TheCobbettSlayer v NatWest ***WON***

[Nick SPX]

Indeed, this is a scare tactic. Good Luck...... Use the force !

[XXneilXX]

Best of luck for tomorrow Super-hero.

 

Don't worry, no more stories from me, promise.

[The cobbett slayer]

Well, I'm as prepared as I'll ever be. Documents checked for order and in a new filing system so I can find everything straight away. All of my various arguments in note form and I've pressed my best suit.

 

I think that covers it.

 

I'll let you know tomorrow!

[Guest ian cognito]

Good luck matey's, we'll be with you in spirit!

[jodie651070]

wow ive read your thread its really exciting your faceing my biggest fear , GOOD LUCK and knock there socks off , will be thinking about you.

[jodie651070]

good luck for tomora , let us know how you get on

[mcuth]

Good luck for tomorrow mate, we'll be right here waiting for your return & update

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[gizmo111]

Good Luck tomorrow.

[muggins73]

Good luck, do us proud, knock 'em dead, show 'em wot you are made of...i think that just about covers it...yep, that'll do.

[Mike1106]

All the best for today,

Mike

[RobberBank]

Ditto from me.....we're all waiting in anticipation.

[missybpink]

good luck

[sharmal]

Wow what a read, Good Luck waiting with baited breath and fingers crossed for you

[caro]

Your public awaits Paul. What's the latest?

[The cobbett slayer]

There will be a news report from Mansfield County Court very soon.

[matthew1471]

Exciting stuff!

[The cobbett slayer]

Good afternoon and it is I believe a very good afternoon, not only for The Cobbett Slayer and the Slayer family but potentially for all bank charges claimants.

 

It turned out to be a 50 minute hearing as there were 2 applications before the Judge. Cobbetts had instructed Counsel so it was Me and Mrs Slayer, Natwests Barrister and the District Judge.

 

The Judge took the unusual step of not taking any further information from me as he was satisfied that the applications were made in good faith and with merit so he started straight away in Ms Duckworth for the basis of their defence to both applications.

 

Ms Duckworth tried to plead that the application for An Order to Respond to the Request Made Under CPR Part 18 was no longer relevant as Natwest had made a partial settlement last week. My argument to this was that as the claim has not been settled in full, the issue of liability is still very much live and that the information requested will be relevant to both the Claim and the Defence.

 

With regard to the Application to Strike Out the Defence, Ms Duckworth pleaded that as there is an ambiguity in the Order for Disclosure they have not yet failed to comply. The first date for Disclosure was 22nd December but there is a second date of 19th January and they will be filing Disclosure by that date (a whole 2 days away).

 

The Judge considered the position and made the following summing up:

 

In view of the ambiguous nature of the order of 23rd November 2006 it cannot be proven that the Defendant is in breach. The application to Strike out the defence is dismissed.

 

The application for a Response to the Request for Further Information IS ALLOWED. The Defendant shall by 10th February 2007 provide the Claimant with the following information: THE ACTUAL COST INCURRED BY THE DEFENDANT IN ADMINISTERING EACH AND EVERY ALLEGED BREACH PARTICULARISED BY THE CLAIMANT.

In a nutshell, he has ordered them the tell me what we all want to know. How much does it actually cost to bounce a direct debit/cheque/standing order.

 

I was quite pleased with this - striking out the defence would have been a stunning result but the order for disclosure is pretty good in my book. Ms Duckworth looked a little stunned. While I was trying to keep a straight face we reached the final part of the proceedings - the issue of costs.

 

I decided to play it straight as all it has cost me was a quid to park the car and £20 for baby Slayers nursery fee for the morning. Ms Duckworth pitched in with an application for costs in respect of the application to Strike Out. (About £1500).

 

The Judge looked her straight in the eye and said "I've heard 2 applications Miss Duckworth and allowed one of them so we would all have been here anyway. Application for costs is dismissed."

 

It is, to the best of my knowledge the first time I've ever sc**wed a Barrister:D

[photoman]

Well looks like they'll be coughing up on the 9th of Feb then !!!

[matthew1471]

hhhmmmm.... cool, well done

 

I take it it is still possible for Natwest to back out of the case, and pay the remainder of your claim in order to avoid revealing their actual costs?

 

Matt

[muggins73]

All-in-all a right 'porker' of a day for Natwest;)

 

Slayers 2 Natwest barrister 0:D

 

Good on you for sticking to your guns, you're a better man than I (and considering I am no man, this is actually a very BIG compliment!!!!)

[Guest ian cognito]

Well congratulations Mr & Mrs CobbettSlayer, It appears things are most definitely looking up for you and yours!

Well done that Judge!!!!

[XXneilXX]

Fan bloody tastic

 

Great job, well done....

[Lula]

I Want To Say A Very Very Rude Word Indeed But I Cant Think Of Ne Rude Enough - So Woooopeeeyyyyyyyyydoooooooooo Well Done Paul You Have Balls Of Steel!!!!!!!!! And So Does Mrs Slayer By Association!!!!!!!

[RobberBank]

WELL DONE PAUL.

 

Someone, one day, at Nat West or Cobbetts must realise that:

 

a) Administering these claims to the extent that they do is COSTING NAT WEST money.

 

b) Delaying paying out is COSTING NAT WEST more in interest charges.

 

c) Taking the process as far as they can and p***ing the courts off is working AGAINST NAT WEST.

 

d) Taking people to court is COSTING NAT WEST.

 

e) Making people go through this is LOSING NAT WEST customers.

 

When will they ever learn. I'm trying to save them money by mentioning this....how fair is that!!??

[mcuth]

The application for a Response to the Request for Further Information IS ALLOWED. The Defendant shall by 10th February 2007 provide the Claimant with the following information: THE ACTUAL COST INCURRED BY THE DEFENDANT IN ADMINISTERING EACH AND EVERY ALLEGED BREACH PARTICULARISED BY THE CLAIMANT.

 

w000t, excellent ruling!

 

The Judge looked her straight in the eye and said "I've heard 2 applications Miss Duckworth and allowed one of them so we would all have been here anyway. Application for costs is dismissed."

 

ROTFLMFAO - brilliant

 

Nice work Paul.

Two questions here - i) what happens if they don't provide the information ordered without settling up, and ii) Could you go again for an order (without ambiguity) to strike out the defence??

 

Cheers

 

Michael