Another "No Show" For Sobell / Roxburghe

trisontana

PePiPoo are reporting that Sobell has dropped yet another East Kent hospital case.

hoohoo

trisontana wrote: »

PePiPoo are reporting that Sobell has dropped yet another East Kent hospital case.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=77364

Scouse_Magic

trisontana wrote: »

"The day after receiving her bundle the old vampire tried to adjourn it, however the judge was having none of it and left a message on Graham White solicitors answer machine (who we all know is not there), and told him to appoint counsel for himself in his absence......Basically the judge was not going to be messed about, and quite right to.

On the day there was no representation from East Kent Hospitals and needless to say the claim was dismissed, judgement for the defendant and costs awarded."

Which just shows that court papers are being used as just another link in the threaogram chain. Stand up to these bullies and they will back down.

That will be two for us and nil for sobell then !! :beer:
He even had the ordasity to appeal a small claims judgement, failing miserably and adding another £80 to the total bill which he & roxburghe refused to pay, and they have the cheek to send out payment demands....Double standards here me thinks !!! Thats a great reason to refuse to pay them, pay their own bills first...

I have read on the OFT website tonight that roxburghe's license is marked as refused to renew as of April 2013 pending one last appeal. If that is correct maybe thats why the dont put their license number and vat no: anymore on their template letters... Anyone have any thoughts on this ????:T

Coupon-mad

Scouse_Magic wrote: »

That will be two for us and nil for sobell then !! :beer:
He even had the ordasity to appeal a small claims judgement, failing miserably and adding another £80 to the total bill which he & roxburghe refused to pay, and they have the cheek to send out payment demands....Double standards here me thinks !!! Thats a great reason to refuse to pay them, pay their own bills first...

I have read on the OFT website tonight that roxburghe's license is marked as refused to renew as of April 2013 pending one last appeal. If that is correct maybe thats why the dont put their license number and vat no: anymore on their template letters... Anyone have any thoughts on this ????:T

Now then, that IS a result if the OFT finally get there and stop Roxburghe! Steve Dargonne will have to go back to a real job like being a banker...oh wait...!

Kite2010

Poor Roxburghe

Now where did I put my mini violin?

HO87

Could S-M provide a link to the information he saw on the OFT website?

I am aware, and have previously posted that Roxburghe's CCA licence remains under review as it has been since May 2011. I have also previously posted that in April (as a result of an application for the renewal of their licence that expired in March - which the OFT had previously been "minded to revoke") the status of their licence had been changed to "minded to refuse to renew". This isn't a further step along the road merely a reaction to the submission of a renewal application in the situation where the previous licence had expired.

According to my information from the OFT this remains an "open" investigation and that no determination has yet been reached. S-M's description of the situation, "pending one last appeal" suggests that there is only one step to go and that is an appeal. The "last" appeal route in this situation is an appeal to the independent adjudicators and that can only result from a formal determination. We are not, however, at that stage based on the information I can ascertain.

Indeed, Roxburghe appear in the OFT's list of "open" investigations available on this link: http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/CreditEnforcement/Gateway_mtrs.pdf

fil_cad

Haa poor poxburghe my heart is bleeding for them lol:D :rotfl:

Scouse_Magic

HO87 wrote: »

Could S-M provide a link to the information he saw on the OFT website?

I am aware, and have previously posted that Roxburghe's CCA licence remains under review as it has been since May 2011. I have also previously posted that in April (as a result of an application for the renewal of their licence that expired in March - which the OFT had previously been "minded to revoke") the status of their licence had been changed to "minded to refuse to renew". This isn't a further step along the road merely a reaction to the submission of a renewal application in the situation where the previous licence had expired.

According to my information from the OFT this remains an "open" investigation and that no determination has yet been reached. S-M's description of the situation, "pending one last appeal" suggests that there is only one step to go and that is an appeal. The "last" appeal route in this situation is an appeal to the independent adjudicators and that can only result from a formal determination. We are not, however, at that stage based on the information I can ascertain.

Hi HO87, Thank you for your input.
As a newbie I am not allowed to post links on here.
We all know that roxburghe's licence was minded to revoke in 2011. On the 11th April 2013 the satus of the said licence is now refused to renew.
I have contacted the OFT this morning for clarification as they applied for renewal of licence in Febuary 2013.
They advise me that the license is refused on the basis of ' not fit to hold a CCL' and to date no appeal has been lodged.
Debt collection and enforcement of credit agreements requires part 7 of a CCL.
I asked the OFT for the timescale in which they can appeal and he advised me to send request via email, which I intend to do later today, along with other concerns. :beer:

HO87

Do we know when the determination was made? I'm assuming that it was within the very recent past.

If this proves to be correct (not doubting you S-M) it is a matter of some concern that the public register has yet to be updated and nor has the OFT's website where it sets out details of its current investigations. This is especially so given that they themselves describe debt-collection, from a public perspective, as a "high-risk activity".

I note with a little trepidation that in the history of their most recent application (on the public register) effectively everything is marked as "Pending" with the sole exception of "Debt Collecting" which is marked as "Retained"

@S-M don't worry about posting links. Omit the http://www. section and just include the remainder as plain text. We can do the rest for you.