complex law involved blah blah. I wrote a letter (if you want a copy just PM me) to the court and received a letter from the court this morning stating the court date and confirming it will stay in small claims track and the case shall last no longer than 2 hours!!! They are obviously wise to the bad practices going on

 

 

I'm actually quite excited now, we will all give you any support you need and I'm sure we can come up with a court buddy for you if it comes to it. In the AQ Eversheds also requested there be a hearing to discuss the track suitability, obviously to intimidate me but court ignored this and made the decision without a hearing!

[dolly]

Thank you all - I think I was having a bad day yesterday. My husband is away in China this week and I am almost at the end of having radiotherapy and I feel absolutely shattered. The kids have been hard work and because my mum is also recovering from a major op I don't have any real backup so am having to do everything. I am usually so full of optimism but yesterday I felt so down and very much 'I wish I had never bothered'. I'll pick myself up, give myself a virtual slap and get on with it!

 

Still got TSB to do as well but was hoping to get this one out of the way before making a start on that one but this looks to be a very long, drawn out process.

 

sammyjammy - I would really appreciate seeing the letter you wrote....one less thing for my befuddled brain to have to do!

[sammyjammy]

Dolly, I've posted it below, its based on Zoots recommendations and other posts on the forum.

 

Sam

 

"Dear Judge *****,

 

I have received a copy of the Allocation Questionnaire from the defendants (Igroup) solicitor requesting that this case be heard via the multi-track route. I would like to take the opportunity to dispute this requests on the grounds set out below:

 

1 This is a consumer dispute and should be allocated to small claims which is designed particularly for consumers.

 

2 I filed the claim believing it would be dealt with in small claims and did not anticipate the costs involved with multi-track.

 

3 My claim at £1928.64 plus interest and costs is well below the small claims £5000 limit.

 

4 Under the overriding objectives of the Civil Procedure rules there is an obligation on the court to ensure parties are placed on an equal footing. As the defendant is a huge financial institution it would be unfair to place this in fast track or multi-track as they would have the advantage in being able to bear the risk of costs whereas I do not, neither do I have access to specialist legal teams.

 

5 The points of law relied upon are well established and settled law with no complex issues of interpretation. Thus there is no need for it to go to a higher court.

 

6 Despite communication with the defendant they have failed to respond satisfactorily to my request for a breakdown of their costs in order to satisfy me that the charges incurred are lawful.

 

I trust that the points I have made might be taken into account on making your decision."

[sunnyjools]

Hi Dolly remember me we took on Nationwide almost at the same time,I have been reading your thread with interest and just wanted to give you my support,dont give up you have got this far.

 

As soon as I have all my info from Nationwide regarding my previous mortgage I will be starting action as well.

 

Jools

[zootscoot]

Hiya Dolly,

 

So sorry to hear of your recent plight. The last thing you need is to have Redstone playing silly beggars. I seem to have neglected your thread as of late not sure how I managed to miss your posts but sorry.

 

I know bankfodder did an excellent letter regarding opposing the transfer of the case defendant's local court. I'll see if I can locate it for you.

 

Take care

 

Zoot

[Dangermouse]

Keep your chin up Dolly, we are all behind you on this one...you are going to get through it ok. Bad day? I just paid an erc of £18k today, now I am out of their clutches let me at them!!!!

 

Dangermouse

[zootscoot]

Hi Dolly,

 

Here are the relevant parts from a letter written by bankfodder in response to request for the case to be transferred to the defendant's local court:

 

I refer to the defendants allocation questionnaire of which I received a copy form the court October 25, in which the defendant has made a request for the hearing of this case to be moved to Salford County Court.

I wish to object to the application for transfer on the following grounds.

 

1.The defendant’s application was made without notice to myself and I have not been given the opportunity to make representations.

 

2.I am an individual of limited means. I am a litigant in person and I am suing the defendant on my own account.

 

3.The defendant is a multi national company with access to huge financial resources whilst my finances are strictly limited.

 

4.Although the place of trial is at the discretion of the Court the normal and established practice is for the claims in which one of the parties is an individual, be transferred to that individual’s home court. In this case my home court is Bristol County Court.

 

 

 

All the best

 

Zoot

[dolly]

Letter sent to court this morning incorporating the above - thanks to you all

xx