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

Jmoo

eskbanker said:

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?

Apologies. 

Clear Bank are the they referenced throughout. Clear Bank found an account in the system trading under the business name that I entered in the TPDO under the account number and sort code, but Clear Bank say it's registered to a different name and address. Clear Bank are accepting they have an account for that business quoted on the invoice with that sort code and account number. 

Whilst Tide seems to use Clear Bank, Clear Bank are accepting in the legal documents it falls under them.

Clear Bank's solicitors want to set aside the documentation, and to seek costs. The reason we didn't hear a response at the time and required me to chase it up appears to because the solicitors sent the documentation to the wrong court.

I just don't see why their solicitors want my documents to present their case. 

I am happy to go down the baliffs route, but I now have multiple people with complaints against this trader that all used this bank account so some resolve would be beneficial for all. 

eskbanker

Not sure what to make of it then to be honest, maybe worth asking for guidance from the court?

Jmoo

Perhaps although I have limited time. The hearing is next week.

I might write to the solicitors to question their motives. It seems late in the day to get correspondence on this

I now have multiple invoices and email exchanges confirming this is what the trader uses. 

eskbanker

Jmoo said:

I now have multiple invoices and email exchanges confirming this is what the trader uses. 

But, as discussed previously, that isn't relevant to the bank, unless a court instructed them otherwise....

Jmoo

eskbanker said:

Jmoo said:

I now have multiple invoices and email exchanges confirming this is what the trader uses. 

But, as discussed previously, that isn't relevant to the bank, unless a court instructed them otherwise....

It seems to be what they are requesting, however, in their letter received today. 

eskbanker

Jmoo said:

eskbanker said:

Jmoo said:

I now have multiple invoices and email exchanges confirming this is what the trader uses. 

But, as discussed previously, that isn't relevant to the bank, unless a court instructed them otherwise....

It seems to be what they are requesting, however, in their letter received today. 

I can't understand why the matter would even be up for discussion if they're seeking the scrapping of the order?

Jmoo

eskbanker said:

Jmoo said:

eskbanker said:

Jmoo said:

I now have multiple invoices and email exchanges confirming this is what the trader uses. 

But, as discussed previously, that isn't relevant to the bank, unless a court instructed them otherwise....

It seems to be what they are requesting, however, in their letter received today. 

I can't understand why the matter would even be up for discussion if they're seeking the scrapping of the order?

Thus my original question!

PHK

I'll repeat. Before any hearing it's usual for the parties to exchange evidence. The order for the hearing will state this and usually by when it should happen. 

Jmoo

PHK said:

I'll repeat. Before any hearing it's usual for the parties to exchange evidence. The order for the hearing will state this and usually by when it should happen. 

Thank you. It didn't state this in the document, but that makes sense.

Jmoo

Hi,

I'm having a panic about a Third Party Debt Order hearing tomorrow.

This has been much documented, but I was trying to claim around £1,000 off a trader who did a runner with my money after poorly installing some guttering. I applied for a CCJ against him, and it was confirmed, with no response.

I then went down the route of a Third Party Debt Order through the bank he used, with evidence of his address on the electoral roll, the invoice, and confirmation he was trading using that account, and was in charge of the finances.

At the interim hearing it was confirmed by the judge he had received no response from the bank nor the trader. He was doubtful it would be successful at securing funds.

Through this forum I finally managed to get a response from the bank about the status of this TPDO, but only through direct messaging an ex-employee who contacted the bank's PR department. They contacted me four days after the final order was agreed.

They said that the name was different and they had a 'slightly different' address. Despite my frustration I accepted the baliff was the next course of action.

In August I finally received some documents about the search the bank did as part of their request to set aside the document. I believed this to be fairly straight forward as it had failed.

This, according to the law, should have been sent to me within three days of the interim order going through. It turns out they did not send it to me, and they did not send it to the court that heard the TPDO. Instead it went to a general overarching court address.

Now the solicitor within the last few days has written to me demanding my evidence, which I obliged, and I provided a witness statement to them and the court. I obliged, pointing out this was done in good faith, and that I had struggles with the bank on this.

They have now written to the court blaming me entirely for the TPDO reaching the final stage, saying it should never have got that far. They now want £10,000 in costs for doing so - informing me of this 24 hours before the hearing.

I hadn't sought legal advice as it seemed a straight forward case that it would be set aside, but this has left me aghast that they could demand such money given they are trying to put right their own failures. I can prove they didn't follow proper process from their evidence, and that far from being my fault, the order would not have been made if they had correctly sent the documents to myself and the court in question beforehand.

But is that enough? Is making this case enough or do I need to find a solicitor quickly?