Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Paint is a free programme on any Windows PC. But don't worry, the choice here is not either perfection or nothing. As you say, use your scanner, save the file ... and then use the "choose files" option when you post to CAG to add the file. We can do all the redacting and converting to the correct file type at this end.  The important thing is just to get the info to us. Why not do an experiment this afternoon and see if the above works?  
    • I see they're trying to round up asylum seekers and lock them up for about three months so they can be put on planes to Rwanda. I'm a bit surprised that this is legal.  
    • thought for the day "Prime ministers need a big strategy that tells you where you’re going, you need a bunch of tactics that get you there, and you need the ability to take everybody else with you."   Now I know you are all thinking 'why is the  UKs destination Rwanda ???
    • Asset Link filed for a default CCJ against me, in relation to an old Barclaycard debt which I apparently signed an agreement for back in 2000.   I did not own a Barclaycard in 2000 so I know this is not true.  The CCJ notice was sent to an old address so I did not receive it.  Years later when I found out about the CCJ when I applied for credit, I put an application in to have the CCJ set aside.   As part of the set aside case, I was asked by the judge to provide a draft defence, should the CCJ be set aside.   The defence I provided was that I did not admit to the debt as I had not been provided with any evidence of an original loan agreement.   I won the case and the CCJ was set aside.   Link then filed to court again to make me pay the debt.   We both filed directions questionnaires and the judge allocated the claim to the small claims track.   As part of the directions, additional directions given were as follows ' Additional Directions in a claim for an Assigned Debt - Because the claim is in respect of an assigned debt the Court makes the following directions for the management of claim.  The claim shall be automatically struck out at 4pm on 3 April 2024 unless, before that time, the Claimant delivers to the Court and to the Defendant the following documents'  It then listed various documents such as an original agreement, deed of assignment, notice of default, statement of account setting out how the alleged debt accrued under that agreement etc.     The Claimant failed to provide these documents within the deadline provided and instead I received a copy of a bundle of documents provided by them in preparation for the court date, this was received weeks after the deadline.    I have called the Court to ask if it has been automatically struck out and they advised that it is not automatic and that I should still send my witness statement by the deadline provided, which is Wednesday.  This does not give me much time to prepare my witness statement.   I have never done anything like this before and I am unclear what my witness statement should include.  My thoughts were that I should keep it simple and stick to the facts, like the fact thy have not provided evidence of the original agreement, or the deed of assignment of the debt.   They have provided a copy of a default notice from Baclaycard dated 2015, this states a figure of £550 but the debt they say I owe is £10k.   I am not sure what makes a valid default notice?   I have previously requested proof of the debt from Barclaycard directly and have evidence of emails between us where they have been unable to provide me with the agreement or any documents at all relating to the debt.   Should I include these as an appendix?  Are there any other documents I should include in my bundle?    I have also tried to mediate with the claimants, to save the court costs and time, on a without prejudice basis, but the claimants solicitors refused to mediate.   Should i state this in my witness statement too to show the judge that I have been reasonable and they haven't? Many thanks   Louise
    • Right that's exactly why so many drivers got caught, it had been that way for many years then suddenly changes with no warning
  • 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

Cobbetts Cpr part 18 request/CPR part 16.4.1


MARTIN3030
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6102 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

Can somebody have a look at this for me please. I need some help with my part 18 response

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/17630-shiebers-natwest.html

 

I have put a couple of my thoughts on there Paul - but please check with someone who has a large claim and can guide you properly.

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 425
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Need more advice please from something I posted on my NatWest thread on receiving a copy of Cobbetts AQ

Section G - Further Information section. They put

Case management directions canot be proposed until the Claimant serves a Reply to the Request for Further Information which was due on 31 October 2006. In light of this, the Defendant may amend it's Defence or apply to strike out

What is this all about?? I sent them the response letter (intimidatory letter) and replied straight away.

They even sent me the following response with the letter Our client objects your allegation that the request is intimidating etc

The also sent me a offer of 50% of the claim on the 25th October to which I only accepted in part settlement of course - basically follow timeline in my signature says it all

Should I ignore what they have put in the AQ and just wait, or do I need to send them a letter back and / or notify the court in what they have put in Section G???

Any help much appreciated:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is something that they've been sending to quite a few people recently. Looks like a new tactic of theirs. Is there anyone reading who's been through it and successfully out of the other side?

 

I'm following exactly the same route as you....a week or so behind so am expecting to receive exactly the same thing.

 

Good luck!!

 

Si

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it me or do the nat west push each and every claim to the limit????????? Trust me to have selected the meanest bank on the high street, just want my money back asap but i've a feeling it could be a lengthy wait. thank god for this site or i think my letter saying they have done nothing wrong (received today) would have put me off if i didn't have the info from this site. Keep helping folks i NEED it and you will definately get your 5%, it will have been worth every penny. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes we know what you mean.

Keep at it you will get there in the end just needs patience now.

Good thing is this lot are fairly predictable which makes things a little easier. You are not alone....The Rbs claimants also have to go through the motions of Cobbetts.If you ever feel like its bad for you then just read some of the stories of past claims......we have all felt the wrath!!

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was watching the news this am about HBOS (thank god Im not with them), and bascially they are getting slated as the result of the Fairpack hampers saga. It was them who pulled the rug from under tha company!!!

 

Hey even though it doesnt effect me, I'm just glad more bad publicity is going aginst the banks, maybe people will stop seeing them as holier than thou gods!!!

Allyxia

KEEP FIGHTING FOR YOUR MONEY - EVEN WHEN IT GETS TOUGH

The Banks are somewhere which lends you an umberella when it is sunny, and takes it away when it rains

 

HSBC £1200 - Settled in Full

Cap 1 2 X £100 - Settled in Full

Nationwide £1641 - Settled in Full inc Default and CCJ Removed by Court Order

NatWest £2215.60- Settled in Full and Removed Default Natice

Woolwich £3690 - Settled in Full

Link to post
Share on other sites

My case has been on-going since April... I have a court date set for December 21st!!!! :o

 

See my claim HERE

 

 

This is the letter I sent to Cobbetts in response to their CPR 18,

Courtesy of Jannercobbler

 

 

IN THE ****** COUNTY COURT CLAIM NO. ********

 

 

 

BETWEEN

 

 

************ Claimant

 

-and-

 

NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PLC Defendant

 

 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR FUTHER INFORMATION AND CLARIFICATION

 

 

NOTE- IMPORTANT

 

 

 

 

1. This response is served pursuit to CPR 18

 

The Response

 

2. In response to Para 2.1 and 2.2 (a) of defendants request please find herewith (attached Schedule one) a break down of the charges applied to the claimants account this includes the claimants account number sort code and the dates that the charges were applied and the reason.

 

3. In response to Para 2.2 of the defendants request, the claimant has already explained why the charges should not have been applied but for the avoidance of doubt the claimant alleges that the charges are Penalty charges that are irrecoverable at common law. The precedent for this was Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor co Ltd [1915] AC 79.along with Murray v. Leisure play [2005] EWCA Civ 963. It was held that a contractual party can only recover damages for an actual loss or liquidated losses.

 

4. In response to Para 2.3(a) Yes, the claimant should not have been charged an amount above the true administrate cost incurred by the respondents, (the claimant should not have been charged for reason out lined in Para 2. the claimant should have been charged the true administrative cost,

 

5. In response to Para 2.3(d) The Defendants have asked what the claimant should have been charged, to answer this the claimant will need a break down of the administrative cost incurred by the defendant in applying the said charges.

 

6. In response to the further question made by the defendant the claimant will not be able to responded to these until the claimant has disclosure and inspection of documents as the claimant will be requiring a copy of his contract with the respondents

 

7. If the defendant requires any further information, the claimant will be happy to provide this once the disclosure of documents / information has been dealt with by the court.

 

 

 

See my claim HERE

NatWest - £3750 - Settled

HSBC - £1100 - Settled

Link to post
Share on other sites

the Auth I been told by the court that all 3 of my claims are going to be transferred to cardiff for a test case!!!! Awaiting date now!!!!

 

Hope it the 15th dec as have of the britsol people and welshones will be cardiff anyway for the xmas do!!!

Allyxia

KEEP FIGHTING FOR YOUR MONEY - EVEN WHEN IT GETS TOUGH

The Banks are somewhere which lends you an umberella when it is sunny, and takes it away when it rains

 

HSBC £1200 - Settled in Full

Cap 1 2 X £100 - Settled in Full

Nationwide £1641 - Settled in Full inc Default and CCJ Removed by Court Order

NatWest £2215.60- Settled in Full and Removed Default Natice

Woolwich £3690 - Settled in Full

Link to post
Share on other sites

Letter gone to FSO and ICO!!!!!

 

Next LS!!!!

 

Ive had it with these muppetts esp after the letter I got off Cap Quest today chasing me for Natwets debt of £200 - telling me Im going to prison!!!

 

They can get added to my hit list!!!

Allyxia

KEEP FIGHTING FOR YOUR MONEY - EVEN WHEN IT GETS TOUGH

The Banks are somewhere which lends you an umberella when it is sunny, and takes it away when it rains

 

HSBC £1200 - Settled in Full

Cap 1 2 X £100 - Settled in Full

Nationwide £1641 - Settled in Full inc Default and CCJ Removed by Court Order

NatWest £2215.60- Settled in Full and Removed Default Natice

Woolwich £3690 - Settled in Full

Link to post
Share on other sites

the letter I got off Cap Quest today chasing me for Natwets debt of £200 - telling me Im going to prison!!!

 

Please please please tell me that this is true... I SO want to see the text of this letter so that I can assist you in composing a reply!!! Can I? Huh? Huh? Please? Huh? Can I? Huh?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stone laughter I phoned them it was good therapy - why they stupid B****h didnt hang up on me I dont know why she just sat there and took it!!!

 

Them - madam youve been on this phone for 4 mins and 35 sec and you havent let me speak yet.

 

Me - Im paying for this f**king call so just shut up and let me talk.

 

Then I rang Cobblers for good measure!!!!

 

The author - yeh three of the cases are going to be mine - nice payout before xmas for me then eh!!!!

Allyxia

KEEP FIGHTING FOR YOUR MONEY - EVEN WHEN IT GETS TOUGH

The Banks are somewhere which lends you an umberella when it is sunny, and takes it away when it rains

 

HSBC £1200 - Settled in Full

Cap 1 2 X £100 - Settled in Full

Nationwide £1641 - Settled in Full inc Default and CCJ Removed by Court Order

NatWest £2215.60- Settled in Full and Removed Default Natice

Woolwich £3690 - Settled in Full

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I didn't see this thread earlier as I tend to only look at the RBS thread. But today I spoke to the Law Society regarding Cobbetts and they provided me with a plan of action to take if I wish the Law Society to look into Cobbett's behaviour.

 

Big problem is that it involves getting a judge to comment on Cobbetts action when as case comes to court.

 

But it might help those who want to take some action against Cobbetts. I just spoke to my contact at Cobbetts - Lynsey Burgoyne who got quite miffed when I asked for her to put in writing to me the reason why she felt CPR Part 18 applied in this case - mentioned in passing that I was doing this as a result of Law Society advice.

 

For more details please see thread under RBS - The Law Society and Cobbetts

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Blue Cat thats very useful.

Allyxia

KEEP FIGHTING FOR YOUR MONEY - EVEN WHEN IT GETS TOUGH

The Banks are somewhere which lends you an umberella when it is sunny, and takes it away when it rains

 

HSBC £1200 - Settled in Full

Cap 1 2 X £100 - Settled in Full

Nationwide £1641 - Settled in Full inc Default and CCJ Removed by Court Order

NatWest £2215.60- Settled in Full and Removed Default Natice

Woolwich £3690 - Settled in Full

Link to post
Share on other sites

Had my notice of acknowledgment of service filed today from the courts. It shows Cobblers have ticked box 1 'I intend to defend all of this claim'.

 

Presumably as the 28 days runs from 4th Nov. when my claim was filed, that I will get the delaying tactics, or part offer letters now ?.

 

I am going all the way, so if they are reading this then save the postage, paperwork and general admin. and pay up, as I am not going to be scared away whatsoever.

 

Hopefully should get my dues in time for xmas !.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Had my notice of acknowledgment of service filed today from the courts. It shows Cobblers have ticked box 1 'I intend to defend all of this claim'.

 

Presumably as the 28 days runs from 4th Nov. when my claim was filed, that I will get the delaying tactics, or part offer letters now ?.

 

I am going all the way, so if they are reading this then save the postage, paperwork and general admin. and pay up, as I am not going to be scared away whatsoever.

 

Hopefully should get my dues in time for xmas !.

 

28 days will run from 9th Nov as they don't deem the claim served until day 5. Wouldn't bank on it for xmas but soon after or therabouts.

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone!

 

I've read everything I can in this forum about Natwest and Cobbetts but there is still something I need to know...

 

I received the CPR part 18 request today. I can't send the stock response (that I've already set-out the reasons why the charges are unlawful) because I must admit I wasn't thorough enough in my online claim.

 

I used the stock letter originally and also quoted it in my online claim, specifically the phrase 'unlawful at Common Law Statute and recent Consumer regulations.' They are asking me to explain the particular statute, the sections of the regs/statute, and the principals of common law. I know about the test case, but which does this cover, the statutes or the regs? Where can I find the law bit?

 

I'm confused and would really appreciate some guidance on this!

 

Thanks in advance to anyone who can help.

 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Michael and welcome to the CAG.

 

The whole point of the part 18 request is to establish further detail and no doubt they state that your "have not properly particularised your claim" or words to that effect.

 

Can I suggest that you start your own thread in the Natwest forum as it makes it easier for people to follow and post the parts of the Part18 request that you aren't sure about. My guess is that it will be pretty standard and between us we should be able to sort it out for you.

 

If it gives you any sort of confidence, the CPR part 18 response that I used got a result for somebody else in 2 days. It hasn't worked for me (yet) but my claim is a bit more complicated than most.

 

Have a look here and see if it helps.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/30918-baldrik-natwest.html

 

Paul

Advice given is either my experience or my opinion and is given without liability. If in doubt, consult a qualified professional.

If you PM me for advice I will only reply in your own thread

 

Never under estimate your ability. I won over £17,000!

For the full story - look here

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/NatWest-bank/17630-thecobbettslayer-NatWest.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

I am extremely worried because i wrote the letter to the Court and Cobbetts about the Part 18 Request being intimidatory and they have written back with their Allocation Questionnaire stating that they want it heard on the fast track and that they can apply to have the claim struck out because i have not completed the Part 18 Questionnaire. My claim was for £4987 plus interest making £5914.18 I was told that to keep it in the small claims it had to be under £5000 without interest. Help as i am desperately worried.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have had similar problems and the court have asked us to fill out a CPR Part 18 Request (which also costs an extra £100). In it they seem to be asking what reason do we think we have been overcharged amongst other things. I have written a response based on research into the template letters on this site and various threads appertaining to these issues. Here's the letter: Either it will help or someone will come back and suggest we have done the wrong thing... Either way will people please respond

 

Cobbetts LLP

Ship Canal House

King Street

Manchester

M2 4WB

********** 2006

 

In Response to a Request For Further Information

pursuant to a CPR Part 18 Request

Dear Sir,

In response to your request for further information and clarification as requested for by Cobbetts acting on behalf of Natwest Bank PLC, pursuant to your CPR Part 18 Request, dated *********** 2006.

The information you request has been provided previously in the schedules attached to each letter of correspondence to yourself and Natwest Bank at every stage of this claim. However, to clarify further I offer a more comprehensive breakdown of the claim’s finer details.

As to part 1 of the request, whereupon you query as to ’what account’ we are dealing with, surely this is clear. All account details are on the attached schedule, and have been provided consistently with each letter of correspondence. Is there really still doubt over which account and branch this claim appertains to?

 

As to Part 2 of the request, whereupon you ask me to identify the date, amount and reason of each charge, once again the attached schedule lists the finer details of all the above.

 

As to Part 3 of the request, whereupon you ask why we are contesting the charges and why we should not have been charged each amount, the answer is again clear. We contest the legality of your client’s charges and need to see a breakdown of your client’s charge structure to ascertain exactly what level of disproportionate charging has taken place. However, this request has been ignored throughout this claim. This information, which Natwest appears reluctant to offer is the matter of contention in this case. If you were to offer a full breakdown of the costs incurred to Natwest Bank PLC where there has been a charge, then and only then could we come to a clear understanding whether such a high charge is disproportionate or not. It is my belief that they are disproportionate and as such contrary to common law and consumer regulations.

If you could supply us and the courts with this information we would clearly understand exactly how disproportionate or otherwise they are.

However, you have consistently been reluctant to share with myself or the courts a breakdown of such costs appertaining to each charge. Therefore, for further clarification, I raise the following points and ask for a more detailed response from yourselves to help us settle this matter.

If Natwest Bank PLC are claiming their charges are ‘fair and reasonable‘, I contest this. Moreover, I believe they exceed each transgression and are disproportionate contrary to common law and consumer legislation.

Without the benefit of a detailed breakdown of your costs, here’s why I believe the charges are disproportionate to offer further clarification of my claim number: ******* Natwest claim their charges are ’fair and reasonable’. However, their method of charging its customers is an automated process. As such and being that the process operates many thousands of times each day and millions each year, it is fair to assume that the cost of it is spread over this huge number of transactions and is shared equally between them. Without a clear breakdown of your client‘s costs, one can only assume this cost. As it is automated and spread across a wide range of customers I assess that this cost is most probably less than 50p per transaction. Unless you can clearly offer evidence to the contrary, why should it cost any more?

 

If Natwest Bank PLC do not contest this issue and are instead claiming that their charges are the price of a contractual service, then I claim that their price exceeds what is reasonable as required by S.15, Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. In it, S.15 says that where no price is agreed at the time the contract is made, that a reasonable price will be implied. I believe this not to be the case when charging £35 per automated refusal? A bank is a High Street business. Normal mark-ups on the High Street businesses are 100%. It would not be reasonable for Banks to mark up significantly higher than this without a full and detailed explanation to their customers.

 

I hope this response has covered all aspects of your request for further information satisfactorily? For a fair and reasonable hearing I would expect you on behalf of Natwest to offer a detailed summary of how their costs appertain to each charge as listed, or offer a settlement in full for my claim.

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

*********

CC ******* County Court

 

 

 

How does this sound and if good use it yourselves and add/take away where you think necessary. If not please let me know?

 

Yours ready to kick Asswest's Nat

 

Mickpercy

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...