HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

[Hephaestus]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

Not heard a thing. Have filed my defence now and whilst at the court I asked the dude at the desk if Varde had filed anything. He had a look on his pc and all they have done is left a message to say that they had sent me a copy of the claim form.

Thanks again.

[Hephaestus]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

Hi,

I have received a letter from the courts. It reads as follows :-

"Notice That A defence Has Been Filed.

The defendant has filed a defence, a copy of which is enclosed with this notice. An allocation questionnaire s also enclosed which contains notes for guidance on how to complete it.

You must complete the allocation questionnaire on or before 23rd December 2011 and return it to the court office.


A fee of £220 is payable by the claimant on the filing of their allocation questionnaire."


There is a copy of my defence and this questionnaire.The questionnaire requires that all pre court protocols are adhered to and it gives a web page address for the protocols specific to this case. However, the web address does not exist. I rang the courts and asked them about it but they suggested I should not bother to complete the questionnaire. When I told them that my name was on the questionnaire and I had been told to fill it in she said he wasn't qualified to give legal advice...

I feel that all the things they are asking in this questionnaire have been things I have already tried. I still have heard nothing from Varde or IND.
The first part of this doc stresses the importance of settling before court action. I am happy to settle if that means Varde will lose this case, but not otherwise. I am unsure of how to word this in the questionnaire.

I am interested as to how Varde have to pay costs this time, and not me.

Any advice on what to do about this form is well appreciated.

Cheers.

[SpringerSpaniel]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

You should file the questionnaire if unsure wehther this is required or not.

Can you scan and post the blank questionnaire on here ?

The purpose of it is to plan any court hearing which may be necessary eg how long do you need in court, how many witnesses are to appear etc. It deals with procedure not substance of your case. Are you acting in person ?

[Hephaestus]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

Hi,
I have attached pics of the questionnaire. So far I have represented myself and am hoping not to have to do another court appearance as that was a grim day out!

Thanks for having a look. I will put the guidance notes in next post.

Cheers

[Hephaestus]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

Here are the guidance notes



Cheers.

[Hephaestus]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

Hi,
Have completed the form and submitted it a day early... I haven't received anything at the last minute from Varde,Ind or Hegarty so am hoping they never returned their form. Will just have to wait and see.

Cheers.

[Hephaestus]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

Hi Folks, Happy New Year,

Just received a letter from the court, here it is...

"Varde Investments (Ireland) LT - Claimant

Hephaestus - Defendant

Before District Judge xxx sitting at xxx Court.

Upon reading a letter from the Claimant

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. Unless the Claimant files at Court a completed Allocation Questionnaire (and pays the allocation fee or files an application for fee remission, if applicable) with the Court Office by 4.00 pm on or before 26 January 2012 then the claim and any defence to the Counterclaim shall stand struck out.

2. The Claimant do by 26 January 2012 file and serve a Reply to Defence.


Any party affected by this order may apply to the Court to have it set aside, varied or stayed. Such application must be made in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rule Part 23, within 7 days of service of the order."


It looks like Varde never sent their questionnaire back but must have written a letter instead. I have heard nothing till now and have no idea what their letter said.
I may contact the court to see if I can get a copy of this letter. Will continue to wait and see what happens next.

Cheers.

[teaboy2]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

Hi Folks, Happy New Year,

Just received a letter from the court, here it is...

"Varde Investments (Ireland) LT - Claimant

Hephaestus - Defendant

Before District Judge xxx sitting at xxx Court.

Upon reading a letter from the Claimant

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. Unless the Claimant files at Court a completed Allocation Questionnaire (and pays the allocation fee or files an application for fee remission, if applicable) with the Court Office by 4.00 pm on or before 26 January 2012 then the claim and any defence to the Counterclaim shall stand struck out.

2. The Claimant do by 26 January 2012 file and serve a Reply to Defence.


Any party affected by this order may apply to the Court to have it set aside, varied or stayed. Such application must be made in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rule Part 23, within 7 days of service of the order."


It looks like Varde never sent their questionnaire back but must have written a letter instead. I have heard nothing till now and have no idea what their letter said.
I may contact the court to see if I can get a copy of this letter. Will continue to wait and see what happens next.

Cheers.

Would be very interesting to see what the letter stated, maybe they are in abuse of process and the letter is nothing but an attempt to wriggle out of it by asking for more time, who knows. Though we will when you get a copy of the letter.

Just out of interest H, can you remind me what your counter claim was, if any, since they refer to one?

[QCKate]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

Hi Folks, Happy New Year,

Just received a letter from the court, here it is...

"Varde Investments (Ireland) LT - Claimant

Hephaestus - Defendant

Before District Judge xxx sitting at xxx Court.

Upon reading a letter from the Claimant

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. Unless the Claimant files at Court a completed Allocation Questionnaire (and pays the allocation fee or files an application for fee remission, if applicable) with the Court Office by 4.00 pm on or before 26 January 2012 then the claim and any defence to the Counterclaim shall stand struck out.

2. The Claimant do by 26 January 2012 file and serve a Reply to Defence.


Any party affected by this order may apply to the Court to have it set aside, varied or stayed. Such application must be made in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rule Part 23, within 7 days of service of the order."


It looks like Varde never sent their questionnaire back but must have written a letter instead. I have heard nothing till now and have no idea what their letter said.
I may contact the court to see if I can get a copy of this letter. Will continue to wait and see what happens next.

Cheers.

With any luck this is very good news for you H. There must be a good chance they have decided not to throw another £220 at this.

Hope to read your confirmation after 26th!!!

QCK

[Hephaestus]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

Hi,

I don't think I done a counterclaim. I was just careful of wording that costs be allocated to me in my defence form. In my original court hearing regarding my 244 form Varde had written that if the judgement went against them costs should be allocated to me. Luckily, the judge knew I didn't know all the correct legal phrasing and held these fees until Varde complied with his order. The Allocation Questionnaire fees were not applied to me but it looks like Varde had to pay double. I don't know if that was a result of my defence wording or whether the courts were giving me a break.
I was going to attach a draft order to my Allocation Questionnaire requesting that the court Order Varde to supply their proof within 14 days or have the case dismissed, but in the end I never bothered and just quoted my defence statement in answer to the various sections of the form. It looks like the court has done just that tho anyway.
I did not put a counterclaim in. Wish I had now tho.

Cheers.

[Hephaestus]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

Hi Folks,

It's not going away !! Just received this..

"Notice of Allocation to Fast Track.

Varde - Claimant
Hephaesus - Defendant

District Judge xxx has considered the statements of case and allocation questionnaires filed, and allocated the claim to the fast track.

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. Each party shall give the other party standard disclosure of documents by serving a list of documents by 4.00pm on 17 February 2012.

2. All request for inspection of (or copies of) documents must be made by 4.00pm on 24 February 2012.

3. The parties mutually disclose by 4.00pm on 30 March 2012 the signed statements of all witnesses of fact on whose evidence they intend to rely together with any notices to rely on hearsay evidence.

4. Each party must file a completed pre trial checklist by 4.00pm on 27 April 2012 and the Claimant must pay a fee of £110.00. In addition a hearing fee of £545.00 (fast track) or £1090.00 (multi track) must be paid by the Claimant. The parties must file with their listing questionnaires a succinct case summary and schedule of issues (which they must seek to agree) and, if any party seeks leave to call oral expert evidence, copies of the relevant reports and any joint statement(s) and/or replies to question.

If the court is notifies in writing that the hearing is no longer required the hearing fee will be refunded in full or in part in certain circumstances, please refer to the leaflets explaining more about what happens when your case is allocated to track.


Notes.

You and the other party, or parties, may agree to extend the time periods given in the directions
except
- where a rule, practise discretion or court order requires a party to comply with a direction within a specified time and specifies the consequences of failing to comply;
- when an extension of time will affect the date given for returning the pre-trial checklist or the date of the trial or trial period.

If you do not comply with these new directions, any other party to the claim will be entitled to apply to the court for an order that your statement of case (claim or defence) be struck out.


5. The claim (issue) will be tried during the trial window commencing on 11 June 2012 and ending on 29 June 2012.

The provisional time estimate for the trial is 4 hours and the parties must inform the court if that time estimate varies."


That's the latest... Am in my "completely baffled" mode at the moment as it always takes me a few days to start getting to grips with the legal stuff.

I have no documents that I can think of to disclose to Varde, I am still waiting to see what they have.

Any comments or advice most welcome.

Cheers.

Heph.

[teaboy2]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

Just a small point, but you should also include in your defence how you cancelled the card when they tried to vary the interest rate, and as such were instructed to continue repayments on the as per the original insterest rate, and that MBNA had therefore acted in breach of contract by selling the debt and unlawfully defaulting you for an agreement you were not actually in default off. As you had continued to make the repayments at the original interest rate after cancelling the agreement, due to their wanting to increase the interest rates.

That itself would be a nail in Varde and their solicitors coffin as they can not argue round that at all lol.

[alsagerman]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

Just a small point, but you should also include in your defence how you cancelled the card when they tried to vary the interest rate, and as such were instructed to continue repayments on the as per the original insterest rate, and that MBNA had therefore acted in breach of contract by selling the debt and unlawfully defaulting you for an agreement you were not actually in default off. As you had continued to make the repayments at the original interest rate after cancelling the agreement, due to their wanting to increase the interest rates.

That itself would be a nail in Varde and their solicitors coffin as they can not argue round that at all lol.

Just a point to clarify as following the thread I'm left a little confused. It was my understanding that an account can only be cancelled if the outstanding amount is fully repaid. It is however possble to reject a "new" interest rate and continue repayments at the old rate so long as you notify the card issuer that you do not accept their rate increase and do not spend on the card following their notice of rate increase..........or am i wrong.

[teaboy2]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

Just a point to clarify as following the thread I'm left a little confused. It was my understanding that an account can only be cancelled if the outstanding amount is fully repaid. It is however possble to reject a "new" interest rate and continue repayments at the old rate so long as you notify the card issuer that you do not accept their rate increase and do not spend on the card following their notice of rate increase..........or am i wrong.

Thats correct, but the new terms that MBNA produced would automatically have been cancelled and as such they were never executed the new/admended agreement, and their claim is i believe based on the new terms (new interest rates) despite H, making it clear to them he rejected the new interest rate and they told H to continue making repayments at the old rate.

So yes the old terms are not cancelled but the new terms they are basing their claim on were cancelled and therefore so was the new agreement, cancelling an agreement does not mean it is terminated as its not fully terminated until all duties under the contract are fulfilled. Therefore cancelling is merely notification that you intend to terminate as you have rejected the new terms, though you will continue to fulfill your duties under the original terms where upon such fulfillment of duties the agreement becomes terminated automatically.

Confusing i know, but i hope that helps clarify it a bit.

[teaboy2]

Re: HELP. In Court vs Varde Investments/Hegarty LLP

There is nothing inept about my posts Peter, and no one was trying to bait you, i have only stood up and argued what i believe is correct where you disagreed. I also stood up for Labman in the face of your posting his real name and questioning his motives as per her charity that he set up to help people. Not to mention the fact you were demaning he reveals all his personal details and details of his charity for the world to see, leaving him open to anyone that wants to locate his home address. Yet when i asked you to tell us your full name and the name and details of your credit union, you tried to pass us off with the details of the trade association for credit unions, then when i asked again you failed to respond. Youtr current acts of posting the same post as above along with an unacceptable offensive, insultive and libellous post in the distance marketing thread directed at myself, Is nothing more than pathetic, and only goes to show your true colours. You said everyone laughs at my advice and lack of legal knowledge, yet my reputation is on the site is at the same level as your current level of reputation let i have around 350 less posts then you. That says to me i have a much better reputation then you have yourselve, which also confirms that no one is laughing at my advice or thinks that i have a poor legal knowledge, but in fact think i have a good grasp and knowledge of law. Which is also evident in the fact i was invited to be a working group member due to my grasp and knowledge of law.

Now peter, i can soon find out your personal details and make arrangements to come meet you in person and tell you what i think to your face if you like and we can settle this like real men, but then i suspect your just a keyboard warrior that hates being proven wrong and or shown to be wrong in some deluded view that anyone cares whether you got it wrong or not. What people do however care about is when your ego prevents you from holding your hands up and accepting you may have got it wrong and that you are not always right like you yourself claimed to be in another thread. NO ONE IS ALWAYS RIGHT PETER. Your a sore loser and simply can not accept you were in the wrong and were way out of order.

And now you are simply going round posting your issues with the site team giving you a warning on a number of threads, with abosolutely no regard whatsover for the fact that this thread and others has nothing to do with any dispute between me and you, you and Labman, or you and the site team. You are basically effectively diverting attention from the Thread OP's in all the threads you have just posted in, with no regard to the effective it will have on them getting the help they are needing. Your a disrespectful, egotistical and pathetic cry baby that has shown no thought whatsoever as to the effects your posts have on others and on the site as a whole. You are systimatically attempted to confuse the main issue of a number of threads with you views from the othe parties side leading to confusion and distracting people and preventing those needing help from getting the help they need as a result. You systimatically destroy threads on the deluded believe your always right when your in fact wrong, and simply refuse to accept it and then try to distract from the argument by accusing the othe rparty of changing the subject when it was you youself that asked them ot elaborate on the very subject you accused them of changing too. You Systimatically revert to insults and derogatory comments in an unacceptable and libellous attempt to discredit others and their arguments. Why... because its all part of your pathetic attempt to save your own face and give the illusion to others that you were right during the arguement. Hell peter those so called inept posts, also included offers to end the arguments on a number of occasions for the sake of the thread, and therefore an attempt by me to save the thread by getting you to agree to stop the arguement regardless of who was right or wrong, but on each occasion you sytimatically ignored my offers to put aside the argument and end it, simple because of your own dam ego.

But you never bargined on me did you peter. You never thought anyone would go the distance with you during an argument and prove you wrong and make sure that everyone would see you for who you really are, or have the stomach and stamina to out last you on any arguments, did you peter. No you didn't, nor did you realise that i have the intelligence and the ability to see right through you and what your trying to do. And you know what else peter, i have dealt with egotisical idiots like you all my life, because i grew on on a council estate where on every corner there was always someone who thought they were bigger better and harder then everyone else, and you know what peter you are no different form any of them. And guess what peter, there is always someone bigger, better and harder than you, thats a fact of life, because no matter what, one day someone comes along and knocks you down and puts you in your place, thats a fact.

Oh and peter remember this post from here - Quesstions for PT 257 [Archive] - Consumer Credit Support

peterbard
11-07-2010, 08:51 AM

Hi TermHI
No agreement has ever been found unenforceable on section 60 alone.
It is not a breach os section 127

I cannot post on CAG because I have been BANNED.

He will not post on here because he knows I will ask questions he cannot answer.

He is not a solicitor.
I have worked in a solicitors ofice for thirty years and know exactly what he is where he works and his function there.

His threads are simply designed to use psudo legalise to perpetuate the myth of the unenforceability of certain agreement in order to try to sustain the income of his employers, they turn a blind eye thist because they know he cannot be sanctioned by the law society or connected to them because basically he is just the tea boy.

Despite what you may think, Ihave nothing against anyone posting anything they wat, but yes i do get upset when i see people suffering by following so called learned advice.



237 successful prosecutions by Egg on these agreement since 1 April 2008.

Any successes

If you want to see the gapping flaws in the logic of this absurd claim read my past postings I will not go to the trouble of posting again.

Any news of the recent text case I thought not

Peter

A Thread that was clearly ment as a way of getting on up on a member of another site that no longer posted on the site you posted on nor could they at the time due to their connection to the case. But what amazes me is you also claim to have worked in a solicitors office for 30 years, early today you claimed you worked as an accountant, you also claimed in the past to be Vice chairman etc of your credit union, yet here according to the news articles i have found on Thamsideadvertisor, you were a publicity office for a fair that was attended by a local credit union and then a development office for the same credit union. Off course i will not post links to the article to protection your identity and privacy (something you have no respect for). though i must admit i would love to see your CV as you have clearly had some very interested career changes. Funny thing is i can not find anything that confirms you were ever a Chairman or Vice Chairman of a credit union. Isn't google amazing when it coes to finding things out. off course those articles maybe referring to a different peter but come on how many people with the same full name as you are part of a credit union or even a Chairman/Vice Chairman come to think of it!

I suggest you read the entire thread peter, and just look at the way people are responding to you and refering to your attitude and aggression. Because believe me peter, people do not say things like that other without good reason. And its clear you have not changed one bit in the last 2 years, your clearly still thinking your better than the rest of us and are the GOD of consumer forums and consumer law, your not mate. And going by the way people post in response to you, its clear not many people actually like you because of your attitude and agressiveness, which has been clearly apparent on LB over the last 2 weeks.

You know what peter, lifes about getting hit and taking those hits (e.g holding your hands up and accepting you were wrong) and getting back up to fight another day mate. But your not able to take the hits cos your incapable of admitting that you are not always right and you therefore are not able to take the hits and hold your hands up and accept you were wrong, so you can then continue to fight another day. Its because you can not take those hits peter that led you to where you are now e.g. official warning from the site team. And given your spamming the same post above over numerous threads, its likely you will be banned. All because you couldn't take the hit that the site team gave you e.g couldn't accept you were in the wrong. And thats your downfall peter. So don't be surprised if your not able to fight another day on here. You can blame me, Labman the site team as much as you want, but we all know the real reason is not us but your own inability to be able to take the hits. You know that, i know that, everyone here knows that, to say otherwise and to blame anyone but yourselve peter is nothing but an insult to the inteligence of every member of this site along with those whom you are trying to lay the blame on. You know what the saddest thing about this is peter? The saddest thing is that a man or your age should not be acting anything like they way you are acting.