Hearing adjournment

davidious

Hi I received this email from Halifax solicitor. As we taking CC over a section 75. They have been delaying the process the whole way.
We are farly confident that we have enough evidence.
To be fair we never expected the Car dealer to show up anyway.
I am thinking we should not respond to this email as we have not received a letter. I think they just trying it on.
As Halifax would not be able to apply with just Notice of application to adjourn to us on behalf the Third party Part 20 defendant. Would it not be up to the Part 20 defendant to make the application ??
Any advice thank you


Email start
Dear
''I confirm I have been contacted by Car dealer (the second defendant as joined by Halifax) today to advise that he is unable to attend the hearing on ---September 2016 as a result of a ---- operation.

It would therefore appear that, as not all parties are available to attend, the hearing needs to be moved. The easiest way to do this is for all parties to sign a consent order to be sent to Court confirming that we agree for the hearing to be relisted for the first available date after 28 days. Could you please confirm as soon as possible if you agree to the adjournment? If so I will send you a consent order to review and sign.''

z1a

????????????????

wealdroam

davidious wrote: »

Hi I received this email from Halifax solicitor. As we taking CC over a section 75. They have been delaying the process the whole way.
We are farly confident that we have enough evidence.
To be fair we never expected the Car dealer to show up anyway.
I am thinking we should not respond to this email as we have not received a letter. I think they just trying it on.
As Halifax would not be able to apply with just Notice to us on behalf the Third party Part 20 defendant. It Would be up to the Part 20 defendant to make the application.
Any advice thank you


Email start
Dear
''I confirm I have been contacted by Car dealer (the second defendant as joined by Halifax) today to advise that he is unable to attend the hearing on ---September 2016 as a result of a ---- operation.

It would therefore appear that, as not all parties are available to attend, the hearing needs to be moved. The easiest way to do this is for all parties to sign a consent order to be sent to Court confirming that we agree for the hearing to be relisted for the first available date after 28 days. Could you please confirm as soon as possible if you agree to the adjournment? If so I will send you a consent order to review and sign.''

It really is quite simple... do you agree to the adjournment or not?

unholyangel

Is this small claims or high court? When you mention halifax and cc and section 75, is it safe to presume you've named the creditor as a joint defendant ? If so, have you already had a claim rejected both by the bank and the financial ombudsman?

davidious

We had offer made by the bank that we turned down as it was no way near good enough. It is the small claims.

We took Halifax to court and they named the car dealer as the part 20 defendant.

unholyangel

davidious wrote: »

We had offer made by the bank that we turned down as it was no way near good enough. It is the small claims.

We took Halifax to court and they named the car dealer as the part 20 defendant.

So you didn't make a claim with the ombudsman at any point?

As I understand it, halifax offered you a full refund but you declined as they wanted you to scrap the car and you weren't willing to do that, you wanted to keep the car and use the refund to repair the car.

So what exactly are you claiming for or what losses did you have over and above the purchase price?

As for the adjournment, you might be better getting proper paid advice depending on what the value of the claim is and whether its being heard as a small claim or in the high court. IMO an operation would be grounds that a judge would accept for adjournment - but I'm not sure if this would be affected by their being multiple defendants and halifax being jointly and severally liable. I mean you claimed against them - being jointly & severally liable means you can choose to chase one, the other or both. But section 75 of the CCA also allows the creditor to make the supplier party to any proceedings brought against them under section 75 - so its possible the judge may decide the claim should go ahead as the creditors right to make the supplier party to the proceedings doesnt change your right to chase either one or both.

I believe if you unreasonably refuse consent, you can increase your liability for costs - so its not something you really want to be relying on the internet for.

davidious

unholyangel wrote: »

So you didn't make a claim with the ombudsman at any point?

As I understand it, halifax offered you a full refund but you declined as they wanted you to scrap the car and you weren't willing to do that, you wanted to keep the car and use the refund to repair the car.

So what exactly are you claiming for or what losses did you have over and above the purchase price?

As for the adjournment, you might be better getting proper paid advice depending on what the value of the claim is and whether its being heard as a small claim or in the high court. IMO an operation would be grounds that a judge would accept for adjournment - but I'm not sure if this would be affected by their being multiple defendants and halifax being jointly and severally liable. I mean you claimed against them - being jointly & severally liable means you can choose to chase one, the other or both. But section 75 of the CCA also allows the creditor to make the supplier party to any proceedings brought against them under section 75 - so its possible the judge may decide the claim should go ahead as the creditors right to make the supplier party to the proceedings doesnt change your right to chase either one or both.

I believe if you unreasonably refuse consent, you can increase your liability for costs - so its not something you really want to be relying on the internet for.

Would it not be down to the Third party Part 20 defendant to make the Application and provide evidence of operation
Not Halifax.

And if we refuse consent the Third party can make application by just giving notice and courts can decide whether the hearing should go ahead.

If all parties agree on adjournment then obviously the hearing will be delayed. Any of the parties can make this application. But can only the Third party can make application by giving notice. If it's based on there medical grounds.

davidious

Any further advice thank you

davidious

Even though we refused consent. The Hearing was Adjourned

Email from Halifax solicitors
'I have spoken with the County Court at

---

and the Judge there has confirmed that, following Dealer confirmation that he is unable to attend on Friday due to medical reasons, the hearing has been vacated and will be relisted for the first available date after 14th October 2016. The Court will send out a new Order in due course."

---

We checked with the court and it has been adjourned till December 1st.

Though we believe that the Car dealer only sent there defence to Halifax solicitors and Halifax put the application in to adjourn it.

Have not received a Copy of the Defence from Car Dealer or his intention to adjourn the hearing.

bris

This is one of those rare cases where they actually attend because they know they can't lose.

steampowered

If you don't have the car dealer's defence you should be able to get it from the court file (although of course the defence should have been served on you as the claimant).