HSBC **Court Action Issued**

[pt2537]

I agree PT

 

Do you think it will be OK to post his reply to his defence up on this thread?

i dont see why not as long as you dont post anything which has details which relate to you on it you should be fine

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Just had another good look through and its a bit doggy to post it so will point out key facts.

 

1 CPR18 & 36 paragragh Defence is off a consumer website and is inapprpiate and ineffective.

 

Then he goes on and on about me threaterning him with SRA FOS etc.

 

Then he goes on about they have supplied me an agreement so its all my fault bla bla bla.

 

And he want under CPR3 the court to hold a 30 min case management conference and me to submit a defence case summary and all other documents that I have supporting the case......

[surfaceagentx20]

i would be seriously embarrassed to churn that out in my day job thats for sure

Not 'arf for sure PT. I'd want to gas myself!

 

HAK, let's have a good sniff through whatever document their finest quality horseydoos has been slopped on. I'd welcome a proper laugh!

 

x20

[surfaceagentx20]

Just had another good look through and its a bit doggy to post it so will point out key facts.

 

Sob. Sniffle. Wahaaaaah!

 

x20

[Having_A_Knightmare]

X20

 

i can email it to you if you want.

Just a bit doggy posting it.

Just PM your email address if you want it.

 

Cheers

 

HAK

[havinastella]

X20

 

i can email it to you if you want.

Just a bit doggy posting it.

Just PM your email address if you want it.

 

Cheers

 

HAK

 

Thats no fun

 

JOgs

[surfaceagentx20]

Fair dinks. I wouldn't want some doggy postings mixed in with the horseydoos now would I? Address on its way.

 

x20

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Any comments on the Defence Chaps.

 

HAK

[bazaar]

Now we're all interested, thanks for keeping us all in suspenders HAK:-o

So you got your defence from a website eh?

Before the www it would have been a book, or from advise of lets say a solicitor?

And shame on you for reporting them to every authority you bad B*gger you.

Even if the other sides solicitor was acting in good faith, you'd think he'd have got his ducks in a row before taking any action.

As it is, I wonder if its contempt of court to offer a kleenex when he's bleating this stuff to the judge, would be funny

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Hi Bazzaar

 

Sorry about not posting but not sure if it will harm my case.

If PT and X20 says it OK to post I will post it tonight.

 

HAK

[bazaar]

HAK Best to be on safe side

[surfaceagentx20]

HAK

What you have there is a Reply. A Reply is a rare beast these days and only usually appears where the Defendant counterclaims. Its purpose is to join issue with some aspect raised in the Defence. Though the CPR barely regulates a Reply, what it does say is that a Claimant who does not serve a Reply to a Defence is not taken to admit the Defence. In short therefore if you do not admit the Defence there's nothing you need say.

 

It is evident you did not serve a Counterclaim. It is one of the points the Claimant complains about in the Reply (eh?)

 

The Reply is not the place for the Claimant to

[1] complain tht the source of the Defendant's Defence is or appears to follow formats suggested on consumer websites or to say that by reason of that fact alone, the Defence is inappropriate and ineffective. The proper course is to make an application to the court for an order dealing with what may be argued as inappropriate or ineffective about the Defence.

 

[2] complain that a CPR 18 Request is misconceived. The proper course is to decline to answer and to explain to the requesting party why the request will not be answerd. It will then be up to the requesting party to make an appliction to the court for an order requiring that other party to answer the Request.

 

[3] complain about the Defendant's conduct and set out argument why a Defndant should be held liable for costs. If the Defendant's conduct is to be raised as an issue on costs. The proper course is to raise that issue at the conclusion of the final hearing when the court will consider costs.

 

[4] contend the Particulars of claim are not defective.

 

[5] explain when it will give disclosure of documents

 

[6] invite the court to make directions. If the claimant seeks directions he should make an application to the court for those directions.

 

In short the Reply evidences the claimant's solicitor's sheer frustration. If he had had his wits about him or taken a couple days to chill, he ought to have realised that venting like he has only makes him and his firm appear unprofessional and at a loss as to how to proceed correctly in the interests of his client.

 

I wouldn't post up the Reply.

 

x20

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Thanks for the reply X20..

[Having_A_Knightmare]

I will be going for a strike out on my AQ

 

I will work on it over the next few days and repost.

 

HAK

[N.P]

Good luck with the strike out HAK.

 

We`re all watching this space

Edited November 13, 2008 by N.P
Shady spelling

[pt2537]

Hi HAK

 

i think x20 has covered everything that needs covering, it is the rantings of a rather upset solicitor that you have there in the reply my friend. as x20 also pointso ut, it looks very unprofessional on their part so its good for you

 

regards

 

 

paul

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Is it OK to send in my AQ well before the due date

[havinastella]

good luck HAK,

 

Jogs

[underdog13]

Oh dear, an upset solicitor - now isn't that a pity, heh, heh, heh. Sounds like you've got them on the run, Hak - why would he be so upset otherwise?

Best of luck with it all, I'll be subbing:)

[surfaceagentx20]

Is it OK to send in my AQ well before the due date

 

It's OK, but what advantage do you expect to gain? Plus, how do you construct your case for strike out? On the heels of that Reply, to be honest I'd exercise a degree of caution for the time being if you see where I am coming from.

 

x20

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Ive drafted info for Section G of AQ.

 

DELETED

 

MC you can view it when it arrives through your letter box...HEHE

Edited November 16, 2008 by Having_A_Knightmare

[bazaar]

sorry to sound so American...but ...SWEEEET:D

[mcuth]

Just had a reply form my defence of Mart Clarke.

 

First he is saying the 36 paragragh defence and a CPR 18 is from a website!!

 

He has made some requests in the defence, Do i have to respond to them??

 

Judging by the following posts on this R2D, I reckon my recent R2D from MC is probably along the same lines (my thread) - like you I've not posted it yet....

 

Cheers

Michael

[Goldlady]

Great stuff. They so expect you to be scared of them and so often go to court thinking they will walk this one - I love it when a plan falls apart and have been there on more than one occasion:D

 

Power to the people.

[Having_A_Knightmare]

AQ filed today in person to the Court....

 

Hopefully the judge will see the total sham this case is and throw it out.

I have also pointed out the childish actions of MC.

 

HAK