Phoenix -v- Platform

[Amethyst]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

Okay will deal with the misselling one on your PPI thread. Once I have looked at it get OH on here and she'll realise court isnt scary.....we can help write her arguments out for her etc etc and it is possible to submit a WS in writing 7 days before the hearing etc etc so dont stress over that.


How much is the shortfall you owe to platform ?
How much is the claim for unfair charges ?
When was the repossession ?

[thephoenix]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

The repossession was July 2006.
They last statement i had was a shortfall of £10k but they have passed to collections and are wanting about £2.5K
Unfair charges amount to £500


Just spoke to court, they can't tell me anything, not legally qualified blah blah. Case notes are with the DJ, they tell me all penalty charge claims will not be heard until the test case is resolved, i mentioned this is a mortgage account not current account. Will have to wait for further direction from DJ

As for counterclaim, again, they know nothing and usually the claim and counterclaim are heard at the same time. If I need clarification on claim and counterclaim plus disclosure of any commercially sensative information, I have to request it in writing to the courts for DJ's approval.
OHHHhhhhhh Yessssss Pleassssssee.

[Amethyst]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

oooooooo lovely right we'll do that then. You want to draft a letter then I'll change it for you. lol. Then I think we have to drop it but am talking with peeps clever than me for you so don't stress yet.

[thephoenix]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

done this so far:


Dear District Judge Atkinson

We, the claimants, are respectfully requesting further clarification on the following points, regarding the above case.
1) 1)The confidential release of information submitted by the defendant
2)2)Clarification of the counterclaim issued by the defendants

The reasoning for the above information is as follows:
The confidential release of information submitted by the defendant
The claimants have requested proof of the costs involved in the administering of our account, due to our breaches of contract, on several occasions. The defendants have failed to show this information, they could’ve issued this information under a confidentiality clause and prevented this action. We believe that waiting for the hearing to causes 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 we are litigants in person.
The claimant would like to bring to the courts attention, Civil Procedure Rule 31 Disclosure and Inspection of Documents ( not quite sure which one would apply but i have no information that they may have applied to withhold inspection or disclosure of a document) pursuant to rule 31.

Clarification of the counterclaim issued by the defendants
The defendants issued a counterclaim at the time of submitting their defence. Since that point we (the claimants) have heard nothing from the courts regarding the counterclaim and wish clarification of it’s status. This counterclaim was issued on the strength of ‘clause 17 of the defendant’s mortgage conditions. The claimant believes that the mortgage conditions relied upon for the counterclaim are an unreasonable indemnity clause and causes a great imbalance between the customer and the defendant and prejudices the claimants statutory right to make any such claim against the defendants and by reference, an unfair contract term pursuant to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.



Just to clarify one thing, they can't use the ' no breach of contract' argument. As mortgage condition 3 (g), Expenses, to pay ALL reasonable cost and expenses in regard to the mortgage on a full indemnity basis or charged to us in conection (g) any BREACH OF THESE CONDITIONS by you or services relating to the administration of the mortgage.

[Amethyst]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

great start. I'm going to do some reading this eve.

[thephoenix]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

:thankyou::thankyou: :snogs2: :jd:

[Amethyst]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

ooo snogs and JD .... I should help u more often

[Amethyst]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

Claim to withhold inspection or disclosure of a document 31.19 (1) A person may apply, without notice, for an order permitting him to withhold disclosure of a document on the ground that disclosure would damage the public interest.
(2) Unless the court orders otherwise, an order of the court under paragraph (1) –
(a) must not be served on any other person; and
(b) must not be open to inspection by any person.
(3) A person who wishes to claim that he has a right or a duty to withhold inspection of a document, or part of a document, must state in writing –
(a) that he has such a right or duty; and
(b) the grounds on which he claims that right or duty.
(4) The statement referred to in paragraph (3) must be made –
(a) in the list in which the document is disclosed; or
(b) if there is no list, to the person wishing to inspect the document.
(5) A party may apply to the court to decide whether a claim made under paragraph (3) should be upheld.
(6) For the purpose of deciding an application under paragraph (1) (application to withhold disclosure) or paragraph (3) (claim to withhold inspection) the court may –
(a) require the person seeking to withhold disclosure or inspection of a document to produce that document to the court; and
(b) invite any person, whether or not a party, to make representations.
(7) An application under paragraph (1) or paragraph (5) must be supported by evidence.
(8) This Part does not affect any rule of law which permits or requires a document to be withheld from disclosure or inspection on the ground that its disclosure or inspection would damage the public interest.

[thephoenix]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

Yep but my thought is, if the defendant has done the following to the courts:

(3) A person who wishes to claim that he has a right or a duty to withhold inspection of a document, or part of a document, must state in writing –
(a) that he has such a right or duty; and
(b) the grounds on which he claims that right or duty.

They must have made a statement to the courts consisting of:

(4) The statement referred to in paragraph (3) must be made –
(a) in the list in which the document is disclosed; or
(b) if there is no list, to the person wishing to inspect the document

(6) For the purpose of deciding an application under paragraph (1) (application to withhold disclosure) or paragraph (3) (claim to withhold inspection) the court may –
(a) require the person seeking to withhold disclosure or inspection of a document to produce that document to the court; and
(b) invite any person, whether or not a party, to make representations.
(7) An application under paragraph (1) or paragraph (5) must be supported by evidence.

(b) would be the claimants, as we have requested on numerous occasions.

We can apply the following:

(5) A party may apply to the court to decide whether a claim made under paragraph (3) should be upheld.

Now the problem being:

(8) This Part does not affect any rule of law which permits or requires a document to be withheld from disclosure or inspection on the ground that its disclosure or inspection would damage the public interest.

[Amethyst]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

yep pretty much what i thought when i read it....plus it really aplies to standard disclosure in fast track.

[thephoenix]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

can't really be used then, as this small claims.

Having read a few threads on mortgage accounts, I'm starting to get a little worried. IF we lose this and costs are awarded, which they shouldn't be in small claims plus i ain't working and have NO assets, but if they are, would a bankruptcy order be in order?

platform costs + platform short fall in mortgage + welcome finance = 22k - 30k

all debts in joint names.

[Amethyst]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

ouch.

First though this shortfall - is is 7.5k which they have said they'll accept 2.5k in settlement ? or am I cuckoo. How are you arranging payment of the shortfall - have you a repayment plan set up with then for an affordable amount ?

[thephoenix]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

well, the statement we had from them shows a shortfall of £10K yet a collection agaent, who just happened to knock on my door one day, says the debt is £2k

no payment plan set up at all.

[Amethyst]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

IN THE (Court)COUNTY COURT CLAIM NO:

BETWEEN:-


Claimant
- and -


Defendant

______________________

ORDER
______________________



UPON the parties having agreed terms of discontinuance

BY CONSENT IT IS ORDERED THAT


(1) all further proceedings in this case be discontinued; to include any counterclaim;
(2) there be no order for costs;

The parties consent to an order in the above terms.

Signed:-

…………………………….. …………………………….

Claimant Solicitors for the Defendant

…… (Date) 2007 (Date) 2007

[Amethyst]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

CONSENT ORDERS 3.1 Rule 40.6(3) sets out the types of consent judgments and orders which may be entered and sealed by a court officer. The court officer may do so in those cases provided that:
(1) none of the parties is a litigant in person, and
(2) the approval of the court is not required by the Rules, a practice direction or any enactment4.
3.2 If a consent order filed for sealing appears to be unclear or incorrect the court officer may refer it to a judge for consideration5.
3.3 Where a consent judgment or order does not come within the provisions of rule 40.6(2):
(1) an application notice requesting a judgment or order in the agreed terms should be filed with the draft judgment or order to be entered or sealed, and
(2) the draft judgment or order must be drawn so that the judge’s name and judicial title can be inserted.
3.4 A consent judgment or order must:
(1) be drawn up in the terms agreed,
(2) bear on it the words ‘By Consent’, and
(3) be signed by
(a) solicitors or counsel acting for each of the parties to the order, or
(b) where a party is a litigant in person, the litigant6.
3.5 Where the parties draw up a consent order in the form of a stay of proceedings on agreed terms, disposing of the proceedings7, and where the terms are recorded in a schedule to the order, any direction for:
(1) payment of money out of court, or
(2) payment and assessment of costs

should be contained in the body of the order and not in the schedule.