Glenn Vs Abbey

[noobrider]

Thanks to both Phil and Glenn for your assistance.

[paulwlton]

Hi Glenn,

 

Check the rules on standard disclosure,

 

In my case the defendant applied for further information, which is excluded in the small claims track, but the court still ordred me to comply, if this is the case then i think the court should order standard disclosure.

 

 

PART 31*-- DISCLOSURE AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS

[Glenn UK]

Paul

 

Thanks for that, I realise that standard disclosure is an option, normally standard for fast track and beyond, but wanted to highlight what i felt was required specifically.

 

In reality i never expected them to respond. however, failure to respond is failure to comply with CPR and gives me the option to apply to the court for an order forcing compliance.

 

Its also a point worth noting that a claim only becomes a small claim after allocation, so if a request pursuant to CPR 18 is issued prior to allocation then arguably you should respond.

 

There was along thread on this issue and i think the consensus was that generally CPR18 was being used by defendants in an attempt to confuse and deter claimants from proceeding.

 

I think the response from the claimant in that case would be to write back asking for clarification of the request in laymens terms suitable for a litigant in person to understand, submitted to arrive at the defendants offices as long after receipt of the document as is reasonable.

 

A CPR request should also include a timeframe for compliance so this should be clear from the request as to how long the claimant has.

 

Many suggested that the courts wouldn't strike a claim out for non-compliance with CPR18 but in my view some simple responses could be used to completely remove that possibility.

 

However, to day i received notification of an allocation hearing on the 7th February 2006 so perhaps the court will consider these issues then.

 

I have put a number of options in respect of this claim before the court, hopefully the court will see the merit in them and deal with the defendant in the manner in which they deserve.

 

Funny thing is i have an allocation hearing with the same judge on the same day for another claim.

 

Seems I'm going to be a busy boy on the 7th February.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

[paulwlton]

If it does go into small claims it would at least prove whether contractual interest is part of the claim for allocation purposes or not and settle the discussion once and for all.

 

Glenn, just been looking through a earlier post i don't think interest gets taken into consideration it's just the amount in dispute that determins allocation.

Both sides can agree to allocation to small claims even if the claim exeeds £5000, but the no cost rule ceases to apply.

 

 

(2) It is for the court to assess the financial value of a claim, and in doing so it will disregard

(a)any amount not in dispute;

(b)any claim for interest

©costs;and

(d)any contribtory negligence.

 

Only the claim itself is taken into account and not any interest, weather or not that interest is contractual or claimed pursuant to statute.

 

Paul.

[Glenn UK]

Paul

 

Ive read that CPR, but i have had advice from a number of directions which conflicts with that view.

 

The 1st was from a district judge

the second a retired solicitor

 

the view of the second was that the CPR is written primarily with Sec 69 interest in mind.

 

Think of it another way, if the contract between the bank and us was clear and explicitly said that we could claim interest at a specific rate then the interest is not something that the court would have to decide upon in the sense is its part of the contract.

 

With sec 69 they always do have to decide whether to award it or not.

 

This is why i am in two minds and am not sure the CPR intended to deal with interest in this sense.

 

As you say it will be one way of getting an opinion face to face with a court though

 

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

[paulwlton]

Glenn

I understand where your coming from, it will be interesting to find out either way.

[Glenn UK]

Paul

 

agreed and thanks for your input.

 

Glenn

[soldier girl]

Hi Glenn

Just letting you know I've enjoyed reading through your thread - excellent

 

Soldier Girl xx

[Glenn UK]

Right then a bit of an update is in order,

 

As well as the Allocation hearing on the 7th Feb, i now have a hearing to determine if the defence will be struck out.

 

Before Christmas i applied formally to the court to have the defence struck out, my initial letters and comments in the AQ asking the Court to strike out their defence were more in hope than in expectation.

 

However, the Abbey wrote to me threatening me with costs if I applied, so it seemed to me an indication that their defence was weak and that if i applied I might just succeed why would they write elswise?

 

Oh incidentally they marked their letter without prejudice, but since the letter is not a genuine attempt to settle (it contains no offer whatsoever) then i don't believe it enjoys any privilege. So i will be taking that and a letter from DLA piper telling me that they have forwarded all my correspondence on to Abbey to the court next week.

 

This is what i said

 

1) The Claimant submitted a claim in respect of the return of unlawfully imposed bank charges issued 15th September 2006 (Copy Attached marked 1). The key issue particularised in the claim is that the Claimant contends that the charges imposed by the bank exceed the cost of administering the account due to the breaches in question.

 

2) It is the Claimants view that the submitted defence (Copy attached marked 2) is based primarily on denial and shows no legal basis or evidence for defending the claim, the Claimant contends that:

 

a. Item 1 – Is a simple denial of the Claim;

b. Item 2 – Is informative only;

c. Item 3 and sub clauses – Is informative only;

d. Item 4 – Is informative only;

e. Item 5 – Is informative only;

f. Item 6 – Is informative only;

g. Item 7 – Is a simple denial;

h. Item 8 – Is a denial without supporting evidence or the promise of the production of supporting evidence;

i. Item 9 – Is a simple denial;

j. Item 10 – Is a simple denial;

k. Item 11 – Is a request for evidence which the defendant has at its disposal;

l. Item 12 – The Claimant contends in the Particulars of Claim that the Defendant has both concealed the nature of its charges and the Defendant paid the charges in the mistake belief that the charges were lawful. Reliance on the Limitations Act 1980, Section 5, fails to address either of these issues.

m. Item 13 – Is a simple denial.

 

 

3) The Defendants representative, DLA Piper UK LLP, acknowledged the claim and filed a defence, issued on 18th October 2006.

 

4) The Claimant noted that there were errors of fact in the submitted defence as follows:

 

i) Item 2 - The defence states the Claimant ' has a current bank account with the

Defendant '. For clarification the Claimant settled the outstanding balance and the

Defendant entered a default on the Claimants Credit file. The Claimant is aware

that the default registered with Experian that the status history is indicated as

‘status 8’ (See Copy Attached marked 3). By reference to Experians booklet ‘Your

credit report explained’ (Copy attached marked 4) Status 8 confirms that ‘The

lender has closed your account’.

 

ii) Item 5 - The Defendant states that ' Any overdraft facility was (and is) subject to

conditions. '. Since the Claimant does not have a bank account with the Defendant

there is no overdraft facility in force.

 

 

 

iii) Item 7 The Defendant states that '...... the Defendant denies that the amount

£4999.99, or any amount..... ' . This value bears no relationship to the amount

claimed in the Particulars Of Claim submitted by the Claimant.

 

5) The Claimant wrote to the Defendants representative highlighting the errors in the

Defence on the 15th October 2006 (Copy Attached marked 5).

 

6) Following receipt of the notice that the Defendant intended to defend the claim, the

Claimant served on the Defendant a request pursuant to CPR 18 for further information

and clarification of matters relating to the Defence (Copy Attached marked 6). The

request was delivered on the 19/10/06.

 

7) The Defendant or their representative failed to acknowledge or respond to the original

CPR 18 request . The Claimant sent a reminder to the Defendants representative on

the 27th November 2006 (Copy Attached marked 7) but the Defendant has failed to

acknowledge, or respond to the request.

 

8) The Court instructed both parties to complete and return an Allocation Questionnaire

by the 6th November 2006. The Defendant failed to return the questionnaire and the

Court issued an order instructing the Defendant to file their Allocation Questionnaire

by the 30th November 2006.

 

9) Despite the Defendant being originally represented by DLA Piper UK LLP, the

Defendant filed the Allocation Questionnaire themselves.

 

10) The Claimant has received no formal notification that the Defendant had changed their legal representative. The Claimant wrote directly to DLA Piper UK LLP, to enquire as to whether they were acting on behalf of the Defendant.

 

11) The Claimant received a response from DLA Piper informing the Claimant that they no longer act for the Defendant.

 

12) The Claimant has received no confirmation from the Defendant whether they are now representing themselves or whether they have engaged new legal representation.

 

I asked for the claim to be struck out on the basis that the defence was essentially a simple denial and offered or provided no evidence with which to defend, I also said they had failed to comply with the relevant processes and that the defence contained significant errors of fact.

 

It appears the same judge is dealing with all bank claims in the Southend district, even claims from Basildon court have been transferred to Southend for him to hear.

 

I understand that the Defendant will receive or have received a copy of this notice too, hence posting now.

 

Glenn

[Lula]

Hi Glenn, you pedantic sod, this is superb I at first thought that you would get into trouble for disclosing WP letters, but a little homework (stuff that you already had done) has put me right on this and if anyone want to read the rules on Privelige, Without Prejudice and Without prejudice save as to costs they can read it here Privileged, Without Prejudice, and Without Prejudice Save As to Costs documents. - Alway Associates

[elizabeth1]

Glenn,

I am watchng your thread and willing this to all go in your favour!!

 

I am at AQ stage with Abbey and just had their copies of their AQ response yesterday and it's all the same rubish they wrote in it saying they intend to produce "expert evidence" etc.. they really are struggling aren't they?

[paulwlton]

Just had a good read Glenn and it sure seems like your having fun, and yes it's cheered me up.

Keep the good work up.

 

Paul.

[bish]

Hi Glenn very very good, are you doing a law degree, if not perhaps you should. Just one comment,

l. Item 12 – The Claimant contends in the Particulars of Claim that the Defendant has both concealed the nature of its charges and the Defendant paid the charges in the mistake belief that the charges were lawful. Reliance on the Limitations Act 1980, Section 5, fails to address either of these issues.

 

I assume you mean claimant here, just don't want you to send it off with a mistake in it, although obvious what you mean. Best of luck with it, be nice to get one over on those bar stewards.

 

Regards bish.

[Glenn UK]

Bish

 

Thanks for that, bugger, its been sent off, ill ring the court monday, may cost me another £35 to correct it.

 

Id best check my true copy to see if i made that damn error in there too.

 

Glenn

[joneshousehold]

Hey Lula, that's an excellent piece of info. I have filed it away under 'interesting'. I have a second claim with Abbey and have received exactly the same letters at each stage as the first claim. I have told them I will be bringing this clear abuse of legal process to the attention of the courts. They had marked the letters 'without prejudice' but now I can see that I can present these letters as they are not a genuine attempt at settlement in my opinion.

I have clicked your scales although looking at your reputation I don't think you need it. You must be a bit of a brainbox!

[Glenn UK]

Jones

 

As a word of warning producing documents marked WOP is a hazardous affair, you say 'these letters as they are not a genuine attempt at settlement in my opinion'.

 

If there is any doubt be very careful, my letter contains no attempt to settle in any form.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

[bish]

Hi Glenn

 

Hope its just an error on here, any chance of going into the court with a bit of tipex if not. When I handed in my N1 they spotted a big mistake which they let me tipex out and hand write in. Might be worth a try if its on the original, hope it is not.

 

Regards bish.

[Glenn UK]

Hi Glenn

 

Hope its just an error on here, any chance of going into the court with a bit of tipex if not. When I handed in my N1 they spotted a big mistake which they let me tipex out and hand write in. Might be worth a try if its on the original, hope it is not.

 

Regards bish.

 

 

LOL no point worrying about it now, its been submitted and i cant do anything till monday when i will ring the court.

 

YOu wont believe, actually you probalby will, how many times ive read through that before submitting it.

 

Still sh1t happens as they say.

 

Lets hope the judge has a sense of humour eh?

 

Glenn

[elizabeth1]

Glen - you are right you can't solve this till Monday - the courts are really good and will allow you to quickly change that word etc.. if you explain.

 

On one of my forms I had an error with my printer and the forms were somehow printing out in PINK - instead of blue backgrounds - so I was really worried and I posted photo copies that were grey to the court too incase my "PINK" versions were not acceptable (I was thinking forms were colour coded / different forms represent different matters?)

 

So I rang the court to explain I wasn't taking the mickey and my printer was having a bad print day and the Court Manager was in fits of laughter and said the "girls in the office loved the colour PINK" - so they are very well humoured and will allow us all some error margins!!

[Glenn UK]

Glen - you are right you can't solve this till Monday - the courts are really good and will allow you to quickly change that word etc.. if you explain.

 

On one of my forms I had an error with my printer and the forms were somehow printing out in PINK - instead of blue backgrounds - so I was really worried and I posted photo copies that were grey to the court too incase my "PINK" versions were not acceptable (I was thinking forms were colour coded / different forms represent different matters?)

 

So I rang the court to explain I wasn't taking the mickey and my printer was having a bad print day and the Court Manager was in fits of laughter and said the "girls in the office loved the colour PINK" - so they are very well humoured and will allow us all some error margins!!

 

Elizabeth

 

Thanks for the support, i was lucky enough to work with someone a while ago who had had a pretty tough time with debts one thing and another. I learnt from her to only worry about things i could do anything about.

 

I cant do anything about this till Monday so whats the point in worrying, ill ring the court and hopefully get someone understanding and see if they will let me send them an amendment.

 

Glenn

[Glenn UK]

Excellent news, spoke to the court today, told them i had found a 'significant typographical error' in my submission and could i submit a correction, id serve a copy of the defendant too.

 

Response of 'course no problem' you have plenty of time please just make sure you confirm that you have served a copy on the defendant.

 

PHEW !!!

 

Glenn

[Lula]

Hey Lula, that's an excellent piece of info. I have filed it away under 'interesting'. I have a second claim with Abbey and have received exactly the same letters at each stage as the first claim. I have told them I will be bringing this clear abuse of legal process to the attention of the courts. They had marked the letters 'without prejudice' but now I can see that I can present these letters as they are not a genuine attempt at settlement in my opinion.

I have clicked your scales although looking at your reputation I don't think you need it. You must be a bit of a brainbox!

 

Blushing here Jones, actually, google is a wonderful thing, if in doubt, google it out LOL

[Lula]

Excellent news, spoke to the court today, told them i had found a 'significant typographical error' in my submission and could i submit a correction, id serve a copy of the defendant too.

 

Response of 'course no problem' you have plenty of time please just make sure you confirm that you have served a copy on the defendant.

 

PHEW !!!

 

Glenn

 

You could charm the birds from the trees Glenn

 

Saying that most of the court employees that I have heard about in various courts from various people are absolutely superb and very helpful indeed. Its an excellent way to run things

[elizabeth1]

Glenn so glad that worked out for you so you could amend the mistake so easily - it would hev been a shame to slip up with such a little thing that could have been made to look so big?

 

Like Lula says the court staff are very good and understanding etc.. - they see many of us having defend ourselves against these huge Banks etc.. and they'll see that we are allowed some room for our typos/errors within reason etc.. The court Manager in my local court is a nice guy and he'll help and explain stuff to me if I want to ask questions - they know it's a scary game for us? So will try put us at ease so we don't get scared off by what we are trying to achieve with this stuff.

 

I would tell anyone with queries to never be afraid of asking at court etc.. as they are so helpful.

[bish]

Hi Glenn

 

Thank the lord that some institutions in this country still work on Honesty, integrety, and good old fasioned common sense. The law might be an ass, but a mighty fine pear shaped one. So glad I did not ruin your day.

 

Regards bish.