I have today received a defence from non other than Lyndsey Burgoyne(Corbetts) stating that

"the defence is served without pred to the def case that the part of claim do not disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim against the claimant(not sure if that is right is it??-shouldnt it be def??)to recover bk charges referred to in poc"

"in the event the claimant does not particularise properly then the case will be applied to be struck out and for sumary judgment in respect of the same"

here are my poc are they ok??

IN THE BURY COUNTY COURT

BETWEEN

xxxxxxxxCLAIMANT

And

The Royal Bank of Scotland plc DEFENDANT

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

1. The Claimant has accounts (a)xxxxx (b)xxxxx ©xxxxxxx with the Defendant which was opened on or around (a)9/05 /2003 (b)30/11/2005 ©1990(approx)

2. During the period in which the Accounts has been operating the Defendant debited numerous charges to the Accounts in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant and also charged interest on the charges once applied. The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimant.

3. A list of the charges applied is attached to these particulars of claim.

4. The Claimant contends that:

a) The charges debited to the Accounts are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant; and are not intended to represent or related to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit.

b) The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999), the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the common law.

5. Accordingly the Claimant claims:

a) the return of the amounts debited in respect of charges in the sum of £5607.34 and any interest charged thereon;

b) Court costs;

c) Interest pursuant to section 69 County Courts Act £448.58 or at such rate and for periods as the court deems just and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £1.23

I believe that the contents of these particulars of claim are true

they have also added that the def invites the court to direct a court management conf in order for the court to consider appropiate orders to give the claimant the opportunity to prop particularise my claim...

is this good or not..????

it goes on to ask me to identify the section of the unfair contract term act which specify the contractual provisions pursuat etc and the princples of common law which relates to the same...is this just scare tactice??(cos its working)

Many thanks in this time of plenty of worry...

MJack

This is just standard b****cks. Have a look at my thread Natwest bank charges, there is a good letter I have just done in response. You can adapt it to suit your circumstances.

Dont worry.

stansfield5131 - Do you have a link to this thread?

MJack - I've got a very similar letter which basically says that I'm an incompetent buffoon and they are the greatest thing on god's green earth. Which any fool knows is not true. Well the bit about them being great isn't anyway

Cheers

Hey..

Next step....here goes..

I have today recieved AQ from Cobberts again stating "that I have not shown reasonable grounds for bringing a claim and despite the defendant requesting that i remedy the lack of particularity(good word)pleaded in the POC

Case management directions cannot be proposed until the claimant fully particularises my claim.

In light of this,the def may amend its defence or apply a strike out "

hoping this is standard,although reassurance from you guys would work wonders for my nerves...

Cheers.

MJack

All to frequently Im afraid....in fact it appears to be standard in their defence.(Usually filled out by hand in section G)

It appears that there is a severe communications problem betwwen Cobbetts and their clients....either that or they have a bad understanding of CPR (which would be open to question) See also the post at the top of RBS and Natwest threads CPR Part 18.

These instances have been addressed previously by sending Cobbetts a further schedule/spreadsheet of charges.

As you acknowledge,the particulars of claim are outlined within the original n1

It is likely that Cobbetts will seek further to intimidate with those claimants that are including drafts with their AQs.....something they will undoubtably seek to pick holes with.

I suggest that you read some recent threads within the NatWest and RBS groups to get an understanding of how to apply your response.

Its certainly worth making the court aware of these points,although many of the Courts already know about them.

Advice then....dont be overly concerned with Cobbetts intentions DO address them again and make sure the Court is made aware of it.

does this mean write to sols asking them why they think poc arent properly particularised?

if yes..do i simply write asking them outright and cop y the courts?

MJack

Write to solicitors saying "yet again I am enclosing a copy of my schedule. This has already been forwarded to yourselves, your client and the court. My particulars of claim clearly state the account number, dates, descriptions and amounts of charges. The schedule is fully particularised. I fail to see what else you require in my POC! Furthermore, I am writing to the courts with a copy of this letter and will point out that I find your claims to be intimidatory and that you are clearly using this argument as means of intimidating me into withdrawing my claim".

I have been through all this myself, and got my big fat cheque last week!

Dont worry, this is all their standard defence. They are just playing for time and hoping you will drop the claim in fear that you have mucked it up! Which you havent.

cheers stan5131..

will let you know how i get on...or even better may have sunbed next to you in Jamaica.....

Mjack

psml.... thats the spirit!

I have had a notice of date for returning pre-trial checklist today.

It states that the court upon its own motion has made the order of its own initiative without a hearing.

Its ordered that…

Claim is allocated to fast track.

Disclosure of docs shall be dealt with by serving copies by 28th feb and inspecting originals by 14/3

Each party shall serve on every party the witness statements etc

I have to file at court an indexed and paginated bundle of docs and serve a copy to Def(this must include a case summary of not more than 400 wrds.-a statement of issues to be decided by the court)

Completed pre-traail check list to be sent to court no later than 11/04

Trial should last 3 hrs.

Because the Order has been made without considering representations from the parties ,the parties have the right to set aside,varied or stayed.

And I have a listing questionnaire.

what should i do now..!!!!!

Is this good or bad...

Thanks

MJack

This is good. It means that the court have asked for disclosure of actual costs. The bank will pay up rather than do this.

If, I were you, I would just wait until a week before the deadline before preparing your papers. I think you will have received your cheque by then.

you mean the first deadline stated by the courts where we have to give each other standard disclosure of doc`s...this deadline is 28/02/07.

MJack

yes. they will not disclose their true figures. they will pay up rather than submit this.

ok.....but will I have to send my disclosure of Doc`s and wait for the deadline to pass...

Will this mean that I will win by default if this happens?

MJack