Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
    • In order for us to help you we require the following information:- [if there are more than one defendant listed - tell us] 1 defendant   Which Court have you received the claim from ? County Court Business Centre, Northampton   Name of the Claimant ? LC Asset 2 S.A R.L   Date of issue – . 28/04/23   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for –    (1) The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and opened effective from xx/xx/2017. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA'), was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to D.   (2) D failed to comply with a Default Notice served pursuant to s87 (1) CCA and by xx/xx/2022 a default was recorded.   (3) As at xx/xx/2022 the Defendant owed MBNA LTD the sum of 12,xxx.xx. By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to C effective xx/xx/2022 and made regular upon C serving a Notice of Assignment upon D shortly thereafter.   (4) And C claims- 1. 12,xxx.xx 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from xx/01/2023 to xx/04/2023 of 2xx.xx and thereafter at a daily rate of 2.52 to date of judgement or sooner payment. Date xx/xx/2023   What is the total value of the claim? 12k   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? N/A Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, but amount differs slightly   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. DP issued claim   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I recall...   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not that I recall...   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes   Why did you cease payments? Loss of employment main cause   What was the date of your last payment? Early 2021   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No   -----------------------------------
    • Hello CAG Team, I'm adding the contents of the claim to this thread, but wanted to open the thread with an urgent question: Do I have to supply a WS for a claim with a court date that states " at the hearing the court will consider allocation and, time permitting, give an early neutral evaluation of the case" ? letter is an N24 General Form of Judgement or Order, if so, then I've messed up again. Court date 25 May 2024 The letter from court does not state (like the other claims I have) that I must provide WS within 28 days.. BUT I have recently received a WS from Link for it! making me think I do need to!??
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Letter to Court re CPR18 request


ED1237
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6097 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Claim No: XXXXXXXX

 

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

 

 

Claimant’s response to the request for further information

 

We have received a request from the defendants for further information, which they say is made pursuant to CPR Part 18.

 

However it is highly likely that this claim will be allocated to the small claims track and we know part 18 does not apply.

 

The Defendant’s part 18 request suggests very strongly that we have not supplied them with enough information to mount a defence. Despite this they have submitted a very full and complicated defence.

 

We are anxious to be seen to be co-operating as much as we can and therefore we are providing the following information and sending a copy to the defendants.

 

In section 2 of their request, the defendants ask for a detailed breakdown of the charges that have been applied to our account and our account details. We do not understand why they require this information as we sent their clients copies on 7th August and 12th August 2006. We also filed a copy with my claim form which you will find in the court file and presumably the court must have served this on the defendants with the claim form.

 

In section 2.3 the defendant asks why the charges should not have been levied against us, but it has already been explained in the claim, the charges are disproportionate penalties. In fact section 3 of the defendants request makes it fully clear they are aware to the answers to their section 2.3 as they specifically refer to the reasons for my claim.

 

Section 4 of the defendants request; ask for details of our account contract with the defendant. However the defendants are clearly fully aware of the details of the contract, the contract is their own terms and conditions imposed by them with no basis for negotiation. Further more the defendant has purported to rely on upon the terms and conditions in order to implement charges against us. The defendants must understand very well, which are the contractual terms in issue.

 

We are sure the court is already aware of the current flood of litigation which is being brought against all of the major banks on the issue of penalty charges. We can tell the court that hundreds such of claims have been issued at courts around the country, many having been allocated to the fast track and there are at least 10 cases transferred to the mercantile court in London to be heard as a test case. However to date every case has been settled by the banks before going to a hearing, even Barclays bank which is the defendant at the Mercantile court cases has started contacting the claimants and making an offer of full settlement in order to avoid the case being fully heard.

 

The Natwest, the defendants in our own case has settled over 180 cases, many of them for much larger amounts than my own claim.

 

The banks are fully aware of the bank charges issue. The Office of Fair Trading conducted a 2 year investigation into Credit Card penalty charge cases and found they were unfair and unenforceable at law. The OFT also said there was a read-across to banks of their penalty charges. The OFT has urged the banks to comply with their findings. The banks have refused and the OFT in entering into further discussions with them.

 

In the meantime the banks oblige thousands of their customers – very ordinary citizens, to bring court claims which their banks or their solicitors then go on to complicate the process with procedural devices such as the present part 18 request.

 

Only those claimants of sufficient heart and tenacity are eventually paid out in full. We are sure the great majority give up altogether or accept reduced payments. This is the deliberate intention of the banks style of litigation.

 

The banks style of litigation is intimidatory and it is sham.

 

The banks style of litigation would be vexatious if it were not for the fact they are the defendants.

 

The Master of Rolls in 2004 addressed an international conference on vexatious litigation. He told the conference the evil of vexatious litigation was that it undermined justice and was a burden to the public resource.

 

We can not imagine any better description of the result of the banks style of litigation.

 

It really should not be for an ordinary citizen to bear the burden of bringing the banks back within the rule of law.

 

The OFT has the power to deal with this matter and is tasked and resourced to do the job. If the OFT were to seek an injunction then this burden upon the private individual could probably be brought to an end within a week.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yours Faithfully

 

 

 

Mod note; thought this was needed.

 

 

 

 

 

cc Cobbets LLP

  • Haha 21
  • Confused 2

Please Click The Scales if I have been of help to you.

 

 

Kensington Mortgages withdrawn. no costs

NatWest Settled in full

Abbey Court Settled in Full

Capital 1 settled in full

Halifax settled in full :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

No Brainstorm, you send it to your local court.

Please Click The Scales if I have been of help to you.

 

 

Kensington Mortgages withdrawn. no costs

NatWest Settled in full

Abbey Court Settled in Full

Capital 1 settled in full

Halifax settled in full :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great letter!

 

After spending the day reading many threads i am now at the stage of doing the following as I recieved my AQ and CPR18 within days of each other;

 

1). Sending AQ back to local court which includes a 'Draft order for directions' (see below link) and will cover with a copy of the above letter on it, plus the £100 -are cheques ok?

 

2). Sending standard response to Cobbetts for their request of more information by CPR part 18(even though all info already supplied in schedule of charges and POC) plus a copy of the AQ, Draft Order for directions and letter sent to the court above.

 

Some people at this stage have sent Cobbetts their own CPR18 request asking for more info relating to the actual costs incurred in penalty charges however i think the "letter to Court re CPR18 request" should be enough to speed things up with the court. What are the thoughts on this?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/53570-new-strategy-allocation-questionaires

 

Do we think this is all to much info? or duplication? :-?

 

thanks

Claire

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the info on the site - Advise meon this one.

 

Just got of the phone re Natwest SAR - They sent statements only. They also charged £5.

 

Cobblers acknowledged the request in the defence 21/12/06 yet i still await settlement of the full amount of charges and costs + interest and part two of the claim for failing to provide information.

 

Natwest stated that they have sent all SAR information via statements.

 

I stated clearly in the request all information pertainin to the named person on the subject access request including notes transaction manual interventions electronic information telephone calls and faxs or emails.

 

They stated that they have not presented the £10 cheques and only charged £5 as they felt it was what i wantyed and they had complied, i was required to provide date and times of all the other information if i want it disclosed.

 

My head hurts now. Halifax understood the request 800 pages later. Is this one of there tactics and what should i say now.

 

PLEASE HELP

SBFIDO

 

Accredited Member of the CIEH

 

No more will I be bullied or harassed.

 

When informed that the call is recorded for training and monitoring I always say I don't want it used for training. :razz:

 

I always ask for the ICO registration information - they often dont have it, shame i never discuss my personal data unless I know they comply with the DPA.

 

Finally I always record calls and state at the start of there call. Although I don't have too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Claire, Yes cheques ok, and The letter was all I sent, which put an end to the CPR18 matter.

 

Sbfido, It is thier choice not to cash the cheques. I would do nothing, and just let the claim take it's natural course. As they have failed to provide you with the information, they would be hard pushed to rely on any relevant information if it ever got to court. Just hang tight and waith for the Allocation questionairre.

 

Mupster, Yes I did and also sent a copy to Cobbetts. At the time they were asking for a strike out with most claims on the AQ but didn't on mine after the letter.

 

Peed orf, You must respond to it. Some of those that have failed to do so have been ordered to by the court.

 

Hope this helps folks

  • Haha 1

Please Click The Scales if I have been of help to you.

 

 

Kensington Mortgages withdrawn. no costs

NatWest Settled in full

Abbey Court Settled in Full

Capital 1 settled in full

Halifax settled in full :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Already sent the allocation questionairre and spoke to the court manager as still not had information was informed Judge would look at my claim on Monday and schedle for directions as this is a double whammy - DPA and Charges.

 

Has an offer of £1000 as good will jesture - as if!

 

Kind regards

 

SBFIDO

SBFIDO

 

Accredited Member of the CIEH

 

No more will I be bullied or harassed.

 

When informed that the call is recorded for training and monitoring I always say I don't want it used for training. :razz:

 

I always ask for the ICO registration information - they often dont have it, shame i never discuss my personal data unless I know they comply with the DPA.

 

Finally I always record calls and state at the start of there call. Although I don't have too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear ED1237,

 

thanks for that. I'll send the letter and cheque with the AQ and wil include the draft for directions. Copy to Corbbetts and lets hope I get a cheque soon. Knowing my luck i'll be the first one to be made an example of in court! :shock:

 

Sorry if i missed part of your thread but am i right in thinking you settled after sending this letter or are you still waiting for a reply? Didn't quite understand what you wrote about them striking out (who Cobbetts or the court)? Sorry brain hurts from all of this!:-|

 

Will update on my progress soon.

 

Claire

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Edi1237,

I'm not too good with this 'legalease' so could you please show me the sections, in your defence (from Natwest), that paragragh 6 & 7 of your letter refer to?

 

I wouldn't want to be just quoting verbatim without knowing what I'm talking about!

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest peed orf
Peed orf, You must respond to it. Some of those that have failed to do so have been ordered to by the court.

 

Sorry.. respond to the court, or the CPR 18? :-?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Peed'orf,

 

From what i understand the best way is to send the letter by Ed above to the court explaining that you have been asked to fill in the Part 18 request but don't see why blar bla. Copy this letter to the defendants solicitors (in my case Cobbetts I am also sending them a copy of the AQ). That way you have actually told the court that you have supplied the information already (in all you prelim letters and LBA) and also Cobbetts are aware you have already supplied info and have aknoweldged their request but have told the court why you haven't responded in full.

 

hope this helps.:?

 

Claire

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no!!!!

 

I have just realised my POC is wrong!!!!

 

I added on my interest twice making a claim much higher than i should have- am i doomed!!! :shock: :shock: :shock: Have rung MOCOL who have advised me to contact the local court that it was transferred to and ask them if i can change it at this stage - i think i may have to pay another fee of £35.00. With the timing of it all ( just about to send the AQ) i think i will look very stupid and probably Natwest will be rubbing their hands together in glee. Has anyone else made any changes to the POC, if so please let me know how you got on?!!!!

 

I should prob send a letter explaining this to Cobbetts what does everyone think?

 

 

HELP!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Edi1237,

I'm not too good with this 'legalease' so could you please show me the sections, in your defence (from NatWest), that paragragh 6 & 7 of your letter refer to?

 

I wouldn't want to be just quoting verbatim without knowing what I'm talking about!

 

Thanks

 

 

I 'officially' received my cpr part18 today ...everything makes sense now!:D

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Claire...I also muffed up with the interest calculations on my POC, have you had any feedback or found anything out on how to rectify this? Please see my thread about it...The Cobbett Slayer is going to look at mine later on today so maybe his thoughts may apply to your case? Hope this helps!!:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dobster,

 

haven't heard from any one on this but i rang the court who advised me to fill in an amendment form N244 they were going to post me one last week but i still haven't recieved it.

 

What i did, was respond to the Aq and included in my cover letter a note to say I am currently filling a N244 to amend as follows.... My uncle ( an ex solicitor) has said not to worry as claims are changed all the time.

 

So Aq sent last thursday and still nothing in the post. Most people in the natwest forum seem to have had an offer of some sort at the Aq stage :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi claire,

 

click on the following link. This will take you straight to the court service and allow you to download an N244.

 

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/HMCSCourtFinder/GetForms.do;jsessionid=DC7758380F5344F1188011E2FC94B674

Please Click The Scales if I have been of help to you.

 

 

Kensington Mortgages withdrawn. no costs

NatWest Settled in full

Abbey Court Settled in Full

Capital 1 settled in full

Halifax settled in full :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your help Ed,:p i've just recieved the form N244 and a bit confused about what to put on it. :confused:

 

This is what i have planned to write (the bit in capitals) - does anyone have any opionons on this?:rolleyes:

 

PART A

1. I, MY NAME

2. Intend to apply for an order, a draft of which is atached, THAT AMENDS MY PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

3. Because AN ERROR WAS MADE ON THE ORIGINAL CLAIM

 

PART B

1. I wish to rely on : tick one

a. the attached(withness statement)(affidavit)

b. my statement of case

c. evidence in part C in support of my application I HAVE TICKED THIS ONE

 

PART C

I wish to rely on the following evidence in support of this application:

1. A COPY OF THE SCHEDULE OF CHARGES INCLUDING THE STATUTORY 8% INTEREST ACCRUED FROM THE DAY THE MONEY WAS TAKEN FROM MY ACCOUNT UNTIL THE DATE OF THE CLAIM 27th NOVEMBER 2006

 

2. A REVISED COPY OF THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM (HERE I WILL JUST CHANGE THE BIT THAT WAS WRONG REGARDING THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE CLAIM)

 

I'm sure this is fairly straight forward but am so used to the help on this site i can't go it alone!:smile:

 

thanks

Claire

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Claire, Yes cheques ok, and The letter was all I sent, which put an end to the CPR18 matter.

 

Sbfido, It is thier choice not to cash the cheques. I would do nothing, and just let the claim take it's natural course. As they have failed to provide you with the information, they would be hard pushed to rely on any relevant information if it ever got to court. Just hang tight and waith for the Allocation questionairre.

 

Mupster, Yes I did and also sent a copy to Cobbetts. At the time they were asking for a strike out with most claims on the AQ but didn't on mine after the letter.

 

Peed orf, You must respond to it. Some of those that have failed to do so have been ordered to by the court.

 

Hope this helps folks

I have also received a request for a 'strike out' - what does this mean and what if anything have i done wrong?

 

ty

 

S

Link to post
Share on other sites

slight issue with this letter that perhaps someone can clarify, has anyone else received the exact same letter, or can the letter to court reCPR18 be tailored to argue the below?

 

in my Request for Information, I dont have a Section 2.3, my request for information goes as follows:

 

The Request

1. In your claim you state "Claimant claims (the) return of the amounts debited of £11,135,04"

 

2. Please product the following particulars in your support of your claim.

 

2.1 In relation to each charge please identify (a) the date when the charge was charged; (b) the amount of the same; and © the reason(s) given for the charging of the same

 

2.2 In relation to each charge, please clarify the following: (a) is it the case of the Claimant the same should not have been charged? (b) if yes; please explain why the Claimant contends the same should not have been charged? © If no; is it the case of the Claimant that the same should not have been charged in this amount? (d) if yes; please explain why the Claimant contends that the same should not have been charged in this amount and identify the sum the Claimant contends should have been charged. (e) If no, please state the Claimant's case.

 

3. In your claim you that the charges are: "unenforcable under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the commow law" and "they must be reasonable under s15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982".

 

4. Please specify all of the facts relied on by the Claimant in support of the contents in paragraph 3 above, and in particular please identify (a) the section(s) of The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 ("UCTA 1977"); (b) the regulations of The Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999 ("the Regulations"); and © the principles of common law relied upon by the Claimant in alleging that the contractual provision(s) referred to are unenforceable. Please also identify contractural provision(s) that the Claimant alleges are unenforceable by reference to UCTA/the Regulations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi alimehmet

 

I too received the exact same request for info as you yesterday, it reads as yours does above.

 

Have you worked out how you will be replying to this yet?

 

I may use the other template letter to reply directly to cobbetts re. CPR18 and then send a revised copy of the above letter direct to courts with copies to other party respectively.

 

Have you yet received your AQ?

 

Brownie24

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi alimehmet

 

I too received the exact same request for info as you yesterday, it reads as yours does above.

 

Have you worked out how you will be replying to this yet?

 

I may use the other template letter to reply directly to cobbetts re. CPR18 and then send a revised copy of the above letter direct to courts with copies to other party respectively.

 

Have you yet received your AQ?

 

Brownie24

 

Hi Brownie24

 

I adjusted the Letter to CPR18 to state the following, i think it is ok, perhaps ED127 or someone with more legal knowledge then me could comment. I think it is ok otherwise

 

Claimant’s response to the request for further information

 

I have received a request from the defendants for further information, which they say is made pursuant to CPR Part 18.

 

However it is highly likely that this claim will be allocated to the fast claims track and I know part 18 does not apply.

 

The Defendant’s part 18 request suggests very strongly that I have not supplied them with enough information to mount a defence. Despite this they have submitted a very full and complicated defence.

 

I am anxious to be seen to be co-operating as much as I can and therefore I am providing the following information and sending a copy to the defendants.

 

In section 2.1 of their request, the defendants ask for a detailed breakdown of the charges that have been applied to our account and our account details. I do not understand why they require this information as I sent them a copy on both 6th November and 23rd November 2006. I have also filed a copy with my Allocation Questionnaire form, as well as an additional copy sent to Defendants

In section 2.2 the defendant asks why the charges should not have been levied against me, but it has already been explained in the claim, the charges are disproportionate penalties.

 

Section 4 of the defendant’s request; ask for details of our account contract with the defendant. However the defendants are clearly fully aware of the details of the contract, the contract is their own terms and conditions imposed by them with no basis for negotiation. Further more the defendant has purported to rely on upon the terms and conditions in order to implement charges against us. The defendants must understand very well, which are the contractual terms in issue.

 

I am sure the court is already aware of the current flood of litigation that is being brought against all of the major banks on the issue of penalty charges. I can tell the court that hundreds such of claims have been issued at courts around the country, many having been allocated to the fast track and there are at least 10 cases transferred to the mercantile court in London to be heard as a test case. However to date every case has been settled by the banks before going to a hearing, even Barclays bank which is the defendant at the Mercantile court cases has started contacting the claimants and making an offer of full settlement in order to avoid the case being fully heard.

 

The NatWest, the defendants in our own case has settled over 180 cases, many of them for much larger amounts than my own claim.

 

The banks are fully aware of the bank charges issue. The Office of Fair Trading conducted a 2-year investigation into Credit Card penalty charge cases and found they were unfair and unenforceable at law. The OFT also said there was a read-across to banks of their penalty charges. The OFT has urged the banks to comply with their findings. The banks have refused and the OFT in entering into further discussions with them.

 

In the meantime the banks oblige thousands of their customers – very ordinary citizens, to bring court claims which their banks or their solicitors then go on to complicate the process with procedural devices such as the present part 18 request.

 

Only those claimants of sufficient heart and tenacity are eventually paid out in full. I are sure the great majority give up altogether or accept reduced payments. This is the deliberate intention of the banks style of litigation.

 

The banks style of litigation is intimidatory and it is sham.

 

The banks style of litigation would be vexatious if it were not for the fact they are the defendants.

 

The Master of Rolls in 2004 addressed an international conference on vexatious litigation. He told the conference the evil of vexatious litigation was that it undermined justice and was a burden to the public resource.

 

I cannot imagine any better description of the result of the banks style of litigation.

 

It really should not be for an ordinary citizen to bear the burden of bringing the banks back within the rule of law.

 

The OFT has the power to deal with this matter and is tasked and resourced to do the job. If the OFT were to seek an injunction then this burden upon the private individual could probably be brought to an end within a week.

 

Yours Faithfully

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cc Cobbets LLP

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys and Gals.

 

Can anyone advise me on a query I have??

 

I am at the stage where Cobblers have sent a CPR 18 request...I have sent the "Bog Off" letter response....

The Court has been re-allocated to my local county and I have completed the AQ and sent the standard letter advising the court of intimadatory tactics along with it.....and paid the £100 fee...my claim is for £1850.

The questions I have are:

1. At what stage do I get to claim the £100 court fee back?

2. Do I guess that as I completed my POC/claim on MCOL the court will request a CPR 18 as my POC are not as full as they would have been had it not been done through MCOL?

 

Sorry if the post is all over the place but am stressing abit about this.....****ing bank...why doesn't it just pay up what is owed???

Cheers Guys

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...