This was the bundle pre Case Management Conference.
Cobbetts Llp
Ship Canal House
King Street
Manchester
M2 4WB
Dear Sir,
Please find enclosed documents prior to the Case Management Conference 2pm 13th October 2006.
Copies have been sent to the Court.
1. Claimants further reply to your CPR
part 18
2. Claimants reply to your Defence.
3. Witness statement of Claimant
4. Case Management Information Street
Yours faithfully
Bristol
County Court Before His Honour Judge Havelock-Allan QC
Between
and
Case no xxxxxxxxx
REPLY TO THE DEFENDANTS DEFENCE
1. The defence is a template and identical (word for word) to defences provided against many similar claims brought against the Defendant nationwide. Including the same typographical errors.
2. In reply to point 3. The Defendant has been provided with this schedule. And the Claimant would seek reciprocal full details with all supporting documentation of each and every breach by the Claimant which resulted in a charge being levied as confirmed by the Defendant in its Defence.
3. In reply to point 4.1.
a) The Defendant appears to be requesting the Claimant to identify where the
Claimant has breached the contract. The Contract and published Terms and
Conditions are quite clear regarding the breaches.
b)The Claimant would ask how charges are applied to the account (whether
automatically or by some other means) and when.
c) Further, the Defendants assessment of the cost to it of sending any letter
making any
telephone calls or otherwise administering the account, with details
of how the cost to the Defendant is calculated and what items of expense are
included, or such other costs as are foreseeable in the context of contractual
damages and the remoteness thereof and which can be specifically identified and
defined and which can be reasonably attributed to each and every breach on the
part of the Claimant.
d)The justifiably objective principles upon which all such costs are calculated and
result in the specific level of each charge levied by the bank in respect of each of
the breaches which resulted in the charges now claimed by the Claimant.
4. In reply to point 5.1 – 5.3.4. The Defendant is well aware of the contractual
provisions. The Defendant wrote them. Solicitors representing the Defendants are
very familiar with the quoted Acts and do not require the Claimant to be more
specific at this stage.
5. In reply to point 5.3.5 Where the Defendant avers that the charges are applied
in return for the provision of a banking service to the Claimant: The Claimant
would ask that the Defendant identify each and every such service referred to
in the defendants terms and conditions and identify the charges, by reference to
those terms and conditions, that the Claimant is required to pay for each
service identified.
Further, to confirm what steps are taken by the defendant in providing the
alleged services referred to in the defence and to provide copies of all notes,
memoranda, or other information retained by the defendant to demonstrate the
provision of the alleged services to the Claimant. To also confirm whether the
charges are applied automatically.
6. In reply to point 5.4.2 – 5.4.5 Above replies apply.
7. In reply to point 6. The Defendants are aware that Part 18 does not apply to Small
Claims Track. The Claimant considers that upon allocation this claim being less than
£5,000 will be so allocated. The Claimants consider this request to be intimidatory as
Part 18 is excluded. The Request was made early in the proceedings and designed to
cause certain Claimants to worry, possibly withdrawing their claims due to escalating
difficulty and mis-understanding of terminology and process. This tactic is offensive
and tantamount to an abuse of the system of the court. However, the Claimant has
considered further his reply and the responses have been made to the Defendants
CPR part 18. The Claimant asks the Court to order the Defendant to reply to
reciprocal requests for further information.
8. In reply to point 7. The Defendants have received many similar claims nationwide. It
is quite wrong of them to suggest they do not understand exactly the whole purpose
and scope of these claims notwithstanding any errors of terminology or lack of
particularisation.
The Claimant believes the facts in this reply to the Defence are true.
Signed
Dated
Bristol County Court
Before His Honour Judge Havelock-Allan QC
Between
and
WITNESS STATEMENT OF CLAIMANT
1. I am xxxxxxxx and am acting as Claimant in Person
2. This witness statement is made in support of my claim and in reply to the Defendants (undated and unsealed) application for an order to strike out and Summary Judgement against the remainder of my claim. 3. The Defendants (along with many other banks) have experienced an increase in similar claims for repayment of unfair bank charges. Using a variety of legal process to argue and delay and complicate their defence. Whilst the Defendant argues these claims all fail to disclose a recognisable claim and none have any chance of succeeding and therefore should not proceed to a hearing: The Defendants refuse to attend any hearing and in all cases have negotiated settlements prior to hearing rather than attending a hearing.
4. The Defendants behaviour effectively thwarts the Courts from being able to make a judgement.
5. Whilst I am acting as Claimant in Person and cannot afford representation but wish to mitigate any escalation in cost bearing activity. It is seen that the Defendants are quite prepared to continue with cost bearing activity without any prospect or inclination to allow any Claimant the justice of a hearing and associated judgement.
6. The Defendants solicitors application represents their efforts to have the case struck out rather than heard and effectively they “win” on behalf of the Defendant upon successful application without the risk of a hearing or judgement against them.
7. Whilst the Defendants have made a payment accepted as a part payment on the understanding that the claim proceeds for the balance, the Defendant is now attempting to ensure the claim progresses no further. The part payment was accepted on the understanding that the case would proceed or settle in full, not struck out.
8. In reply to the Defendants point B3. The Claimants Amended Particulars of Claim sealed by the Taunton County Court are not the draft amended particulars the Defendant has attached to their Application to strike out.
9. In reply to the Defendants point B4. The claims referring to the Limitation Act are flawed in that the amounts are fairly claimed and but for the Defendants failure to comply within the time provided, to provide statements from which charges could be confirmed, would have fallen inside the 6 years required of the Limitation Act.
10. In reply to the Defendants point B5. The claim is asking for the return of the charges plus the interest the Defendant has levied on those charges to arrive at the total claim plus costs. Section 69 allows Claimants to apply a further 8% per annum. If the Defendant believes the calculation of interest is incorrect, the Claimant requires (and has previously requested) the Defendant to prove a more accurate calculation rather than provide a simple list of figures. The Defendant has failed to comply.
11. In reply to the Defendants point C7. I would suggest that the most compelling reason to proceed to trial is in order that a judgement can be made based upon evidence provided by both parties. If the Defendant is so confident of their position (that the Claimants have no prospect of success) they should be capable of defending such a claim without fear of the wrong outcome.
12. In reply to the Defendants point C9. The Defendants charged the Claimants between 16.5% and 29.5% interest on top of the illegal bank charges. The Defendant refuses to confirm their calculation of this sum and the Claimant has therefore claimed an average of 23% in the lack of any other evidence or calculation indicating a more accurate formula. There is no double recovery.
13. I ask the Court to allow this case to a full hearing and judgement. If the Defendant
remains unsure of their prospects of success, a hearing date will focus their
attention to settle rather than escalate delay and further frustrate these claims by
taking advantage of procedures which might otherwise cause another claimant in
person to lose heart and withdraw. It appears this is the strategy the Defendant is
using against many ordinary and unrepresented people nationwide.
The Claimant believes the facts in this statement are true.
Signed
Dated
Bristol County Court
Case Management Information Sheet
Before His Honour Judge Havelock-Allan QC
Part Filing: Claimants
Solicitors Acting: Claimants in Person
Date
Substance of case.
1. The Claimant seeks repayment of unfair & unlawful
bank charges and
interest.
Parties
2. Yes
3. No, although Taunton County Court may link other claims.
Statements of Case
4. No
5. Yes. We believe CPR 18 may only become necessary if the Court directs other than to a Small Claim. However, the Defendant has insisted the Claimant complies with the Defendants CPR Part 18, the Claimant therefore seeks the Court to order full disclosure and breakdown of the administrative cost incurred in applying the said charges.
Disclosure
6. Within 7 days of being requested by the Court.
7. No
8. Yes: List of charges made to claimants accounts and in respect of every charge, a breakdown specifying the amount of actual cost to the defendant and the amount of profit added, resulting in the total charge made to the claimant in each and every charge.
9. Yes:
10. (i) Within 7 days of Courts directions
(ii) Within 7 days of Courts directions
Admissions
11. No
Preliminary issues
12. No
Witnesses of fact
13. One
14. Claimant
15. Claimant
16. Within 7 days of Courts directions
17. No
Expert Evidence
18. No
19. No
20. No
21. None
22. N/A
23. No
24. None
25. N/A
Trial
26. 1 hour
27. Within 4 weeks of Case Management Conference
28. Bristol County Court
29. No
A.D.R.
30. No
31. No. The banks have so far refused to attend hearings being content to take
the full period of the process before settling at the last minute.
32.No
33.No
Other applications
34 None.
Costs
35. Claimant in Person costs £9.25 per hour 18 hours research & preparation £166.50
plus £16.00 sundries expense.
36. Attendance in Bristol for Case Management and subsequent hearing total 200 miles
at standard mileage and car park rate. Further costs say 4 hours at hearings plus 4
hours travelling. Plus 10 hours additional research and preparation. Plus £4.00
sundry expense.
Signed Claimant
In the Bristol County Court
Before His Honour Judge Havelock-Allan QC
Between
and
Claim Number xxxxxxxx
1.
This response is served pursuant to the Defendants CPR 18 REQUEST of 17 July 2006
2. In response to Para 2.1 of the defendants request the Defendant received this information with the Amended Particulars of claim on or around 1st August 20061.
3. In response to Para 2.2 of the defendants request, the claimant has already explained why the charges should not have been applied but for the avoidance of doubt the claimant alleges that the charges are Penalty charges and are irrecoverable at common law. The precedent for this was Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor co Ltd [1915] AC 79.along with Murray v. Leisure play [2005] EWCA Civ 963 It was held that a contractual party can only recover damages for an actual loss or liquidated losses Further or in the alternative the charges are contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999.
Para 2.(a) The claimant should not have been charged an amount above the true administrate cost incurred by the defendant, (b) the claimant should not have been charged for reason out lined in Para 3. (c) the claimant should have been charged the true administrative cost.
4. In response to Para 2.2(d) The Defendants have asked what the claimant should have been charged, to answer this the claimant will need a break down of the administrative cost incurred by the defendant in applying the said charges.
5. In response to Para 4. If the defendant is trying to say that the charges are for a service then the clamant will argue that the defendant has attempted to restructure accounts in order to present events of default spuriously as additional services. The UTCCRs are concerned with the intention and effects of terms, not just their mechanism. For example, a charge for 'agreeing to' or 'allowing' a customer to exceed his credit limit is no different from a charge for the customer's 'default' in exceeding his credit limit.)
6. In response to the further questions made by the defendant the claimant will not be able to respond to these until the claimant has disclosure and inspection of documents as the claimant will be requiring a copy of his contract with the Defendants
7. If the defendant requires any further information, the claimant will be happy to provide this once the discloser of documents/information has been dealt with by the court.
The Claimant believes the facts in this statement are true.
Signed
Claimant
Dated
Re: Case Management Conference 13th Oct. 
