Robinson Way lifting a stay on a County Court claim made in July 2009 - Happy Christmas!!

[Bev250264]

Check with your local court this afternoon in case an 11th hour application has been filed by the other side.

 

Blimey I hope not!

[Mike_hawk]

If there was no direction regarding the skel then it could be served in the waiting area with a copy available for the judge. The only issue I can see is if you include facts which weren't previously agreed (or evidenced within the bundle) it could claim that it is prejudiced and push for an adjournment to consider its response.

 

Would you be able to email it a copy by close of business today..... assuming it agrees on email service?

[Bev250264]

There isn't anything in it that isn't in the bundle. I will email a copy over to him and take a copy on Monday. They haven't sent us one.

[Mike_hawk]

There isn't anything in it that isn't in the bundle. I will email a copy over to him and take a copy on Monday. They haven't sent us one.

 

It will probably slide you a copy across the table at the same time the judge see's his, it's usual.......... if he does, take a few minutes to read through it (the judge will, so use the time wisely). If you can see anything new and you suspect it's being presented in an attempt to ambush you let the judge know before he ploughs on.

[prosser]

Bev and Mike I really think the idea is to force home the fact that the debt is now with hoist and not even Robinson way and company limited or Robinson way limited (this will really upset the apple cart). You need to get this further point across . Remember all debts were assigned to hoist (another totally new claimant from a different country and a different name not similar to Robinson way etc). Get DWF to confirm in an email whether the debt has now been assigned to Hoist and ask if they have sent a NOA. This will throw a spanner in the works.

[Bev250264]

But I'm not sure mine has been passed over to Hoist. I've had nothing to tell me so.

[Bev250264]

It will probably slide you a copy across the table at the same time the judge see's his, it's usual.......... if he does, take a few minutes to read through it (the judge will, so use the time wisely). If you can see anything new and you suspect it's being presented in an attempt to ambush you let the judge know before he ploughs on.

 

OK I will do.

[prosser]

But I'm not sure mine has been passed over to Hoist. I've had nothing to tell me so.

 

Bev it has they all have but they didn't bother letting anyone know on old historic accounts email dwf

[Mike_hawk]

Hi Prosser

 

I'm really not sure of the relevance in Bev's case.

 

RW has retained it's identity and still performs as a licensed Ltd co, Hoist became the group holding co with RW a distinct entity within the group.

 

Unless it pleads otherwise [as in your case] Bev can only answer the case as presented and evidenced.

[prosser]

Hi Prosser

 

I'm really not sure of the relevance in Bev's case.

 

RW has retained it's identity and still performs as a licensed Ltd co, Hoist became the group holding co with RW a distinct entity within the group.

 

Unless it pleads otherwise [as in your case] Bev can only answer the case as presented and evidenced.

 

Letters were sent out to all debtors/account holders stating that the debt had been assigned to hoist. Hoist should now be the claimants as the have assigned and liability has passed. DWF and RW have forgot to mention this and did not send out letters on historic accounts.

 

Just a quick email to dwf and rw and see what they say, I guarantee you the correct claimants are now hoist!!!!!!!

[Bev250264]

The name was amended as part of a bulk application on 15th November 2009. As such I am not able to provide you with a copy of the application or order in this matter, as the court’s files are destroyed after 2 years.

 

I can confirm that our usual procedure before allowing a bulk amendment to cases would be that an application would need to be made and approved by a deputy district judge.

 

reply from CCBC

[Bev250264]

Letters were sent out to all debtors/account holders stating that the debt had been assigned to hoist. Hoist should now be the claimants as the have assigned and liability has passed. DWF and RW have forgot to mention this and did not send out letters on historic accounts.

 

Just a quick email to dwf and rw and see what they say, I guarantee you the correct claimants are now hoist!!!!!!!

 

I'm not disputing this prosser but the NoA you posted re Hoist says 'selected claimants'. If mine had been one of those 'selected claimants' assigned to Hoist surely they wouldn't be stupid enough not to have sent me a NoA given that we're in court on Monday would they?

[DonkeyB]

That’s vague.

[Mike_hawk]

reply from CCBC

 

 

Press him a little more, he should be able to access the customer account data........ ask if he has any historical data identifying whether an application was filed or whether he is making a broad assumption based on his interpretation of the rule.

 

He'd make a great witness wouldn't he

[prosser]

I'm not disputing this prosser but the NoA you posted re Hoist says 'selected claimants'. If mine had been one of those 'selected claimants' assigned to Hoist surely they wouldn't be stupid enough not to have sent me a NoA given that we're in court on Monday would they?

 

I cant see where it says selected claimants bev. As far as I am aware its all claimants, a quick email along the lines.

 

Dear Sir

 

I have been made aware that Robinson Way Limited have assigned their liability and assets to hoist portfolio holding 2 Limited. Has the liability and interest in my case been assigned to Hoist ?

 

Kind Regards

 

Bev

[Bev250264]

I cant see where it says selected claimants bev. As far as I am aware its all claimants, a quick email along the lines.

 

Dear Sir

 

I have been made aware that Robinson Way Limited have assigned their liability and assets to hoist portfolio holding 2 Limited. Has the liability and interest in my case been assigned to Hoist ?

 

Kind Regards

 

Bev

 

It doesn't say selected claimants it says certain assets. Subject line. I will send the email though. Don't know where it'll get me. I don't suppose I'm his most favourite person after yesterday

[prosser]

I cant see Bev where it says certain assets on my NOA. I know its a ball ache but just trying to help and cover all angles.

[Bev250264]

I cant see Bev where it says certain assets on my NOA. I know its a ball ache but just trying to help and cover all angles.

 

I know and it's much appreciated. Sent the email so we'll see what we get back.

[Mike_hawk]

I don't suppose I'm his most favourite person after yesterday

 

That'll be one less Christmas card on the mantle at the Bevs household this year then

[Bev250264]

What mantle? I won't HAVE a mantle if he has anything to do with it

[Bev250264]

Reply received from CCBC

 

There is nothing on the case record to suggest either way. We would not normally be able to note every case on the system to show the application received / order made for a change of this many cases.

 

Normally the customer would have to make a bulk application (listing all relevant cases) to make these changes, however as this was back in 2009 it is possible the procedure may have been different back then.

 

This is what I sent:

 

 

One more thing, are you able to access the customer account data to see if there is any historical data identifying whether an application was actually filed in relation to this account? The claimant is insisting that they did not need to make an application as they merely changed their name and did not substitute a new claimant. If you're saying that it would be usual procedure for an application to be made and approved before a bulk amendment can take place, then it would appear that they did not provide you with the correct information at the time of their request. I appreciate that the actual documentation has been destroyed but even confirmation of the existence of any historical data would help me immensely.

[Mike_hawk]

Reply received from CCBC

 

 

 

This is what I sent:

 

Not sure about a procedural change, think that's a 'bluff' ........ would imagine he's into self preservation in case this does kick something off.

 

It remains for the claimant to satisfy the judge that it acted correctly, you would think it would have retained the order [assuming there is one] with so much at stake.

[Bev250264]

So is it worth asking them if they have a copy of the order on Monday and if not, why not?

[prosser]

Its pure and utter bluff and blag its starting to smell very bad

[Mike_hawk]

So is it worth asking them if they have a copy of the order on Monday and if not, why not?

 

 

I would, along with the application...... it's had time to construct a response, perhaps ask Miriam under oath