Court documents sent to Mother's and not my address, 'deliberately'
Comments
-
[FONT="]I'll kick off with a sincere, happy New Year to all who contribute here.[/FONT]
[FONT="]I'm about to start a second thread on an unrelated matter and thought I should, first, pop an update in here.[/FONT]
[FONT="]I am currently awaiting a mediation date and have been waiting for about three months now. I am not surprised or perturbed by this delay. Since my local county court, Lambeth, closed a couple of (maybe three) years ago, most Lambeth cases end up in Clerkenwell county court in central London. And they were busy enough before Lambeth’s closure..... so there's an understandable queue.
In other cases before this one, I've have scheduled court dates repeatedly put back. 12 months is my record and that was as a claimant.
I've learned that justice delayed is no longer justice denied. Instead, delayed justice is the only justice currently on offer.
I will, of course, update this thread with anything substantial when it happens - assuming the thread is still open.
[/FONT]0 -
[FONT="]
[/FONT]Thing is, The OP notes that any correspondence to his ‘correct address’ was also ignored and not responded to. While the OP notes that he has multiple other accounts with the same original firm, this would have no bearing on the account that is in dispute. I think any reasonable person would take the view where if correspondence is not responded to, then a DC has a right to locate the debtor and send them correspondence at an alternate address. While the OP says there is no link between him and his mothers address - the DC must have had evidence from somewhere to indicate that there was a link (despite what the OP says) - and lo and behold... correspondence to that address got the result of the OP responding to the matter!
I’m not disagreeing that in some cases, they do use this as a tactic, and this is unfair - but I don’t think in this specific case it is, as the OP has indicated that he has not responded to any correspondence at his ‘correct address’, but has responded to correspondence at a so called ‘incorrect address’.[FONT="]Regardless - the OP - says that this issue hasn’t formed part of his defence. I’d very much like to see him publish what he has submitted to the court.[/FONT]
[FONT="]I find your contribution utterly perverse, sambaird, as it practically says the polar opposite of what I've stated. Apart from court papers, ALL correspondence to my Mother's address has, rightly, been returned to sender with the simple, truthful and factual message - 'not at this address'. I have always responded to correspondence sent to my correct address.
In my message #3 above I clearly state;[/FONT]
[FONT="]'There's absolutely no public record, or record with the creditor than links me to my Mother's address.
EE, BT and Lovells (sp) all know my correct and current address. EE/BT have known it for over ten years and sill use it. Their debt collectors have known it for over two years and have had all correspondence sent to my correct address answered and responded to...'[/FONT]
[FONT="]And yet, still you seem eager to defend the indefensible. I.e. that Lowell's tried to obtain summary judgement by getting court papers sent to an address that they know I am not at, despite having my correct address.[/FONT]0 -
CakeCrusader wrote: »Sorry, but it's not the role of a McKenzie friend to "appear in courts, in successful defence of others". McKenzie friends are mostly unqualified lay people who are there to offer support. They do not, and they should certainly not, be there to defend others!! I certainly hope that you do not speak to litigants in the same way that you've spoken here, it's not the role of a McKenzie friend to give legal advice, nor is it their job to encourage the litigant to seek a court remedy vexatiously or to waste the court's time, which appeared to be what you're planning to do here.
I, strongly, recommend you proceed immediately and without delay to Clerkenwell County Court and speak with the clerks and the judges and question why I've repeatedly been allowed to appear before them, representing various claimants (repeatedly) while taking on and winning against large organisations? Seriously, I think you should go now, post haste. At the very least you should contact the Justice Ministry and the Master of the Rolls and explain how your knowledge of court protocol outstrips the clerks and judges at Clerkenwell.
(Ps: you may also wanna ask them why the declarations which claimants and I sign in court (them requesting and me accepting) allowing me to be their McKenzie Friend flies in the face of your, now obvious, limited knowledge on the matter...)0 -
As the OP said: "It's for the court to decide".
You can infer from this what you will (for the slower readers - yes).
Playing smart while not being clever sounds blissful!
Why would anybody be going to court, of all places, in defence of a claim against them if they believed the claim against them was valid?
I understand speed reading often results in crucial and even basics points being overlooked or misunderstood0 -
Surely you issue a defense and counter claim to EE? That would be far better than just ignoring the court claim.0
-
Playing smart while not being clever sounds blissful!
Why would anybody be going to court, of all places, in defence of a claim against them if they believed the claim against them was valid?
I understand speed reading often results in crucial and even basics points being overlooked or misunderstood
You sound particularly young and somewhat naive, I can only apologise for missing your basics points.
All I will say is your abrasive and quite patronising attitude won't get you very far in life. I'm out.1 -
Just admit it, you owe the debt and are trying to get out of paying it, simple. Your not clever and nobody is fooled.
You may consider this response rude but it’s difficult not to be, you are so patronising0 -
Ssssso.... looking at the very last response above, it is totally and utterly perverse that on this consumer rights thread, on a dedicated consumer rights site, that ssssso, ssso many told this poster to 'cough up', 'pay up', ‘you owe the money’. Despite on numerous, repeated occasions, me saying I didn't owe EE, Arvato(sp?) or Lowell a penny. This is why I was happy to defend my position in court. It is absolutely clear from this thread alone, that many poster are talking with little or no knowledge of the law and, I proffer and would go so far as to say again, that some posters are on the payroll of others. Such posters deliberately posting unsubstantiated, illogical tosh, stuff and nonsense in defence of their paymasters. A glance over this thread demonstrates how much absolute rubbish people are prepared to post in the name of faux, little or no knowledge (and patently even less experience) of the law.
This matter was queued for mediation, as agreed by both sides, before continual delays (by the court) saw the case queued for a fast track hearing, without mediation (as directed by the court without reference to either party). This fast track queue meant the claimant, Lowell, had to pay an additional fee to have the matter heard or the case would be struck from the court queue and, in effect, abandoned by the claimant. I knew that this final stage before a court hearing would mean that a human being, at Lowell, would have to look at and access the court papers and my defence, before they paid any more money for court fees.
The claimant did not pay the fees before the required court deadline and, instead, sent documents to me and the court declaring that the matter was being abandoned.
Make of that what you will. I never owed the money and the claimant has, finally, by abandoning their petition, conceded as much.
I thank those posters with a more pragmatic and impartial sense of justice for their comments and inputs.
But to those posters who were unhelpful, outright lied and tried to get bullish with me (a person seeking help and assistance) on a subject they are now obviously ignorant about, may you rot. You ought to be reported to the site managers for your wilful ignorance and for deliberately misleading readers and visitors to this site. A less knowledgeable person than myself or one less confident could easily have be swayed by your reprimands and put downs. You have been positively unhelpful……. and absolutely wrong in your rubbish advice giving and the sharing of your own ignorance, which you’ve freakishly presented as knowledge and facts.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 248K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards