Opposing solicitor wants *my* documents to challenge third party debt order

Jmoo

Bit of a weird one. I've been in the process of trying to get my money back from a trader through a bank using a Third Party Debt Order. The bank never responded to the courts or wrote to me, and their customer service never replied.

It took me going through various Twitter searches to find the CEO to get someone to contact me about it. The PR person unhelpfully said although it was the correct account for the trader, as it was registered in a differing name to the one on my TPDO, they wouldn't honour it.

They said if it was changed they would consider handing over the money, but wouldn't say whose name it was in.

We reached stalemate. Now the bank wants it scrapped and I received paperwork to say there would be a hearing this month.

Now I've had a signed for letter from the solicitor telling me they want me to send my documentation by Monday surrounding the TPDO so they're ready for the hearing. 

I find it a bit strange. Surely the bank has the documents? Why do they need my documents to argue against me? Are they expecting me to do their work? If they look hard enough I emailed the documents a while back when querying why I'd not received a reply!

In practice, I accept the TPDO isn't going anywhere and I'll need a baliff. But playing devil's advocate, do I want to help the bank that wasn't very helpful?

PHK

In any hearing there should be an exchange of documents before hand. This should have been in the judges order for the hearing.

fatbelly

So it's the defendant's solicitor chasing this? They are a bit late. You already have the judgement and it's now a question of how to enforce it.

I suspect the judge will not be happy with the behaviour of either the bank, or that solicitor.

You should comply with anything the court is asking you to do, which I suspect is just to turn up.

As you say, if this fails, send in a HCEO

born_again

For anyone interested this relates to this thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6462751/clear-bank-not-complying-with-third-party-debt-order/p1

eskbanker

fatbelly said:

So it's the defendant's solicitor chasing this? They are a bit late. You already have the judgement and it's now a question of how to enforce it.

I suspect the judge will not be happy with the behaviour of either the bank, or that solicitor.

It's not as simple as that - as per the linked thread, OP was initially pursuing the wrong bank, and is now effectively trying to recover funds from the wrong party (from the bank's perspective, based on the specified account being in a different name from the subject of the original CCJ).

Jmoo

As I say, it's the bank that's challenging it. They weren't prepared to write to me either way at the time to confirm or deny that they had an account under that name. It took them until I chased up to confirm the information. I'm just bemused why the bank's legal team want my paperwork when they will have their own. Surely the documents should go the judge? I am happy for them to dismiss it if it doesn't require work for me, I'm focused on the baliffs. 

eskbanker

Jmoo said:

I'm just bemused why the bank's legal team want my paperwork when they will have their own.

But if the TPDO was originally issued to the wrong bank, the right bank may not be confident that they have had all relevant information passed to them?

Jmoo

eskbanker said:

Jmoo said:

I'm just bemused why the bank's legal team want my paperwork when they will have their own.

But if the TPDO was originally issued to the wrong bank, the right bank may not be confident that they have had all relevant information passed to them?

If it's listed as them, and my bank has confirmed that's the destination, that's for them to argue. I don't see why they need my involvement or anything further from me for their case. They appear to have it all as they sent me a version in their response in July. It has not been requested by the judge, so I'm unsure why they want it again. 

eskbanker

Jmoo said:

eskbanker said:

Jmoo said:

I'm just bemused why the bank's legal team want my paperwork when they will have their own.

But if the TPDO was originally issued to the wrong bank, the right bank may not be confident that they have had all relevant information passed to them?

If it's listed as them, and my bank has confirmed that's the destination, that's for them to argue. I don't see why they need my involvement or anything further from me for their case. They appear to have it all as they sent me a version in their response in July. It has not been requested by the judge, so I'm unsure why they want it again. 

But according to the other thread, you were still pursuing Clear Bank in July, and it wasn't until August that you started dealing (correctly) with Tide instead, who then "want[ed] the court documentation reissued"?

Jmoo

eskbanker said:

Jmoo said:

I'm just bemused why the bank's legal team want my paperwork when they will have their own.

But if the TPDO was originally issued to the wrong bank, the right bank may not be confident that they have had all relevant information passed to them?

Following this Clear Bank say in their search they found an account trading under the business name that I entered in the TPDO under the account number and sort code, they just say it's registered to a different name and address. It seems irrelevant if Tide use Clear Bank or not, they're accepting they have an account for that business with that sort code and account number. 

They want to set aside the documentation, and appear to have sent the papers to the wrong court, which is why the judge didn't hear more at the time. 

I refer to my original question, why do their solicitors need information relating to my request? I am unclear what is required if they have the original paperwork. 

eskbanker

It's difficult to follow which parties are doing what here - for each of the 'they's in the above post, which relate to Tide and which to Clear Bank?