Cobbetts Cpr part 18 request/CPR part 16.4.1

[LLou]

Hi there. I sent the letter at the beginning of this thread to both Cobbets and the Court. I heard nothing further from them but the court was moved to one near to me and I have now received a hearing date (20 June). The court have also ordered Cobbetts to file by 25 May their counter-schedule explaining why I was charged each individual charge on my account. Don't give into their scare tactics as this is all it is. I would still send them a shcedule of the charges, directly as advised earlier in this thread and mentioned in the draft letter - good luck!

[mazza1970]

Thanks, so saying it will be struck out if I don't reply by 22nd May is just a scare tactic? In with the CPR18 was their defence also.

I didn't think it would get this far, as all my friends have had their charges back at the LBA stage, I am getting scared now, but I am not giving up as I have come this far:)

[Holger]

Hi there,

thanks so far to everyone who has helped with my claim. I've just received a cheque from Cobbetts about the full amount that I have claimed (including interest and the £120 for the online claim). Now they want me to send a template letter to notify the court that I discontinue this claim.

However, I'm still not sure if I should take the cheque and cash in, because I intend to start a second claim (regarding the charges that have been accrued on my account since the last claim).

What worries me is the wording in the Cobbetts letter:

"Acceptance by you of this goodwill payment will be in full and final settlement of your claim against our client (...) Please note that any charges that properly accrue in the future will be applied to your account in line with our client's published tariff and in accordance with your agreement with our client".

My question: Can I chash in now and still go ahead with a second claim?

Many thanks for suggestions.

Holger

[The cobbett slayer]

Hi there,

 

thanks so far to everyone who has helped with my claim. I've just received a cheque from Cobbetts about the full amount that I have claimed (including interest and the £120 for the online claim). Now they want me to send a template letter to notify the court that I discontinue this claim.

 

However, I'm still not sure if I should take the cheque and cash in, because I intend to start a second claim (regarding the charges that have been accrued on my account since the last claim).

 

What worries me is the wording in the Cobbetts letter:

 

"Acceptance by you of this goodwill payment will be in full and final settlement of your claim against our client (...) Please note that any charges that properly accrue in the future will be applied to your account in line with our client's published tariff and in accordance with your agreement with our client".

 

My question: Can I chash in now and still go ahead with a second claim?

 

Many thanks for suggestions.

 

Holger

 

 

My opinion is that it is a separate claim and there are 2 important points in the wording of their letter.

 

1) "Any charges that properly accrue" They can't properly accrue as they are still unlawful.

 

2) "in the future" so anything prior to the date of the letter is fair game.

 

Bank your cheque and if necessary start another claim, unless anyone can tell me otherwise.

 

If you have your own thread, it might be a good idea to have a mod transfer this there as it isn't really about part 18.

[stevepm]

Ladies and Gentlemen

I also have been through the mill with Cobbetts, if they read this site then let them take not of this, as from tomorrow 11 May 2007 they fall foul of the judicial system YET AGAIN I have no intention of letting them get away with it. I will pursue then=m to the full extent that I can for every penny even calculating the cost from the day they send the cheque until it is cashed.

 

Life is not going to be so much fun for them from now

 

I also have started another five claims against NatWest, Cobbetts be ware as your tactics cannot work this time as it is thriugh the same complainant and therefore you I have precedent

 

Sorry everyone about the highjack but they need to start to take note of what people are doing

 

[stevepm]

Note they say this is a GOOD WILL payment try again this is not GOOD WILL not without Prejudice they are trying to stifle you in the future. I would suggest that you reply saying that this is not acceptable in its current form and wish to continue to court. I certainly hope I get this sort of offer because they would be in for a shock.

[DP38]

thanks for all this info - have had the CPR 18 to and am sending the letter at the beginning of the thread off now with a copy to the court. Brilliant help - thanks Debs

[DP38]

oh - should I be sending the charges with the 8% sheet or the charges without the 8% sheet - a bit confused here. thanks, Debs x

[MARTIN3030]

Seems that Cobbetts have dropped the actual wording of the part 18 request recently but are still saying that claims are not fully particularised.

Stick to the advice given ........let them have copies of your charges account details and remind them that your N1 claim partics form the basis of your claim.

As regards anything further if you have your terms and conditions that were active during the account then prepare to have these for submission.Watch the forums for details of this.Its likely that this will form greater importance in the future.

[isminenottheirs]

I have received my letter from Cobbetts today and they have worderd the following:

 

REQUEST FURTHER INFORMATION AND CLARIFICATION

 

NOTE - IMPORTANT

 

1. This request is served pursuant to CPR Part 18 alternatively with regard to CPR Rule 27.2(3).

2. The reason(s) why this request has been served are st out in the Defence which has been served by the Defendant.

3 You are asked to provide a response to this request in accordance with CPR 18 by 30 May 2007.

 

In the Defence is says I have not supplied Natwest with a copy of the list of charges, which I have 3 times. It also says I have not properly particularised my claim...which I have.

 

Can I send them the letter at the beginning of this thread? i am sure they are just trying to put me off, I am sure I have done everything correctly, ie: given 14 days to respond, then 7 days, responded to their rubbish offer, and each time I have sent copies of all previous letters sent.

[mazza1970]

I have received my letter from Cobbetts today and they have worderd the following:

 

REQUEST FURTHER INFORMATION AND CLARIFICATION

 

NOTE - IMPORTANT

 

1. This request is served pursuant to CPR Part 18 alternatively with regard to CPR Rule 27.2(3).

2. The reason(s) why this request has been served are st out in the Defence which has been served by the Defendant.

3 You are asked to provide a response to this request in accordance with CPR 18 by 30 May 2007.

 

In the Defence is says I have not supplied NatWest with a copy of the list of charges, which I have 3 times. It also says I have not properly particularised my claim...which I have.

 

Can I send them the letter at the beginning of this thread? i am sure they are just trying to put me off, I am sure I have done everything correctly, ie: given 14 days to respond, then 7 days, responded to their rubbish offer, and each time I have sent copies of all previous letters sent.

 

I received exactly the same of them last week, I sent them the letter at the beginning of the thread and the list of charges, I also sent a copy to the court.

[kennyh]

And the FSA?

[lenbert]

Hi Guys,

1st post for me but i have been following advice on the forums and am now at the cpr part 18 request stage with Cobbetts/NatWest!

I have a couple of questions am hoping somebody may help me with.

Firstly, my claim is for more than £5000, which means it will prob be allocated to fast track, so i believe i can't go down the, part 18 does not apply route.

I have found the letter kindly posted by Martin the Mod, which i will use to respond, but part 3 of the request basically asks me specifically all of facts relied upon by claimant and also to identify the regulations of The Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999, on which i am relyng.

So can anybody please tell me if i need to do this, i kind of thought i wouldn't need to quote this stuff until i get to court!!

One other thing, in my response, do i also send a letter requesting information from them, it's all quite scary, but i don't want to give up.

Also, i haven't yet recieved anything from the court, Natwest put their defence in on the 27th day of MCOL proceedings, which was last Friday, recieved the request from Cobbetts Saturday, so i haven't a clue what their defence says as yet.

Any advice gratefully recieved, as i have trawled the threads, but can't find answers to these q's.

Thanks

Len

[stevepm]

Hi all

 

Just a thought I have now completed my CPR 18 as directed by the Court. The thought is this what is stopping me putting a CPR 18 on NatWest via Cobbetts for the information as per breaqkdown of charges. If they can put one on us why dont we put one on them I am up for it but I need someone elses view point on this before I do it.

 

Stevepm

[stevepm]

Lenbertdo not asume fast track ask for small claims my claim is over 5000 and it allocated to small claims. Look at below it is a response to CPR 18 which is put together by various people on the site I am going ot use it.Q1.1 In relation to each charge please identify:A1.1: The information within this direction was supplied within document pack supplied to the Court. However since this has been directed the response to the requested CPR18 can be found below and within the attached spreadsheet Paragraph 12 page .(a) The dates when the charge was chargedA1.1 Date if each occasion when a penalty was charged to the account. It is noted that since the original list was compiled the defendant has seen fit to supply the missing information as requested within the original Data Information Request submitted in December 2006 and re-submitted in February 2007. The information has been gathered from this therefore has necessitated an amendment. This amendment has been highlighted within the spreadsheet.It is also of note to the court that the original list of charges has been supplied to the defendant on two occasions the last within the Allocation Questionnaire.(b) The amount of the same A1.2. The amount of the same, penalty charged to the account, is given within the attached spreadsheet, it is noted that this information has been gathered via information supplied by the defendant (Bank Statements) and readily available to the defendant without this request. It is noted that sine the original submission Claim was submitted the Defendant has seen fit to supply missing information. This information has resulted in an increase of the Claimed to £6,094.86 and interest of £1,793.14 totalling sum £7,888.00. I would therefore request that the court now accepts that the above be the amount to be repaid by the defendant.It is also of note to the court that the original list of charges has been supplied to the defendant on two occasions the last within the Allocation Questionnaire.© the reason(s) given for the charging of the sameThe reason(s) for the charges of the same are included individually within the attached spreadsheet. This information was made available to the defendant prior to the Hearing. It is noted that this information has been available to the defendants through their own supplied information (Bank Statements).It is also of note to the court that the original list of charges has been supplied to the defendant on two occasions the last within the Allocation Questionnaire.1.2 In respect of each charge, please clarify the following:(a) is it the case of the claimant the same should not have been charged.The Claimant is aware that each charge has been debited by the Defendant from the Claimant’s account pursuant to the terms and conditions when the account was opened. However, please see my replies below.(b) if yes; please explain why the claimant contends that the same should not have been charged:The Claimant does not contend that the same should not have been charged; merely that the charge made should have represented the Defendant’s liquidated losses and not the fixed charges applied by the Defendant according to the terms and conditions in force at the time the charge was made.© if no; is tit the case of the claimant that the same should not have been charged in this amountThis is exactly the Claimant’s case. Each charge debited by the Defendant from the Claimant’s bank account should not have been charged in the amount that was charged. It is the Claimant’s case that each charge is a disproportionate penalty in that each charge does not truly represent the actual cost to the Defendant. The Claimant reminds the Defendant that it has been put to strict proof in previous correspondence and/or the Particulars of Claim that the amount charged for each charge debited does truly reflect the Defendant’s costs and that they are not making a profit from such charges – in the absence of any documentation to support the Defendant’s contention that each charge debited represents the Defendant’s liquidated losses, the Claimant contends that the Defendant has no defence to the claim that each charge is disproportionate and therefore unenforceable in common law, or by the previously claimed Acts, Statutes and Regulations pleaded.(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 claimants contends should have been charged The Claimant cannot specifically reply to this request in that the amount that should have been charged cannot be specified because the Defendant has failed to reply to the Claimant’s request for a breakdown of costs incurred by the Defendant in applying charges to the Claimant’s account. The Defendant’s contentions that the charges are fair, reasonable and transparent are denied because of this material failure to disclose this information. Had the Claimant been made aware of the breakdown of each and every charge debited, the Claimant would have been able to reply to this particular request.It is also stated that the claimant requested the court to issue directions in direct relation to the above response on the 20 March 2007.It is therefore requested of the court that the direction included below is ordered of the defendant.(e) if no please state the claimants caseThe Claimant has already stated a case in the Particulars of Claim (or as amended) and repeats the same claims as if they were repeated in this reply. The Claimant also refers the Defendant to the answers. 2 In your claim you state "the charges are an unlawful extravagant penalty".2.1 Please specify whether these charges applied were due to a breach of contract by the claimant.The Claimant avers that the circumstances giving rise to the levying of charges by the Defendant are all breaches of the provision relating to Operations on the Account and which sets out a mandatory requirement in respect of the maintaining by the Claimant of cleared balances on the accounts. As such failure to adhere to that contractual requirement is a breach of the agreement between the Claimant and the Defendant.The Claimant further contends that the Defendant is only entitled to be compensated by the amount it would be able to secure in a claim at common law in the event that the Claimant was individually sued for breach of contract by the Defendant. Accordingly the charges that result from the breaches are by their nature are therefore unreasonable and/or unenforceable and/or in terrorum in respect of each and every occasion that they have been debited to all of the Claimant’s accounts.2.2 Please identify in each case the particular breach of contract (by reference to appropriate terms of the contract and the charge relates to: It is noted that this request is beyond that which is reasonable to request on an “as per item basis”. By agreement of the Court the claimant intends to list by generic terms those section of the Terms and Conditions as laid down. It is of further note that the response to the above request is based on the current Terms and Conditions of the Defendant dated November 2006, however, it is noted that, when the account was first opened these T&Cs where considerably different in appearance and meaning.Operations on the accountIf at any time we receive instructions to withdraw funds from the account where- there are insufficient funds available to cover the withdrawal, or- the requested withdrawal would cause an agreed overdraft limit to be exceededwe may exercise our sole discretion and, without contacting you, either (1) refuse to pay some or all of the item and/or (2) allow an overdraft to be created or allow the borrowing limit to be exceeded (in which case, the new or excess overdraft is an unarranged overdraft).For the purposes of assessing whether you have sufficient funds available to cover the withdrawal, or whether the withdrawal would cause an agreed overdraft limit to be exceeded, we will look at the cleared balance (plus, where applicable, any unused agreed overdraft facility) on your account at 3.30 pm on the working weekday before we receive the instruction to withdraw funds.ANDFees, Interest and Other Charges Fees for operating the account and interest rates and charges payable are charged as detailed in the leaflet 'A guide to Personal Current Account Fees' relating to the account and are subject to review from time to time. If any changes are made, details of the revised charges will be sent to you at least 30 days before the implementation date for the charges.In the leaflet referenced must be considered to form an integral part of the Terms and Conditions. In relation to these charges, it saysUnarranged borrowing - interest and feesInterestWe would encourage you to agree an overdraft limit with us so you can avoid any unnecessary charges. If there is not enough money in your account and you have not contacted us to arrange an overdraft limit in advance, we may not allow you to withdraw money. Also we may not be able to pay your cheques, Standing Orders or Direct Debits... We will charge a fixed fee for each item we do not pay.The Claimant contends that these Terms imply a term requiring that, in the proper running of the Account, sufficient funds (including any agreed overdraft facility) must be maintained in the account to cover withdrawals or the result will be a charge. (It should be noted that this Condition applies even in cases over which the customer has no control, e.g. the paying of a Direct Debit where the payment date and amount are controlled by the payee.)- Further, the Claimant contends that, although these charges are referred to as “Fees for operating the account”, the Term is a clear statement that a charge will be imposed if the customer breaks the requirement that sufficient funds be in the account at the time of any withdrawal. The term itself sets out that the charge arises purely on the occurrence of the event and, as such, is a penalty or default charge rather than a fee for operating the account. Further, the Claimant contends that there is a very strong argument that these charges constitute “disguised penalties” – the OFT report “Calculating fair default charges in credit card contracts - A statement of the OFT's position”, April 2006, says, “4.21 Attempts to restructure accounts in order to present events of default spuriously as additional services for which a charge may be made should be viewed as disguised penalties and equally open to challenge where grounds of unfairness exist. (For example, a charge for 'agreeing to' or 'allowing' a customer to exceed his credit limit is no different from a charge for the customer's 'default' in exceeding his credit limit.) The UTCCRs are concerned with the intention and effects of terms, not just their mechanism. “- On overdrafts the current Terms and Conditions say:OverdraftsOverdrafts are available on request ..... We may refuse to pay a cheque (or allow any other payment or withdrawal), which could have the effect of exceeding the overdraft limit. If we do pay a cheque (or allow any other payment or withdrawal) which results in the overdraft limit being exceeded, it will not mean that the overdraft limit has changed, or that we will pay any other cheque (or allow any other payment or withdrawal) which would have the same effect. You agree that if you or any appropriately authorised signatory on the account:a) formally requests an overdraft limit or an increased overdraft limit and we agree to the request; orb) informally requests an overdraft by issuing a payment instruction in any form (e.g. issuing a cheque or making a card transaction on the account) which either through exercise of our discretion to pay the item on presentation for payment or through payment being guaranteed to a third party, results in the account becoming overdrawn when no agreed overdraft limit is in place or which results in the overdraft limit being exceeded;in either case, this will be treated as a variation to the contract (i.e. not revoking and replacing any earlier agreement) under which overdraft facilities are provided by us. If they arise through exercise of our discretion to pay items presented for payment or through payment being guaranteed to third parties, they will be an unarranged overdraft.The Claimant contends that the word ‘variation’ is another example of the Defendant attempting to disguise penalties and that charges arising because of these contract ‘variations’ are just another form of ‘disguised penalty’. The Claimant refers to the fact that normally contract variations arise because some event or circumstance has arisen during the course of the operation of the contract that was not envisaged at the time the contract was executed. In this case, the Defendant has effectively written a contract variation into the contract. The Claimant contends that this has the effect of making the subject of the variation, namely the ‘informal request for an overdraft’ a breach of the implied contract term that the customer must maintain sufficient funds in the account to cover all withdrawals. 3. In your claim you state that the charges" applied constitutes an unfair penalty under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999"3.1 Please supply all of the facts relied on by the claimant in support of the contentions in Paragraph 2 above and in particular please identify the contractual provisions that the claimant alleges are invalid by reference to the Regulations.The Claimant specifically pleads that the charges debited to the Claimant’s account by the Defendant are automatically unfair because, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract (which the Claimant pleads is invalid in any event) to the detriment of the Claimant. “Good faith” (as defined by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999) means that that the Defendant must deal fairly and openly with the Claimant. The Defendant has not dealt fairly and openly with the Claimant. Further, as the contractual term (i.e. each and every charge debited from the Claimant’s account according to the “contract” entered into by the parties pursuant to the Defendant’s terms and conditions, as well as the terms and conditions themselves) was not individually negotiated and was drafted in advance, the Claimant was unable to influence the substance of the term, making it unfair. In the absence of a breakdown of the Defendant's liquidated losses and/or actual costs of each and every charge applied to the Claimant's account, the contractual term in force at the time of the charge forced the Claimant to pay a disproportionately high sum to the Defendant in compensation for the Claimant’s alleged failure to fulfil his obligation.If the defendant contests this does not amount to a breach of contract the claimant will contest that charges appear to represent an unfair term of contract which is contrary to the Unfair (Contracts) Terms Act 1977 s.4 and under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Para.8 and sch.2 (1) (e).The claimants account falls within the ambit of Regulation 5 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 as I am a consumer. These charges constitute an unfair penalty under reference to paragraph 1(e) of schedule 2 of the said regulations:Indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair:1. Terms which have the object of effect of - (e) requiring any consumer who fails his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensationwith this re-submit your claim spreadsheet.watch later I have submitted saomthing else to a Mod for an opinion if he agrees I will post it laterStevePM

[lenbert]

Thanks Steve, much appreciated.

Was trying to put one together myself using various posts but that has just saved me a lot of time. Will check back later with regard to other info, but once again, thanks, and good luck with your case.

[jhamb]

Sorry but can anyone help me as Im totally confused about what I need for court. I have made up three bundles of all correspondence, relevant case law etc and my own bank statements. Do I now have to mention the T&C? I have to send my bundle early next week so really appreciate any help - THANKS JG

[stevepm]

JHAMB

 

Lets start at the top

 

1.You have your statements with the interest worked out

2. You have the copies of the relavant cases

3. You have the list of questions that you need to ask. Which should include the likes of:

Please explain your banks process for calculating the Peanlies as applied ot my account.

Please can you tell us if the bank employes any manual intervention in the processing of the penalties.

If the bank does have manual intervention then please explain how this is carried out.

 

There is a whole lot more you need to have.

 

I have a full pack but it is far to much to put on the site and I do not know how to send it to you with out relvealing my identity if a MOD knlws then we could post it . The lentgh of mine minus all the statments is around 90 pages.

 

You should also realise that the bundle has to be paginated with a very detaild contents list. Judges all though bright are abit messy with papers.

 

StevePM

 

If you find this usefull please tip my scales

 

If you are really desperate I could set up a dummy e-mail to my account which would be available if you want a copy of my bundle.

[jhamb]

JHAMB

 

Lets start at the top

 

1.You have your statements with the interest worked out

2. You have the copies of the relavant cases

3. You have the list of questions that you need to ask. Which should include the likes of:

Please explain your banks process for calculating the Peanlies as applied ot my account.

Please can you tell us if the bank employes any manual intervention in the processing of the penalties.

If the bank does have manual intervention then please explain how this is carried out.

 

There is a whole lot more you need to have.

 

I have a full pack but it is far to much to put on the site and I do not know how to send it to you with out relvealing my identity if a MOD knlws then we could post it . The lentgh of mine minus all the statments is around 90 pages.

 

You should also realise that the bundle has to be paginated with a very detaild contents list. Judges all though bright are abit messy with papers.

 

StevePM

 

If you find this usefull please tip my scales

 

If you are really desperate I could set up a dummy e-mail to my account which would be available if you want a copy of my bundle.

Thank you so much for your help. I would really appreciate being able to see a copy of your court bundle if this can be done any way. Many thanks again JG

[stevepm]

jhamb

 

if you want you can contact me at

[email protected]

 

this email will only be live for tonight then I will kill it

[jhamb]

jhamb

 

if you want you can contact me at

[email protected]

 

this email will only be live for tonight then I will kill it

 

Hi Steve PM

 

sorry but I didnt get the message for the email address above until just now. Any chance you can set it up again for today and I will get the information I need. Thanks again JG

[jhamb]

Hi Steve PM

 

sorry but I didnt get the message for the email address above until just now. Any chance you can set it up again for today and I will get the information I need. Thanks again JG

 

Do you actually have a hearing date yet? You seem to be around the same stage as I am - my hearing 4 July. But worried now - in view of what happened yesterday with another district judge threatening to throw these cases out - whether it will get that far! Really appreciate your help - gettin jittery now!! JayneG

[stevepm]

Sorry e-mail was deactivated

 

 

This is against the site policy

 

 

Lets face facts half the Judges do not understand what is going on or do not read things properly. I was in court one day and the judge actually went to sleep the poor guy got sent down.

 

 

As I understand the first Lloyds case is up for appeal and anyway County Court is not a precedent and if it happens to me be assured the judge will feel it. I am surprise the press has not slated these judges for incompetence for this clear breach of procedure.

 

stevepm

 

If you find this mail helpfull please tip the scales.

[stevepm]

I am waiting for my next DIRECTION HEARING DATE which upset teh Cobbett. In the mean time I have slapped a CPR 18 on NatWest via the Cobbett.

 

I am thinking of changing my handle to the Gundorf the Cobbett slayer

 

Good Hu!!!

[Domscp]

Hi,

 

I have received a Defense and Request for Further Info and Clarification from Cobbetts with regard to CPR Rule 27.2(3).

 

Claim info

Claiming : £2400 (inc interest)

 

Offer Letter "goodwill gesture" from Natwest: £1697 (this is the full amount without interest).

 

 

The Request:

 

2.1 - Idenfify charges, dates, amounts and reasons.

 

2.2 - In relation to each charge, clarify why i should not have been charged etc etc.

 

3 - In my claim is states the charges are "unenforceable under the Unfair Terms in Comsumer Contracts Regs 1999, the Unfair Contract Terms act 1977 and the common law" and "they must be reasonable under s15 of the supply of Goods and Services Act 1982"

 

4 - Please specify all the facts relied on by the claimaint in support of the contentions in Paragraph 3 above and in particular please identify (a) the sections of The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977; (b) the regulations of the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999 and © the principles of common law relied upon by the claimant in alleging that the contractual provisions reffered to are unforceable.

 

This request for futher info is very confusing and i dont know what to do, i have looked thru the forums but am getting confused about what to do next....I do not want to accept the offer as its around £700 short!!!

 

What do i do next??? Can someone pls help......???

 

Thanks

 

Dom:confused: