Hi Everyone
I could really do with some help with this. I'm in Court on friday....
NatWest's case was struck out in July, but the Judge reinstsated it (and simultaneously stayed it). I made an application to set aside the reinstatement and to oppose the stay. The application to remove the stay was dismissed. But, the Judge has scheduled an Application hearing for this friday for 30 mins to judge my application to set aside the reinstatement.....
I need to get my arguments sorted out and make sure everything is in order.
************************* ************************* *******
Question One:
They have failed to supply a copy of the loan agreement, copies of default notices, insurance policy details, T&Cs etc. What basis in law can I argue that their case should remain struck out because of their failure to supply this information? The loan and the default notices are in their POC, yet they have failed to supply copies
************************* ************************* *******
Question Two
The following is a draft of what I hope to use for the Application Hearing (to set aside the reinstatement). Your advice on how to strengthen the arguments would be very helpful.
************************* ************************* *******
"I respectfully object to the reinstatement of the Claimant's case and wish to apply to have the Court's Order set aside.
Objections to the Reinstatement of the Case:
1) National Westminster Bank began its case against me seven months ago. They have continually hindered the progress of my Defence by failing to provide information when formally requested, and by not complying with the Court's Order to submit their Allocation Questionnaire. Despite being represented by specialist solicitors - and having adequate time to submit their Allocation Questionnaire - they failed to do so, even after the Court issued an 'Unless Order'.
2) My intention from the beginning has been to file an amended defence and Counterclaim. My ability to fully particularise this amended defence and Counterclaim depends on vital information that I have requested from the Claimant on several occasions and which they have failed to supply to me.
On xxth June 2007, I made a formal CPR18 Request for Information to the Claimant. A copy of this request was also sent to the Court at the time. On xxxxx August 2007, I also made a formal CCA request for the same information. The Claimant has still not supplied this information to me. My ability to submit an amended defence and counterclaim has therefore been frustrated because of their failure to provide the requested information.
*Copies of Subject Access Request/CPR18 and CCA requests
*Copies of letters from NatWest asking for more time to find the information
*Copies of letter from NatWest admitting that they are unable to find the information as requested
Three of the critically important items (in a list of several) requested in the CPR 18 Request are;
a) True copies of the original signed agreements between myself and National Westminster Bank, as referred to in paragraphs 1) and 3) of the particulars of claim, and for my Personal Current Account.
b) A true copy of any Default Notice/s issued in respect of these accounts, as referred to paragraph 3) of the particulars of claim.
c) Full Terms and Conditions and charges tariffs relating to each account (including the Personal Current account), from the date when the accounts were opened and including any revisions or amendments to the present day.
Bank charges are not the only grounds upon which I dispute the debt. I do not acknowledge the loan and despite my repeated requests the claimant has still not produced a copy of any signed agreement to substantiate their assertion that money is owed under it. Without these items, the Claimant cannot enforce this debt. Their failure to comply with my CPR 18 request demonstrates their lack of co-operation in the progress of this case and a lack of respect for the correct procedures of justice. This is an abuse of process and I therefore request that the claimant's case remain struck out.
In the Alternative
If the Court acedes to the Claimant's request to reinstate the case, I request that the following conditions are applied by the Court:
1) That the stay is lifted on the grounds that the claim is a business claim and that bank charges are not the sole basis of my intended Counterclaim. The basis upon which a stay has been granted is with regards to awaiting the outcome of the ongoing "test case" currently being taken by the OFT against several banks. I respectfully request that this stay be lifted. This is upon the contention that as the central focus and grounds for the OFT’s case is to determine whether or not the charges are subject to the test of reasonableness, as required under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCR 99), then it would not be of any consequence to the basis of my Counterclaim in this case.
As this claim relates to a Business account, my original Defence did not include any reference to nor make any reliance upon the UTCCR. Furthermore, I have no intention of relying on UTCCR 99 in any future amended defence/Counterclaim. As such, it would serve no purpose to delay these proceedings in order to await the outcome of a case that would have no bearing or relevance upon this case.
2) That the claimant is ordered to comply with the defendant's part 18 request within 14 days and in default the claim be struck out.
3) Upon compliance with 2) the defendant to file an amended defence and counterclaim.
4) Claimant to file its response 14 days from date of service of counterclaim.
5) That the Claimant bank is prevented from applying further penalty charges to my account until the final settlement of the matter.
6) That the Claimant is prevented from applying interest charges to any outstanding amounts which are comprised of penalties until the settlement of the matter.
7) That the Claimant is prevented from making any entry on its own systems or from communicating any similar information to any third party about any matter insofar as it relates to penalty charges until the final settlement of the matter.
That the Claimant removes any derogatory entry on its own records insofar as it relates to penalty charges. (The Court has the power to do this under the Data Protection Act 1998 )
9) That the Claimant arranges the removal of entries from the records of any third parties to whom it has previously communicated information insofar as it relates to penalty charges. (The Court has the power to do this under the Data protection Act 1998.)&qu
Re: Gandolfi v NatWest - how to respond to Reinstatement application? 
)
