Tweet
Re: Ochmode vs BWLegal/Lowells/Lloyds
Hi all,
Just back from court with mixed thoughts really. The judge ordered them to produce the particulars of the case within 52 days.
So I got to court on time and sat in the waiting room and waited, pondering who their solicitor might be and whether it was appropriate to approach him/her or not. She turned up apparently not even briefed about the case, I found this out by some stroke of luck. She made a call to one of their departments and got transferred about three times before getting to speak to some guy. I am not one for eavesdropping but the conversation was quite loud and It was when I heard my surname I realised she was the rep for Lowell, and she for some reason thought I was the opposite sex which gave her confidence to blurt out the questions regarding the case in my presence.
The conversation followed this pattern (not in exact words), I am ... from ... for this case. Just wanted to check why the particulars had not been sent to the defendant, it was quite loud as I could hear most replies but I couldn't hear what the other person said as the creaky door in waiting room was being opened at the same time. That would have made an interesting insight
. She added ok, so it would be best to adjourn for another 52 days and lets hope the judge doesn't award costs. She clearly knew she was trying to buy time and that was all they had.
She had another case involving a minor and got introduced to her clients, so I didn't try to get her attention to discuss anything and frankly I didn't know if I should or should not. Well I didn't, but she got to know who I was when I had to identify myself to the court clerk. The other case got called before mine and it was at the point I felt she perhaps would have an advantage of having seen or spoken to the judge rather than going in together.
So I got called to go in and the DJ says to me good morning, to which I replied good afternoon. It was near 3pm and blazing hot, perhaps I should have just played the fool and not been so facetious with the greeting. Anyways he responded by saying this is not a good start, as I sat down he asked the solicitor when they could get the documents without allowing me to get my papers out and all. She played the 52 card and he looked at me, I responded by saying that they had the chance to produce this before now and haven't, to which he replied "they don't, do they?" I began saying well the onus is on the claimant to supply evidence of the claim and get documents before submitting a claim. He then asked the solicitor when the debt was assigned and if she had copies, she said she didn't. She mumbled she could get it and something else. I then tried to state my case saying they should have had the docs before submitting a claim and I had the case laws in front of both of them, he just said "you have already stated that and I will not be dragged into the do's and dont's of what someone should have done or should not have done" and a made a long spill of how the law should be streamlined e.t.c. he mention it was to my benefit to allow the adjournment that if it was struck out, they could reapply, and that the time lapse was also to my benefit. He asked for my N244 and read it and then ordered the particulars to be produced before the 18th of September. His mind had been set to do that anyways so I didn't think he was going to change it. So I naively asked that if they don't comply, he said well you can apply to the court to get it struck off. So the solicitor got up after he had written the judgement and walked to the door, he mentioned her firstname and said have a good weekend. I was a bit perplexed by the familiarity and I think there might be something there. Perhaps I am over thinking things, I just got up said thank you and walked out and left the building. I suppose I will get something in writing confirming his order.
So I suppose I sit and wait for any sort of documents really, before I decide my next move? or what could I possibly do now?
thanks for all the support and advice so far.
OchMode.
Hi all,
Just back from court with mixed thoughts really. The judge ordered them to produce the particulars of the case within 52 days.
So I got to court on time and sat in the waiting room and waited, pondering who their solicitor might be and whether it was appropriate to approach him/her or not. She turned up apparently not even briefed about the case, I found this out by some stroke of luck. She made a call to one of their departments and got transferred about three times before getting to speak to some guy. I am not one for eavesdropping but the conversation was quite loud and It was when I heard my surname I realised she was the rep for Lowell, and she for some reason thought I was the opposite sex which gave her confidence to blurt out the questions regarding the case in my presence.
The conversation followed this pattern (not in exact words), I am ... from ... for this case. Just wanted to check why the particulars had not been sent to the defendant, it was quite loud as I could hear most replies but I couldn't hear what the other person said as the creaky door in waiting room was being opened at the same time. That would have made an interesting insight
. She added ok, so it would be best to adjourn for another 52 days and lets hope the judge doesn't award costs. She clearly knew she was trying to buy time and that was all they had.She had another case involving a minor and got introduced to her clients, so I didn't try to get her attention to discuss anything and frankly I didn't know if I should or should not. Well I didn't, but she got to know who I was when I had to identify myself to the court clerk. The other case got called before mine and it was at the point I felt she perhaps would have an advantage of having seen or spoken to the judge rather than going in together.
So I got called to go in and the DJ says to me good morning, to which I replied good afternoon. It was near 3pm and blazing hot, perhaps I should have just played the fool and not been so facetious with the greeting. Anyways he responded by saying this is not a good start, as I sat down he asked the solicitor when they could get the documents without allowing me to get my papers out and all. She played the 52 card and he looked at me, I responded by saying that they had the chance to produce this before now and haven't, to which he replied "they don't, do they?" I began saying well the onus is on the claimant to supply evidence of the claim and get documents before submitting a claim. He then asked the solicitor when the debt was assigned and if she had copies, she said she didn't. She mumbled she could get it and something else. I then tried to state my case saying they should have had the docs before submitting a claim and I had the case laws in front of both of them, he just said "you have already stated that and I will not be dragged into the do's and dont's of what someone should have done or should not have done" and a made a long spill of how the law should be streamlined e.t.c. he mention it was to my benefit to allow the adjournment that if it was struck out, they could reapply, and that the time lapse was also to my benefit. He asked for my N244 and read it and then ordered the particulars to be produced before the 18th of September. His mind had been set to do that anyways so I didn't think he was going to change it. So I naively asked that if they don't comply, he said well you can apply to the court to get it struck off. So the solicitor got up after he had written the judgement and walked to the door, he mentioned her firstname and said have a good weekend. I was a bit perplexed by the familiarity and I think there might be something there. Perhaps I am over thinking things, I just got up said thank you and walked out and left the building. I suppose I will get something in writing confirming his order.
So I suppose I sit and wait for any sort of documents really, before I decide my next move? or what could I possibly do now?
thanks for all the support and advice so far.
OchMode.
ray:
:mad2: 
thinking back now, I feel he wanted to give them the benefit of doubt to produce something they should have already had. I am intending to seek costs at the end hopefully, especially as the case laws copies set me a few bob
so i'll wait and see the final wording of the judgement.
Comment