Fluffystuff's OH v HFC

[DuffNCustard]

Re: Fluffystuff's OH v HFC

Bad news - we've turned the house upside down - even ransacked the wardrobes but cannot find the GM Card agreement - Mr Duff reckons he remembers chucking it out. I work at GM and have put the word out to see if anyone has a GM CARD agreement - its a long shot I'm afraid -and I'm sorry if I raised false hopes

[fluffystuff]

Re: Fluffystuff's OH v HFC

Hi all,

Having not been able to get a verbal answer concerning the meaning of this part of the order; (link to original thread - post #244 here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...fs-oh-hfc.html

"There shall be simultaneous exchange of such statements by xxOctober 2010."

..I wrote to the court requesting clarification and received a very terse reply which states the DJ thinks the phrase is quite clear and the court is unable to advise!!


Please guys can anyone clarify this for me as I'm running out of time.

TIA

F x

[Amethyst]

Re: Fluffystuff's OH v HFC

Can hardly read the post numbers over there.

Anyway, this is the order

The judge orders that you and the other parties prepare for trial as follows -

No disclosure of documents is required. **

The claimant must pay a fee of £xx. In addition a hearing fee of £xxx must be paid by the claimant.

If the court is notified in writing that the hearing is no longer needed the hearing fee will be refunded in full or in part in certain circumstances, please refer to the leaflets explaining...............

Each party shall give all parties standard disclosure of documents by servng copies together with a disclosure statement by xx Aug 2010.**

Each party give standard disclosure to every other party by list.**

The latest date for service of any request to inspect or for a copy to be made by xx Aug 2010.

There shall be simultaneous exchange of such statements by xx Oct 2010.

No expert evidence being necessary, no party has permission to call or rely on expert evidence.

Requests for clarification or further information based on a document disclosed or a statement served must be served within 21 days after disclosure or service.

Any such requests shall be dealt with within 21 days of service.

Thereafter stayed generally pending the judgement handed down in Amex v ...............

And window for trial will then be given with time estimate 1 day

Costs in claim.

[fluffystuff]

Re: Fluffystuff's OH v HFC

Thanks for bringing this across Ame. x

[Amethyst]

Re: Fluffystuff's OH v HFC

There shall be simultaneous exchange of such statements by


Which basically is - Witness statements to be exhanged simultaneously by xx Oct.


So you'd need to agree a date with the claimants and send WS's special delivery on that date, I assume. Its not going to be exhange of expert evidence and the judge has said none is allowed.

You can find Fast Track directions wordings PRACTICE DIRECTION 28 THE FAST TRACK - Ministry of Justice

[Amethyst]

Re: Fluffystuff's OH v HFC

Ahh see CitizenB has now replied over the road, and yep it's what I thought, which is handy

[fluffystuff]

Re: Fluffystuff's OH v HFC

Ahh see CitizenB has now replied over the road, and yep it's what I thought, which is handy

and thankyou for the above link. xx

As I have also asked OTR, as my original WS still stands, I assume I just re-send that?

[Amethyst]

Re: Fluffystuff's OH v HFC

If disclosure bought nothing new to the table then yes I would expect so, I havent seen your WS so difficult to comment further.

[fluffystuff]

Re: Fluffystuff's OH v HFC

Thanks Ame,

Confirm disclosure brought nothing new. Basically my WS cites invalid d/n (date, format & amount) and no agreement.

HFC are reliant on heresay to account for no agreement ( the usual should've, could've, would've) and they have sworn 1st class delivery of D/N, not so and they have now seen the evidence against them.
Unlike the Brandon case, HFC state in their t&c's that they must abide by any law when issueing d/n's and I assume that in spite of the outcome to date, with Brandon, that the law still applies.

[Amethyst]

Re: Fluffystuff's OH v HFC

So the DN wasn't sent by first class mail ?

What are the dates on it, and what are the arguments with the format ?

(unless this is all on your other thread?)

[Amethyst]

Re: Fluffystuff's OH v HFC

oh also, being restons and hfc, have they added a 'collection charge' on to the claim ?

[fluffystuff]

Re: Fluffystuff's OH v HFC

So the DN wasn't sent by first class mail ?

No - I have the envelope and this was produced at SJ hearing! Barrister eventually blurted out that her client would contend that this was not the envelope that the D/N came in! DJ asked what we thought about that, our reply was that we would be v.interested in that case, to see the envelope that did contain the D/N; he replied "yes, quite"!
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

oh also, being restons and hfc, have they added a 'collection charge' on to the claim ?

Surprisingly, no!

[Amethyst]

Re: Fluffystuff's OH v HFC

Okay - Fluffystuff's OH v HFC - that the WS you mean ?

[fluffystuff]

Re: Fluffystuff's OH v HFC

Okay - Fluffystuff's OH v HFC - that the WS you mean ?

Yes, though it was tweaked ever so slightly, nothing to detract from the main points!

[Amethyst]

Re: Fluffystuff's OH v HFC

lol funny !