Phoenix -v- Platform

[thephoenix]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

on the DJ's final directions, there was no mention what so ever of the countrclaim. would that be done separately do you reckon?
i wouldn't of though so as dj has already allocated to small claims track.
there documents were actually submitted 2 days late, so they crossed in the post.

should i amend N244 and just bring to the attention cpr 3.8 (3) (b) and forget 3.4?

and mention the threatening letter?

they are dragging this out till the bitter end, testing who has the stronger nerve, and using threatening tactics. Should I mention this on the N244? is there a CPR for this?? due to there tactics we reckon we should go for costs as well???

I am getting a little nervy as court date is this next month.
not sure if this is relevant but we are still in debt with them over a shortfall of the mortgage when they repossessed.

[thephoenix]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

(d) result from any payment or discharge in respect of the Secured Amounts (whether made by you or a third
person) being challenged or declared void for any reason whatsoever.



is that the bit they're relying on for the counterclaim ? cant see another bit that fits in the indemnity clause.



oh yes spent couple hours at stoopid o clock looking at your welcome agreements (the no nails worked )...Jules is out for most of the day but will post teatime.

Thank you so much for this. :kiss:

condition they are relying on is condition 17

17. AGREEMENT TO REIMBURSE US
17.1 You agree as a separate and independent agreement on demand to reimburse us (on a full, complete and unqualified
basis) against all reasonable costs, claims, proceedings and liabilities which:
(a) we may reasonably incur, or which may be made against us, whether before or after our power to sell the
Property has become exercisable in connection with the Mortgage;
(b) arise as a consequence of anything done or purported to be done under these Conditions;
(c) result from you failing to do anything under these Conditions; or
(d) result from any payment or discharge in respect of the Secured Amounts (whether made by you or a third
person) being challenged or declared void for any reason whatsoever.
17.2 The amounts payable under Condition 17.1 shall carry interest at the Interest Rate from the respective dates on which
they were paid or incurred by us until payment in full by you.


going to fetch youngest from play school now, so will be back in a bit. had a look through CPR's, couldn't find owt regarding threatening the claimant. ..oh well ;-)

[Amethyst]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

If their documents are in its unlikely you would be granted the strike out even if they were two days late. I'd forget that bit for now. We can write back about the threat.....

Have you got a copy of their documents ?

Probaly need to know whats in there then work on your argument in court.

[thephoenix]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

got their documents but they are just standard crap they send everyone. DJ requested disclosure of their cost involved, they haven't complied with his order.
I think I should amend and point out remind DJ of cpr 3.8.
He did state, he would strike out their defence, without further order, if they did not comply.
Is it worth spending £35 just to remind the DJ of his own order. ( hence CPR 3.8 (3) (B) )



OR maybe a letter requesting the urgent attention of judge Atlinson on this matter. I know DJ SHOULD act on his own orders but you never can tell these days.

[thephoenix]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

What you reckon to faxing this or something like this to the court and drydens??????????????


I respectfully request that this letter be brought to the attention of Judge Atkinson regarding the above claim.

During the course of this claim, the claimant has acted responsibly and within the directions set out within the court procedures and at common law.
The claimant would like to bring to the courts attention the action brought about by the defendant during this claim.
The defendant has repeatedly ignored requests from the claimant and the courts to produce documents as listed within the order of Judge Atkinson, dated 28th June 2007 and would like to bring to the courts attention Civil Procedure Rule 3.8 (3) and would respectfully request that any relief from this sanction be refused pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 (2).

The claimant would also like to bring to the courts attention a letter dated 27th September 2007 ( as attached ), received from the defendants on the 28th September 2007. This letter is in response to the claimants right to enter the said application. The defendants seem to be acting outside of the fundamental principles as set and regulated by the Bar Standards Board and the claimants would ask that the courts to deal with the matter in a way the court deems fit.



Not sure whether i would get away with saying all that but what you reckon???? Also not sure about drydens lawyers being regulated by the bar standards board, think it's just barristers.


Spoke to the court, they say they don't know the legalities regarding the counterclaim and suggested i write to the judge for clarification.
As for the N244 application they said that as the DJ order stated he will strike out defence if they do not comply to the information requested, a letter to the judge should suffice, no point in spending a further £35. cool

[Amethyst]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

hmmmm

Yes i think if they havent complied with a specific request on the order then a letter to the judge, as opposed to a formal application........I think including the letter is worthwhile but non accusatorily (is that a word).



Address the letter to DJ Atkinson.....I'll do a rough draft in a sec.

[Amethyst]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

Dear District Judge Atkinson

I, the Claimant, refer to the claim as detailed above and specifically the order made by District Judge xxxxxxxxx (or yourself if it was Atkinson) dated XX/XX/XXXX.

3)c)if such charge is alleged to be a pre-estimate of the defendants loss incurred by the claimants actions (WHETHER OR NOT SUCH ACTION IS TO BE TREATED AS A BREACH OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES), all facts and matters intended to be relied upon as showing that such is a proper estimate of such loss, and all evidence to be adducted at trial as to what the true cost of dealing with the matter was.

I wish to bring to the courts attention that the Defendant has failed to comply with this part of the order.

No application to set aside this order has been made by the Defendant.

I can confirm that my own documents were filed on XX/XX/XXXX and served to the Defendant on XX/XX/XXXX. This was in strict compliance of the order made by Judge ********* on **/**/2007.

It is submitted that the Defendants failure to comply with the order dated XX/XX/2007 creates a significant imbalance between the parties in light of the forthcoming hearing, which I believe to be contrary to the overriding objective.

This imbalance is particularly exacerbated by the fact that the Defendant is represented by specialist solicitors, whereas I am a litigant in person.

The defendant has repeatedly ignored requests from the claimant and the courts to produce documents as listed within the order of Judge Atkinson, dated 28th June 2007 and would like to bring to the courts attention Civil Procedure Rule 3.8 (3) and would respectfully request that any relief from this sanction,'' If the defendant fails to comply with this order, the defence will be struck out without further order. '' be refused pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 (2).

3.4 (2) The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court –
(c) that there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order."

Yours sincerely

[thephoenix]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

thanks Ame

[thephoenix]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

Hi Amethyst.
Did you manage a draft for me :kiss: ???
not pressuring you babe but need it tonight msl: :roll:

No I don't........ but would like to fax it Monday morn.

I'm so pee'd off with these guys, I'm not capable of writing anything constructive, I keep slagging them off, which will get me know where.

[thephoenix]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

What about this???????

We respectfully ask that this letter be urgently brought to the attention of Judge Atkinson regarding the above claim.

During the course of this claim, the claimant has acted responsibly and complied with all orders issued by the court.
The claimant would like to bring to the courts attention, the order issued by your honor (District Judge Atkinson), dated 28th June 2007 (attached), in particular, the specific information requested from the defendant. The specific information requested by your Honor (Judge Atkinson) has not been forthcoming, despite several attempts. The claimants would like to bring to the courts attention, Civil Procedure Rule 3.8 (3), due to the breach of the said order and would respectfully request that any relief from this sanction be refused pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 (2).

Please also find attached, a letter dated xx/xx/xxxx from the defendants, in relation to this matter.
The claimants are individual litigants with limited resources, whereas the defendants have large financial backing, coupled with a law firm.

[Amethyst]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

Right sorry babes

I did do it a while back but stuck it on invisible so Cet could take a look....I'm not happy mentioning the letter. So read up a couple posts and its like the shopkeeper.....magically appeared.

ALSOOOOOOOOO I want to write to platform and request a breakdown of their costs estimate - get them to qualify it. And also want to call court ask exactly whats going on with this counterclaim...not so sure the judge can just ignore it.

Sorrrrrrryy missed monday deadline...I'm back now.


letter again in case you cant read back for any reason



Dear District Judge Atkinson

I, the Claimant, refer to the claim as detailed above and specifically the order made by District Judge xxxxxxxxx (or yourself if it was Atkinson) dated XX/XX/XXXX.

3)c)if such charge is alleged to be a pre-estimate of the defendants loss incurred by the claimants actions (WHETHER OR NOT SUCH ACTION IS TO BE TREATED AS A BREACH OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES), all facts and matters intended to be relied upon as showing that such is a proper estimate of such loss, and all evidence to be adducted at trial as to what the true cost of dealing with the matter was.

I wish to bring to the courts attention that the Defendant has failed to comply with this part of the order.

No application to set aside this order has been made by the Defendant.

I can confirm that my own documents were filed on XX/XX/XXXX and served to the Defendant on XX/XX/XXXX. This was in strict compliance of the order made by Judge ********* on **/**/2007.

It is submitted that the Defendants failure to comply with the order dated XX/XX/2007 creates a significant imbalance between the parties in light of the forthcoming hearing, which I believe to be contrary to the overriding objective.

This imbalance is particularly exacerbated by the fact that the Defendant is represented by specialist solicitors, whereas I am a litigant in person.

The defendant has repeatedly ignored requests from the claimant and the courts to produce documents as listed within the order of Judge Atkinson, dated 28th June 2007 and would like to bring to the courts attention Civil Procedure Rule 3.8 (3) and would respectfully request that any relief from this sanction,'' If the defendant fails to comply with this order, the defence will be struck out without further order. '' be refused pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 (2).

3.4 (2) The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court –
(c) that there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order."

Yours sincerely



Give me your thoughts :kiss: :sorry:

[thephoenix]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

Sounds really good :kiss:
but before we go any further, can i just mention their defence. I've read it a few times yet every time i read it, i find something new .

Firstly they start with a 16 point rambling about the mortgage offer, redemption charges, the way we handled our account... ie quickly fell into arrears etc, They are trying to paint a bleak picture of us as customers.

They go on to say ' not a penalty', they are 'genuine pre-estimate of loss'. the defendant has to bare cost such as staffing, pay for an office, and all respective costs of running an office to manage these accounts who default on their mortgage. Not contrary to good faith, charges were refered to in plain intelligible language in the mortgage conditions. The charges do not cause a significant inbalance in the parties rights and obligations. It was claimant choice to enter mortgage, they had independant financial advice......
The claim has no merit and the court should dismiss claim and enter judgement for the defendants with interest and costs as set out in the defence and counterclaim.

Basically standard stuff in their defence apart from they have included a template they use for the breakdown of costs regarding D/D returns. This is only a template, with no figures on it. ( yeah just found it) I'll scan and send for you.

Theier counterclaim is listed within the latest info they have sent as follows:

in accordance with condition 17, the claimant agrees to indemnify the defedant in respect of any costs the defendant reasonably incurred in dealing with the discharge of the mortgage. the defendant also claims, pursuant to condition 17.2, interset on those costs. The defendant denies that this condition is in anyway unfair or unreasonable.

In any event the defendant is entitled to and does seek to recover all costs the defendant incurred in relation to these proceedings. the defendant also seeks interest on those costs.


Now having actually written this out, I'm starting to think we could be in a little bit of trouble here
Ill send a copy of that template to you now. keep an eye out for it.

ANY COMMENTS ON THE ABOVE, AND O GUESS THAT FANTASTIC LETTER YOU DID FOR ME, JUST MAY NEED RE-WRITING. ALTHOUGH, THEY HAVEN'T SENT PROOF OF THE COSTS INVOLVED. WHICH IS WHAT DJ WANTED.

ALSO, IF THEY DECIDE TO SUBMIT ACTUAL COSTS TO THEM, THEN WHY COULDN'T THEY PROVIDE ME WITH THEM FROM THE START. I WOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED A CLAIM AGAINST THEM IF IT WAS ALL ABOVE BOARD. MMMMMM........MONEY MAKING SCHEME SPRINGS TO MIND, ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE AWARDED COSTS.

[Amethyst]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

Just got your email Phoenix and bloody hell ! lol.


Think you can scrap the letter and the strike out request cause it complies with


3)c)if such charge is alleged to be a pre-estimate of the defendants loss incurred by the claimants actions (WHETHER OR NOT SUCH ACTION IS TO BE TREATED AS A BREACH OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES), all facts and matters intended to be relied upon as showing that such is a proper estimate of such loss, and all evidence to be adducted at trial as to what the true cost of dealing with the matter was.

NOW what they look like they have done is left the figures out of your copy maybe as commercially sensitive info and disclosed confidentially to the court - so I think you need to find this out.

Changes things a bit babes wish you'd read the bundle a tad earlier.

Going to read your post above now and think about what to do next.

Oh and fwiw I agree with Cetelco regarding attending hearings - not sure which case that was for - but always attend even if you have to get an adjournment to be able to.

[Amethyst]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Right ring the court please - ask them if the counterclaim is still active, and if the defendant have disclosed figures on that sheet in the defence and if there are reasons given why you have not received the figures - when they submitted it to the court they would have had to say they hadnt disclosed that part to you.

You;ll probably get some ditsy clerk but try and get as much info as you can off them. You seem pretty open to indemnity costs and the only thing you have said is that you dont think the judge agrees with it cause he hasnt mentioned it. That to me isnt worth risking £3k on.

Let me know asap in detail what is said - and I'll talk with Cetelco and Tools this evening.

Need to tread carefully here and to be honest THANK GOODNESS you didnt include that £35 cheque with the N244.


:kiss: Sorryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

[thephoenix]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

they may have submitted actual figures to court, i'll ring and see if they can tell me. plus.....here we go....we are still indebted to them for a shortfall on the mortgage due to repossession. I think i've mentioned before but though i should just mention again.

as regards attending hearing, this is something different. A ppi claim for O/H. She does not want to go court. Noway is she going and judge rejected authorisation letter for me to act.
It' based on the point of sale tactics and lender does not have recording of telephone application so their word against hers, but we were miss-sold the policy. we didn't bloody want it, forced to take as it would help the loan application.