Cobbetts Cpr part 18 request/CPR part 16.4.1

[Guest peed orf]

Thanks Steve,

Most of what I need is there.

It would appear that every cpr 18 is different, trying to keep us on our toes!

[Brainstorm]

When Cobbetts sent their Request for More Information they deliberately sent it out with an impossible deadline. Initially I wasn't bothered as I knew I wasn't obliged to send them anything. However, when I received a copy of their A.Q. and saw what they had submitted in Part G (Other Information) I thought "What a flippin' liberty!" (or words to that effect) and I wrote this to my local County Court. I also sent a copy to Cobbetts.

 

 

 

 

XXXXXXXXXX -v- National Westminster Bank plc

Claim No: XXXXXX

 

18th January 2007

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

 

Claimant’s response to Defendants ‘Deadline’

 

I received a copy of the Defendant’s Allocation Questionnaire which, in Part G (other information), states:

 

“Case management directions cannot be proposed until the Claimant serves a Reply to the Request for Further Information which was due 5 January 2007. The Defendant has however given the Claimant until 16 January 2007 to serve her Reply. In light of this, the Defendant may amend its Defence or apply to strike out.”

 

The fact of the matter is I did not receive the Defendants request for Further Information until 10 January 2007. Indeed, the Cobbetts covering letter (copy attached) to this request is actually dated 8 January 2007, which means that this request did not leave Cobbetts office until 3 days after my 5 January 2007 ‘deadline’.

 

It was clearly obvious that I would not receive their request for Further Information until the 9th January 2007, at the very earliest. Therefore, I believe I was being set up to fail, given a deadline that was impossible to meet without the use of a time machine!

This is, in my opinion, just another example of Cobbetts attempt to abuse the process of this case.

 

Yours Faithfully

[Movingon]

So say that to the Judge;

 

I believe that the Defendant's Counsel has employed tactics to intimidate and bully the Claimant and that they have abused due process in order to conduct their defence. . I formally apply for their defence to be struck out on the grounds that it does not meet the specifications required by CPR pt 16.5 in that .

[Brainstorm]

I've already sent the letter in my previous post. Do you suggest I still send this? As for examples, we know Cobbetts claim that didn't recieve POC when they did but will the Judge see that as an example of the 'dirty trick' it is or will he give them the benefit of the doubt?

[Movingon]

Unless you tell him in your AQ he will have no opinion...

[Glenn UK]

When Cobbetts sent their Request for More Information they deliberately sent it out with an impossible deadline. Initially I wasn't bothered as I knew I wasn't obliged to send them anything. However, when I received a copy of their A.Q. and saw what they had submitted in Part G (Other Information) I thought "What a flippin' liberty!" (or words to that effect) and I wrote this to my local County Court. I also sent a copy to Cobbetts.

 

 

 

Seems to me that your initial statement about not being obliged to send them anayhting and the experiences of Peed orf suggest this isnt the case.

 

IMHO you have to respond to a CPR 18 request if its issued prior to allocation.

 

The court in the case of peed orf obviousely think so, and since Cobbets have put it in their allocation questionnaire its likley the court will think so in that case too.

 

Whilst we might all agree that cobbets are using this tactic to intimdate the claimants, that doesnt stop the CPR18 request benig a legitimate request.

 

If they follow it up with a request in court they are likley to get an order for you to comply.

 

why not serve them CPr18 requests after the claim is issued and get yours in first.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

[natwesttookmymoney]

Hi, Glenn

 

I think there's another factor - the way the claim has been filed. If it's MCOL. then the PoCs are really inadequate and I expect the Court will order Part 18 in pretty much every case. If it's been filed through N1 at the local court, with full PoCs, then I don't see that Coobetts'll get very far.

 

JMHO

 

Westy

[Glenn UK]

Westy

 

you could be right, but i know it was discussed earlier in this long thread and there were arguments put that since most claims will be in the SCC, that claimants don't have to respond.

 

However, i don't think it matters if either side complete one prior to allocation then as far as i can tell from the CPR its a legitimate request and the recipient should respond.

 

Whether the POC is very well particularised may make the courts take a different view but personally i don't think its worth the risk of non-compliance.

 

All i know is that if they, the defence that is, have asked and if we don't respond, it gives them ammunition to ask for the claim to be struck out or for an order to be made by the courts.

 

I do agree however that MCOL is not the best choice for anything but the most simple of claims, anything with old charges, default removal or contractual interest should IMHO be on an N1 and detailed as best we can.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

[natwesttookmymoney]

Hi, Glenn

 

No suggestion they shouldn't respond but CPR Part 18 requests can be pretty intimidating, so the best response is probably the very first one on this thread.

Personally, my feeling is that, unless it's for less than £1000 and less than 6 years, N1 at the local court is probably better.

 

W

[wehavetheright]

Hi gys,

 

I haven't received any request for a CPR part 18 - but I have received this rather curious Defence filed by Cobblers on 1st Feb 07 ---

 

see my thread - here (I'm not sure how to link to threads but it's headed as --

 

wehavetheright VS Natwest Defence filed

 

Any comments greatly appreciated!!

[natwesttookmymoney]

www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/63220-wehavetheright-natwest-defence-filed.html

 

 

That's the way to do it!!

 

Westy

[kennyh]

Are we still in Panto season? Cos "Oh no it's not!!!"

(I don't know either)

[natwesttookmymoney]

You're right - that's weird: it worked when I pasted it yesterday.

 

When I copy the whole thing and paste it into my browser, it's now saying there is no such document

 

Hmmmmmm

 

W

[wehavetheright]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/63220-wehavetheright-natwest-defence-filed.html#post536450

 

This should be the one!! (Oh yes it is!!)

[natwesttookmymoney]

Ah! That's better!

 

W

[Sydneysider]

Hi - i've posted a REALLY lengthy message elsewhere (must try to find that and work out how the hell to delete it!) before discovering this link... i'm not sure if what cobbetts requested was a cpr18 (and don't have the paperwork handy) but they did request more info. if i'd discovered your site earlier, i'd have used your rude reply! but i sent all the info off again. i've now received a copy of their amended defence from Clerkenwell & Shoreditch Court... it looks very much like the contents of Hopkino's earlier message (but just different enough to keep me guessing...). where do i go now? is now my chance to stick two fingers up at the lovely Lynsey at Scrobblers via a choicely worded missive?????? thanks guys (ps my claim is for about 2200 quid)

[mletizz]

Hi everyone,

i am back again for more help!!! ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

i have recieved a letter from cobbetts

 

it says,

 

Dear sir

we refer to the above and enclosed a copy of our clents allocation questionaire which has today been filled at the court.

 

yours faithfully

 

 

 

what does this mean?

[Sydneysider]

hi- i think this thread might be dead. at least, no one replied to me on it! however,i started my own thread and people responded...

 

wish i could help you but i think i might be just as bewildered as you! what a mare! fantastic site though - you'd never know that hundreds of other people are going through exactly the same thing as you without it, would you?

 

good luck with your claim.

[Glenn UK]

Hi everyone,

i am back again for more help!!! ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

i have recieved a letter from cobbetts

 

it says,

 

Dear sir

we refer to the above and enclosed a copy of our clents allocation questionaire which has today been filled at the court.

 

yours faithfully

 

 

 

what does this mean?

 

I suppose one might say its like a tin of ronseal varnish, only in this case it doesnt do what it say on the tin, but it is what it says on the tin i.e. a copy of their allocation questionnaire which they filed, today, at the court.

 

Its protocol to send one to the other side.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

[jellybugs]

Hello there!

My first post here and just need some advice just to make sure I have done everything as I should...!

I have received a copy of the defence and a covering letter from Cobbetts. They have just asked that I acknowledge receipt of defence papers of which I have done.

 

This is the defence:

 

1. The defence is filed and served without prejudice to the right of the defendant to apply for summary judgment in respect of and/or to strike out the particulars of claim.

 

2. Without prejudice to the non-admission set out in the foregoing paragraph, is and to the extent that the claimant proves the allegation that the defendant debited charges to the claimants account, insofar as such charges were debited on a date or dates more than six years prior ti the issue of this claim, any remedy in respect of the same, whether damages, restitution or otherwise, is barred by the operation of the Limitation Act 1980 and/or the doctrine of laches and the defendant will apply to strike out this aspect of the claim and/or for summary of judgement.

 

3. The defendant is embarrassed by the lack of particularity pleaded in the particulars of claim to the extent that the particulars of claim fail to disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim against the defendant. In particular:

3.1 The particulars of claim are incoherant and do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant.

 

4. The defendant invites the claimant to remedy the above. In the event that the claimant fails to do so within 14 days of the service of defence then the defendant will apply to the court for an order striking out the particulars of claim.

 

5. The defendant reserves the right to plead further to the particulars of claim omce if the claimant properly particularises the same. In the meantime, it is denied that the claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief whether as pleaded or at all.

 

I just want to compare this to your defences and ensure that there is nothing I need to reply to?

Thanks in advance!

[Michael Browne]

I just want to compare this to your defences and ensure that there is nothing I need to reply to?

 

I rather think there might be. What did you write in your Particulars of Claim when you filed at court?

[jellybugs]

Hi,

 

Thanks for quick response, I got a little help on MSE website...I have been to the court today to fill in a N244 form and attach a new particulars of request along with my bank charges spreadsheet.

 

My original particulars of claim was not along the lines of what it should have been!

 

Fingers crossed the judge approves the changes and I can send of a copy to Cobbetts.

[Movingon]

Well, you could always tell us (in your own thread) (a) what they were and (b) what they are now... it'll be the beginning of a beautiful friendship where we help each other...

[kennyh]

Since I'm at roughly the same point (including significant changes via a N244) I'll bring flowers...

[jellybugs]

lol!!