A few further thoughts on the lead post here.(posted 8244 days ago)What DLA are trying to do (it seems to me) is turn our knowledge of CPR against us. The Civil Procedure Rules certainly demand a 'cards on the table' approach from both parties, but that's in the sense that Lord Justice Woolf doesn't want one party springing surprises on the other (and the judge) in any subsequent court hearing. What surprises are you keeping back? None. What information are you holding back? None. What you are keeping back is the contents of your wallet, which you are entitled to do until the lender has responded to your request for proof (strict proof). Holding back money is not the same as holding back information about your case. (You are, however,IMHO, entitled hold back information about your financial status, as that has no bearing until Abbey/DLA have proved the case properly.)
Does this make any sense?