Yet more Nemisms

Ranting

Not a day goes by without their Nemesis performing one (or more) of his usual tricks. A new server would be required if one was to record each and every “nemism”, so here are just a selection of today’s.

Here the OP received an agreement for a completely different account. Nemesis’ advice? To complain to the COO! Lowell Financial. WHY would anyone want to do that? If the OP didn’t send an official CCA request, they may well want to send one to cover themselves in case of court action, however, complaining to the COO is likely to get them looking hard for the agreement. Is that what the OP really really wants?

Lowell financial 2016-07-06 23-39-14

Never read before posting

In this case, the OP received a letter before action and someone posted up a suitable response. The solicitors then replied saying they’d put the account on hold, the usual. For those unaware of it, the purpose of responding to a LBA or letter of claim is twofold. You have to respond to comply with the pre-action conduct but it’s also very often a way to avoid a claim being issued. When the potential claimants see that you are going to challenge them to produce documents, they often just move on and issue a claim against someone who hasn’t responded to their LBA. If Nemesis bothered to read the thread before jumping in, he’d quickly have noticed that no claim has been issued. Instead, he does his usual and goes on to say that if MC haven’t agreed to an extension of time, he still has to comply with the documents sent by the court!

WHAT COURT? WHAT DOCUMENTS? WHAT PROCESS? What is he on about?

WHAT EXTENSION OF TIME? For those unfamiliar with court process, an extension of time is an agreement that the claimant can reach with the defendant to prolong the time to file a defence. The Civil Procedure Rules allow up to 28 days to be agreed by both sides. When dealing with a claim, failure to submit a defence in time allows the claimant to request default judgment, so it’s important to make sure you either file in time or agree an extension of time and notify the court. However, there can be no extension of time without a claim, what time would be extended if there is no deadline to extend in the first place?

When someone asks whether a claim has been issued (there’s no indication anywhere on that thread to suggest that), he goes on to say that “on hold” is “a ploy to get a claim issued”. WHY would they need a ploy to issue a claim? They can just issue one if they wish, without the need for any kind of “ploy”. Anyone can issue a claim against anyone, whether they will succeed is a different matter. If a claim comes back in response, you then deal with it. He just can never, ever admit he was wrong, he only goes as far as to say he may have worded his response wrongly. Nope! It wasn’t wrongly worded, it was WRONG, full stop. He didn’t read the thread, never does.

Mortimer Clarke Solicitors 2016-07-07 00-02-30

When the poor OP asks what they should be doing after all this, Nemesis’ response still goes on to say that Mortimer Clarke cannot be relied on, because they are a wholly owned subsidiary of the Cabot Group and has the same directors. It’s hardly relevant to the OP’s situation whether they are wholly owned or external and, even if one cannot rely on their “pronouncements”, one can’t do much more than to wait and see what happens next. The appropriate response would have been just “Keep an eye on the post and post up as soon as you get anything from them”. But he can’t give up, he got it wrong and has to do everything he can to continue down this path rather than admitting it. So typical!

Mortimer Clarke Solicitors 2016-07-07 00-13-37

We’ll soon be opening a new “Nemism of the Day” section.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *