Hearing to remove stay

[orgman1]

Hi Penfold,

 

Thanks for the welcome. I shall go and write up a summary of my case on a new post on the Barclays section of this forum over the next few hours, and once done I shall post a link for you all here so you can have a look and provide feedback on my case.

 

I will start urgently gathering documents together once I've posted here, so I can get a bundle prepared and copy Barclays and the Court on it.

 

Thanks

 

Orgman1

[Penfold92]

Further to post 173 I have spoken to the Court who also could not answer why the line "Upon hearing Counsel for the Defendant" was put in...

 

They said I should write in and ask for clarification, but I do not want to **** anyone off...Can I have views or suggestions on the following letter please....

 

Further to the last Order by District Judge Eynon on 11 January 2008 we are writing begging clarification on this order. We, the Claimants being Litigant in nature, do not understand how the Defendant’s counsel spoke to the Judge on the day yet the Defendant failed to manage to organise the telephone hearing to include us. We did write to the Judge and dropped out letter off by hand with the Ushers at the Court on the morning of the hearing to explain that we were fully aware of the hearing yet waiting to hear from the Defendant, who was supposed to be organising it.

We made the application to set aside the stay we cannot understand why the Defence has been allowed a further three month adjournment with no discussions with us, having failed to follow the Courts Order.

Please do not misunderstand, we mean absolutely no disrespect nor are we questioning His Honors Order, we merely wish to understand how the Counsel of the Defendant was heard when we tried to contact the Court at 10.50am (the time of the hearing) on 8 January 2008 and were told we could not speak to the Judge?

We would also like to request, if the Court does not wish to do this itself, that the Court allow us to apply to vary this Order and make this a hearing at the Court as apposed another telephone hearing. This would mean that should the Defendant fail once more in its obligations at least we, the Claimants, will be able to speak directly to the Judge on this matter on the day.

Yours faithfully,

 

 

Penfold

[Castlebest]

I think you can make it a bit more personal something like the following

 

 

Further to the Order made by District Judge Eynon on 11 January 2008 I am writing begging clarification on this order. I as a litigant in person, do not understand how the Defendant’s counsel spoke to the Judge on the day the Defendant failed to manage to organise the telephone hearing to include all of the parties as they were directed to do. I did write to the Judge and dropped my letter off by hand with the Ushers at the Court on the morning of the hearing to explain that I was fully aware of the hearing yet was still waiting to hear from the Defendant, who was supposed to be organising it.

 

I made the application to set aside the stay and cannot understand why the Defence has been allowed a further three month adjournment with no further discussions between the parties following their failure to follow the Courts Order.

 

Please do not misunderstand, I mean absolutely no disrespect nor am I questioning His Honors Order, I merely wish to understand how the Counsel of the Defendant was heard when I tried to contact the Court at 10.AM (the time of the hearing) on 8 January 2008 and was told we could not speak to the Judge?

 

I would also like to request, if it is at all possible, that the Court allow me to apply to vary this Order and make this a hearing in person at the Court as apposed another telephone hearing. This would mean that should the Defendant fail once more in its obligations at least I, the Claimants, will be able to speak directly to the Judge on this matter on the day.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

Penfold

[Penfold92]

I think you can make it a bit more personal something like the following

 

Thanks Pete,

 

Can you try to explain what this means to me:

• Costs reserved being in mind the terms of the Claimants letter dated 8 January 2008

I still cannot understand what the judge is on about as I did not mention costs in my letter to him on the hearign day...

 

Penfold

[Castlebest]

he has reserved his and your position, i.e. he hasn't made any orders about costs but is obviously hoping you will come up with something to penalise them for messing about.

 

pete

[Penfold92]

mmm...ok I did think it was in my favour, but I was not sure about it as it seemed a strange after thought to the adjornment of the hearing.

[Penfold92]

Ok, hear's some news then...Further to my letter to the court asking about the chaos that happened at the supposed telelphone hearing that didn't...LOL (Still following?) well the Judge has sent an order to DG to ask them to explain why they did not set it up...They have till 22nd Feb I think...This should be fun and I feel moving in my favour now...these sols don't half cause their own problems...

 

Penfold

[Castlebest]

That sounds hopefully Prabs if you cause them enough grief they might pay you just to get rid of you

 

pete

[johnnymitch]

It'll have them squirming a bit anyway Penfold - and that's always a good thing............ . They should know (being solicitors) that you can only play the system so far ........then.... Bang!

I really hope they judge has 'em for breakfast. LOL!

 

Oh, and Good Morning to you too, Pete!

[Penfold92]

Hi Guys I do hope so, I think everytime these sols (in all cases whether bank charges or other) miss a deadline they should be held to account and given their track records they obviously seem to think we do not keep record ourselves...I am sure they will not reply or give some BS and I will put together another stike out letter for abuse of the system and worst case the judge will lift the stay...

[Castlebest]

The only bright side to all of this is sooner or later your judge will get fed up with all of the messing about and do just that and DG will be forced to make you an offer .

 

thanks for the rep Prabs

 

 

pete

[Penfold92]

Ok here is the actual letter and it is NOT an order...

I refer to your letter dated 15th January 2008. This was referred to the District Judge who has stated the following:

“The hearing on the 8th January 2008 was to be a telephone hearing arranged by the Defendant. On the 8th, the Defendant appeared by Counsel. (So they did appear cheeky!) The Claimants say they had been waiting for the Defendants to set up the telephone conference but that they heard nothing. On the 8th, they endeavoured to speak by telephone to the Judge, but the Court would not put them through.

 

The Defendants are accordingly required by the 21st February 2008 to set out why a telephone conference was not arranged in a letter sent to both to the Claimants at the Court. (The clerks reading/ typing is a problem - obviously…surely to be sent to both the Claimants and the Court…LOL)

 

If the Defendants (should be Claimants…LOL again) remain dissatisfied with the letter that they received they may apply to the Court to relist their application for removal of the Stay. (Now I am really confused as this has already been done…) If they do so that hearing will be fixed for the first available date (albeit that may be before the present stay is due to expire) and will NOT be a telephone conference”.

 

This letter has been copied to the Defendants.

 

So let me get this right they have to explain in writing why they attended, but did not organise the tele hearing…great, but if I am not happy I have to ask the court to relist the hearing for a physical hearing, which will be at a later date no doubt than the current telephone hearing it has been adjourned to…is that it right?

 

Thanks,

 

Penfold

[Penfold92]

Back from holiday now refreshed and ready to start all over...

 

So the Bank has until Thursday to give me a good reason for not organising the Telephone hearing, now please can someone explain what is the Judge on about if I am not happy or they indeed do not even bother writing?

[Penfold92]

Ok guys, I need help with the letter to the Court in response... I have templated this so far and would appreciate the wonderful tweaking that others contribute...

 

The Court Manager

RE: Claim number 7LU0XXXX

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Further to the last Order by District Judge Hewetson-Brown, that requested the Defendant organise the adjourned telephone hearing for 8th January 2008 and then the Courts letter dated 6th February 2008 we are writing yet again to request the Court set aside the Stay placed on this case.

If the documentation alone that we provided was not enough and given the arguments we put forward we felt they were more than sufficient we now cannot help, but feel the Court is being very much played by the Defendant. After all how is it the Defendant can file and serve the same skeleton argument for the Stay yet fail to organise the telephone hearing as they did before? Being Litigant in nature perhaps we do not understand the Court procedures, however, this is a clear case of wasting both the Courts and our time and trying to delay the hearing as much as possible and we feel this further provides evidence against the Human Rights issue for a fair trial within a reasonable timescale.

The reasons within their letter are flawed as the Court will no doubt agree/ They did not even respond to the Court’s letter of 6th February 2008 as instructed which makes another breach of Court Directions now. (they have not as yet written to us so I am leaving the options open for now)

As a result of this and the arguments we put forward in our Court Bundle we hope that Court will not accept our original application to set aside the stay and do this now without a hearing. Failing that then we would humbly request the Court issue a hearing at Luton County Court at its earliest time to resolve this matter.

Yours faithfully,

Penfold

Ideas CPR's references etc please...

 

[johnnymitch]

Hi Penfold - I've re-jigged your letter slightly as you asked - if you want to use it just copy and paste..........

 

Hope you get somewhere this time ............

 

Incidentally , I hope you meant 'now' in the last para and not 'not' as you typed - it makes a big difference to the meaning... (we hope the court will NOW accept our original application etc,etc........... Here we go:

 

The Court Manager

*RE: Claim number 7LU0XXXX*

 

Dear Sir/Madam

Further to the last Order by District Judge Hewetson-Brown, which directed that the Defendant organise the adjourned telephone hearing for 8th January 2008 and then the Courts letter dated 6th February 2008, we are writing yet again to request the Court set aside the Stay placed on this case.

 

If the documentation alone that we provided was not enough and given the arguments we put forward, we felt they were more than sufficient. We now cannot help but feel that the Court is being very much played by the Defendant. After all, how is it the Defendant can file and serve the same skeleton argument for the Stay yet fail to organise the telephone hearing as they did before?

Being Litigant in nature perhaps we do not understand the Court procedures, however, this is a clear case of wasting both the Courts and our time and trying to delay the hearing as much as possible and we feel this further provides evidence against the Human Rights issue for “a fair trial within a reasonable timescale”.

 

*The reasons within their letter are flawed as the Court will no doubt agree. They did not see fit to respond to the Court's letter of **6th February 2008** as instructed, which makes another breach of Court Directions now.* *(they have not as yet written to us so I am leaving the options open for now)*

 

As a result of this and the arguments we put forward in our Court Bundle we hope that Court will now accept our original application to set aside the stay and do this without a hearing. Failing that then we would humbly request the Court to arrange a hearing at Luton County Court at its earliest opportunity to resolve this matter.

 

Yours faithfully,

[Penfold92]

Thanks johnny exactly what I am after, I love teh fight but can't speak the language...LOL

 

Yes meant NOW not NOT...LOL again type too fast for my own good me...

 

Penfold

[johnnymitch]

No problem ,penfold, glad I was able to help ....

 

Go get 'em , boy! LOL:D

[Castlebest]

Hiya both, sorry I'm a bit late today just one point on the letter, I think it should be litigant in person not litigant in nature .

 

pete

[johnnymitch]

You are absolutely right pete;) - I missed it..... LOL!

[Penfold92]

Thanks guys I will get this ready to drop off tomorrow night so they have it first thing Friday then wait another 3 weeks for the Court to look at it...unreal the timescales right now at Luton County Court...

 

But I guess it is the same round the country...

 

Penfold

[Penfold92]

OK got home and of course there was a letter from DG...Bless them it was an "administrative oversight, compounded by the large volume of hearing notices and correspondence being recieved by the defendant."

 

OK so bang goes my letter out saying I am not happy with this explaination and it is a disrespect to me and the Court...anything I can add?

 

Penfold

[alphahurricane]

That sounds hopefully Prabs if you cause them enough grief they might pay you just to get rid of you

 

pete

Has anyone heard of Barclays bank, paying out recently, i need to know as i am trying to get my stay lifted on the grounds of financial and mental hardship

[Penfold92]

Sorry can't say I have heard anything about Barclays with regards Bank charges...

 

Have you hunted on the Barclays forum pages? I am still waiting to hear from the Court re my claim...

 

Penfold

[johnnymitch]

Can't say I've heard anything about Barclays coughing up alphahurricane- but I do know that proving financial and mental hardship is becoming increasingly difficult ....... no judge wants to move until this test case is settled - and banks are still charging where hardship is being claimed.

[Penfold92]

OK so the Court rescheduled the telelphone hearing for 21st April, but then remember I wrote to complain and I got a letter (finally) from teh Court on the 10th April saying it had been changed to a proper physical hearing for the 9th June. Well guess what....

 

DG called me yesterday to arrange the telephone hearing...LOL these guys are unreal they do not arrange a telelphone hearing when they should then do when they were not supposed to...I just hope that they did not try a sneaky attempt to have a private hearing as I did not accept the call saying it was cancelled and changed to 9th June.

 

If they did (and I will find out in the next few days via a Court Order no doubt) I will be protesting severely to thsi sort of action. My tactic here is knowing that the hearing would be postponed and so delaying th hearing. After all I doubt I would have had it set aside, but we might know from the test case the result by the time this new one gets to Court making everything easier....I hope so anyway.

 

Prabs