Nationwide CCA Court Hearing v Jax

[Amethyst]

Re: Nationwide CCA Court Hearing v Jax

No I wouldnt trust them. I would stick to the legal channels and get your Witness Statement in asking to amend your plea to admit and offer to pay on the debt which is not (truely) disputed and defending any charges, explaining your health situation a little, send a copy to the court to get there monday, with an IE sheet, and send a copy to eversheds with a covering letter just outlining the main thrust of the witness statement.

Have you had a WS from them ? I dont recall what the order said ref their documents.

[jax007]

Re: Nationwide CCA Court Hearing v Jax

Yes I have had a WS from them (# 84)

I never received their disclosure list - not sure whether that's important or not??

[jax007]

Re: Nationwide CCA Court Hearing v Jax

GREAT ... BLOODY GREAT ..................... Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I wrote to court and Eversheds and told them I would not be defending this claim due to ill health, etc, etc and then Nationwide put it back in-house and wrote to me to confirm this saying they wouldn't go to court but deal with the matter by consent.

I wrote to confirm this (NO! I didn't send it recorded!!) and then .... yes, you've guessed ... they went to court anyway and now I not only have a CCJ but Nationwide have been awarded £4K in bloody costs!!

I phoned the court and they suggested I submit anN244 and ask the Court to set aside the judgment.

Would this be the right thing to do and, if so and the DJ sets aside, what is the state of play then?

Be grateful for some comments here.

Ta muchly
jaxx

[WendyB]

Re: Nationwide CCA Court Hearing v Jax

As you have it in writing from them that they wouldn't go to court then I would have thought that would be good grounds for a set aside. Best off waiting for Ame or someone a lot more expert than me though...

[jax007]

Re: Nationwide CCA Court Hearing v Jax

Thanks Wends - I'll leave it over weekend and hopefully Ames or pt will come on for advice.

xx

[Amethyst]

Re: Nationwide CCA Court Hearing v Jax

Might be an idea Jax to put up the text of their letter agreeing to a consent order rather than concluding the claim in the courts. Also the judgment order you received from the court.

[jax007]

Re: Nationwide CCA Court Hearing v Jax

Herewith Ames

xx

[Amethyst]

Re: Nationwide CCA Court Hearing v Jax

Honey, thanks for posting those up....Eversheds have not said they would not be continuing in court, just that they understood you would not be defending, so to reduce costs if you werent defending they wouldn't need to attend court too, and the consent part is that you consent to the matter being dealt with without you attending court. The 'in house'bit is just nationwide looking after the case themselves now rather than eversheds, presumably to save costs.

The case has then been dealt with in your absence and judgment awarded against you (which appears to be what you consented to by confirming you would not be defending nor attending court) and they have obtained costs for dealing with the matter to date.

So as they didnt say they wouldnt be continuing you don't have that as a ground for set aside, I think I mentioned earlier in the thread that if you werent going to defend you should enter offer to pay etc to the court....so unless you do want to defend fully now you will be applying for redetermination.

It may be that as the date for forthwith payment has passed eversheds will be in process of enforcement by applying for a charging order etc....so you'll need to get offer of installments in asap but it is likely as they have a forthwith order that a charge order would be granted.

It may help to see the letter you sent them (minus anything personal) to see where the confusion has arisen and whether you offered installments in that which should have gone to the court ?

[pt2537]

Re: Nationwide CCA Court Hearing v Jax

Honey, thanks for posting those up....Eversheds have not said they would not be continuing in court, just that they understood you would not be defending, so to reduce costs if you werent defending they wouldn't need to attend court too, and the consent part is that you consent to the matter being dealt with without you attending court. The 'in house'bit is just nationwide looking after the case themselves now rather than eversheds, presumably to save costs.

The case has then been dealt with in your absence and judgment awarded against you (which appears to be what you consented to by confirming you would not be defending nor attending court) and they have obtained costs for dealing with the matter to date.

So as they didnt say they wouldnt be continuing you don't have that as a ground for set aside, I think I mentioned earlier in the thread that if you werent going to defend you should enter offer to pay etc to the court....so unless you do want to defend fully now you will be applying for redetermination.

It may be that as the date for forthwith payment has passed eversheds will be in process of enforcement by applying for a charging order etc....so you'll need to get offer of installments in asap but it is likely as they have a forthwith order that a charge order would be granted.

It may help to see the letter you sent them (minus anything personal) to see where the confusion has arisen and whether you offered installments in that which should have gone to the court ?

I concur,

I think that you need to apply to have the judgment varied, to set an instalment order for monthly repayments.

If the court allows, then this will bar them from a charge, although the Court may say you can pay by instalments but they are at liberty to apply for a charge.

If there was a signed consent order with terms, then that may well have drawn a different view from me, but without such a thing i have no option but to agree with Ame

[middenmess]

Re: Nationwide CCA Court Hearing v Jax

I wrote to court and Eversheds and told them I would not be defending this claim due to ill health, etc, etc and then Nationwide put it back in-house and wrote to me to confirm this saying they wouldn't go to court but deal with the matter by consent.

Read more at: Nationwide CCA Court Hearing v Jax - Page 5 - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

Am I being a bit dim here or have I misunderstood the situation?

Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

It could be read--as Jax has done-- as meaning that Nationwide have taken the case away from Eversheds and have agreed to deal with the matter with Jax subject to Jax writing to Nationwide and agreeing a deal/repayment plan and this would then mean that the pending court case would not cancelled.

Not the clearest of intentions written to the average member of the public at all!

[pt2537]

Re: Nationwide CCA Court Hearing v Jax

Am I being a bit dim here or have I misunderstood the situation?

Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

It could be read--as Jax has done-- as meaning that Nationwide have taken the case away from Eversheds and have agreed to deal with the matter with Jax subject to Jax writing to Nationwide and agreeing a deal/repayment plan and this would then mean that the pending court case would not cancelled.

Not the clearest of intentions written to the average member of the public at all!

Sadly, it is not the case, as there was no consent order drafted and signed, nor have i seen anything that suggests that there "was" an agreement to settle only that there was discussions on the issue.

For obvious reasons you cannot be bound into an enquiry

[Budgie]

Re: Nationwide CCA Court Hearing v Jax

I don't know how this claim actually got to this stage but will check back through the whole thread when I have a bit more time tomorrow.

However, there is a big gap between the last few posts and it would have probably been more beneficial Jax if you had posted up at each stage as you were dealing with letters etc etc.

Also, there is something not quite right here, the CCJ makes no mention of consent, it's almost as if the Court proceeded with judgement on the basis of Jax not attending the court hearing rather than her having agreed to settlement by consent.

Jax could you please post up copies of the letters you sent to Eversheds and Nationwide regarding the settling by consent, passing back to Nationwide etc so that we can see exactly what has happened.

Please could you provide an update on some of your other claims as well ( post on the relevant threads ), it would be good to try and prevent things going pear shaped before they get to that stage rather than after the event.

Budgie

[jax007]

Re: Nationwide CCA Court Hearing v Jax

Thanks for your input guys - most helpful,

however ...........

The case has then been dealt with in your absence and judgment awarded against you (which appears to be what you consented to by confirming you would not be defending nor attending court) and they have obtained costs for dealing with the matter to date.

So what about the bit in the letter that says "so that we can avoid the cost of attending court and settle the matter by consent"???
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Should I ring Nationwide and try to clarify both our positions? Or not a good idea?

[Amethyst]

Re: Nationwide CCA Court Hearing v Jax

''avoid the cost of attending court''

ie. avoid sending a barrister etc to court to argue the case thus reducing costs

''settle the matter by consent''

ie. you consent that they can go ahead and settle the matter without the need for a court hearing or further input from you.

I agree it is worded poorly and following that letter there should have been some communication regarding offer of installments/negotiation on costs already incurred. There was no consent order and them using the word consent may have led you to believe they would go down that path?

Did you reply to that letter ?

Did you inform the court at any time you wouldn't be attending or to vacate the hearing date ?

Basically because you said you wouldn't be defending Nationwide dispenses with the expensive services of Eversheds and dealt with the case themselves from that point. I expect a standard local solicitor just showed up at court to tell them you had agreed not to defend so judgment could be awarded against you and to ask for their costs incurred to date (everything up to and including disclosure).

[Budgie]

Re: Nationwide CCA Court Hearing v Jax

Please can you post up copies of your letters ( the letters you sent to Eversheds and Nationwide regarding the settling by consent, passing back to Nationwide etc ).

Please do this before phoning anyone or doing anything else. Once we have established exactly what has happened we can then offer best advice for next step.

It may be that there is nothing that can be done but cannot really comment until we've seen those letters.

Rgds Budgie