[ Post New Message | Post Reply to this One | Send Private Email to David Keane | Help ]

Response to Halifax - Hammond Suddards Edge - Reporting harrasment as a criminal offence

from David Keane (davidkeane@bushinternet.com)
I can only comment on my case and the issues in relation to it, however, as the site suggests I would strongly advise you MUST seek the best professional advice/guidance you can obtain within your means. I would also point you to the other informative threads further down the Q&A advising of other Halifax activities including their practices of monitoring this site!!

In reference to the above, I wrote to the Halifax's Solicitor attaching a copy of a previous letter dated 25th June 2001, which, in the absence of any response to the original correspondence sent over two months previous, was to enable them to respond and to qualify their claim.

Historically, they have displayed acts of; noted intentional delays, wilful non-contributions to achieving a level condition, demonstrations of unwillingness to provide information and damningly submitting valuation & survey Reports with conflicting & contradictory information.

This consistent behavioural pattern and the Halifax's recent contradictorial goodwill gesture coupled with their conceded offers of conditional reduction, which as a consequence, divided the unsubstantiated singular claim, have only served to form acknowledgment to the very serious discrepancies in the marginal evidence they have supplied to date. Given this, the marginal evidence in place coupled with their client’s acknowledgement almost dictates the wholesale demolition of the claim.

However, given all of the above, I wrote on the 28th August requesting they provide information to validate their client’s unsubstantiated claim within 14 days, I further advised that if they failed to provide this information it would be assumed that their client’s claim had been dropped in its entirety and that any further; intentional delays, wilful non-contributions to achieving a level condition, demonstrations of unwillingness to provide information, correspondence or contact other than that requested would be treated as harassment and reported accordingly as a criminal offence. Hammond Suddards Edge (HSE) have failed to produce an account of their client’s actions and the essential evidence necessary to enable an independent and reasonable party in possession of the same information to qualify their client’s unsubstantiated claim. To this end, I have requested this information in approximately twenty letters over the nine month period since HSE's initial claim notification in December 2000, in response, their chosen course of action has included non-cooperation, reluctance, intimidation and harassment.

The very serious and still unaccounted for discrepancies noted to date and HSE's chosen course of action constitutes a conduct that evidently disregards both the Civil Procedural Rules and the Law Society, clearly demonstrating that the Halifax and Hammond Suddards Edge intend and have intended to pursue their unsubstantiated claim through intimidation rather than reasonable qualification.

Given this they clearly intended to subject myself and my household to harassment, distress, and anxiety.

Harassment, whether by the Halifax or Hammond Suddards Edge whom have advocated & defended the taking of such action, is a criminal offence in England and Wales under Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

As advised in my correspondence to them on the 28th August, all correspondence on file and all future letters received on this matter will be passed to the Metropolitan Police, the OSS (Office for the Supervision of Solicitors) and the OFT (Office of Fair Trading) for investigation.

Succesfull/Unsuccessfull? I gues that depends on the desired objective of the correspondence. Any comments? Hope this answers your query!!

(posted 8221 days ago)

[ Previous | Next ]