Cobbetts Cpr part 18 request/CPR part 16.4.1

[sue day]

Hi

 

Really good letter i think i will send one similar as i do not want them to have any excuse to get the claim struck out. My only worry is that they seem to have crossed out small claims track and put in fast track. Has anyone else had this happen to them if so i would be pleased to know as i do not want to be lumbered with costs if we were to lose.

 

Best wishes

 

Sue

[sbb1979]

Sounds like they're trying to bluff in the hope that you'll worry about the costs and pull out. Just as Fast Track would mean disclosure for you, it also means they'd have to disclose their costs and there's no way that they'd do that.

 

From what I can tell, this is a borderline case and its up to the judge which track he sends it down. There have been cases well below the 5000 mark that they've sent down the Fast Track, and claims over 5000 that have gone for Small Claims.

 

The way that I understand it, you can wait anyway until you hear which track your claim is on. Anyway, keep us updated.........hopefully there's someone here who can shed some more official light on it!

 

Good luck!

 

S

[innocent]

Really really good letter

 

I havent had a cpr18 request in their defence but am considering sending your letter anyway cause its that good

 

 

Innocent

[bigmama59]

excellent letter!

 

Good luck with it

[spidy_em]

Hello I did not get a specific part 18 request- not in those words..:o They did ask for more info...can this letter template be used for a claim that is over 5K as they wanted me to acknowledge the letter they sent with their defence.

 

I am due to recieve the AQ soon in the post....

 

Special Forces Spidy_em vs Ratwest

[Movingon]

If it's over £5k you can safely assume it will be Fast Track - and a "request for more information" is a request under CPR Pt 18. Especially with you being vulnerable to a Fast Track allocation. Do reply to their request; don't, however, put in any of the confrontational stuff.

 

Sue - the bank (as the defendant) have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to "cross out small claims and put fast track". The case is allocated to a Track by a Case Management Judge as far as I can tell. This is just another trick by Cobbetts to try to intimidate you - and a blatant one at that. IF YOUR CLAIM IS LESS THAN £5000.01 (before interest and court fees) then it is ineligible for Fast Track except at the discretion of the Court. If the claim is for £5000.01 or more, then it is ELIGIBLE for Fast Track at the discretion of the court.

 

There is no "borderline". It's either eligible or it's not - but the court (and the court alone) have discretion to choose either way.

[veryannoyed]

Fortunately I have no dealings crapwest or cobblers, but just a thought:

 

Could someone not draft a template letter to be sent in the initial stages of a claim saying something on the lines of:

 

"please don't bother trying to intimidate me with a CPR18 - I am a member of the CAG and we have already filed a group complaint with the Law Society as we believe this is merely a delay tactic on your part, since to the best of our knowledge you have NEVER defended a single case of unlawful bank charges in court"

 

[Movingon]

No. It would be pointless and eventually they'll find out about the complaint the sensible way.

[Hillsey]

I sent my CPR Part 18 response to Cobblers with a copy of the spreadsheet outlining all my charges on 21st Nov by recorded delivery.

 

Today I get a letter dated 28th Nov saying:

 

"Although you state that a breakdown of all the charges you are claiming is enclosed this has not been received by us and we would be grateful if you could supply another copy"

 

Are these people for real?

 

Do I send another copy or is this another delaying tactic. After all they should have the copy that I sent to the bank plus the one I've already sent!

[sbb1979]

Send a letter back to them with another copy, stating if they got the letter then that was with the breakdown then they must have the breakdown. Also, that you've sent it to them on a number of other occasions and you see this as a time wasting tactic. Send a copy of their letter and yours to the court too!

 

Can't believe these guys!!

 

Good luck!

 

Si

[MrMSHarrow]

Did the letter come from Lynsey Claire Burgoyne? I would suggset that anyone who has difficulty with this lady and her delaying tactics should write a formal complaint to: The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors at Victoria Court, 8 Dormer Place, Leamington Spa,

CV32 5AE. I wrote claiming a refund of unauthorised bank chanrges and she wrote to me saying that she could not understand what my claim was for whilst a paragraph later saying that I could not claim unauthorised bank charges prior to a certain date. One letter to the OSS will have little effect; if everyone who has had trouble with this lady writes and complains, then she and Cobbetts might be put on the spot.

[sbb1979]

She seems to be dealing with most of Cobbetts dirty work in these cases. Its one of their standard tactics to play dumb and either say that they don't know what we're on about, or that they haven't received the schedule of charges.

 

Would it have more impact if we drafted a letter on here and then sent very similar letters to the OSS? I'll certainly send one! Or if you could PM it to me Mr Harrow, I'll edit it to suit my experience of Cobbetts and send it to them.

[orfoster]

This is what i had from the courts today with regards to the CPR18 request.

 

It is ordered that.

 

Although the courts appreciates that the claimant is a litigant in person, the defendants part 18 request is reasonable and the claimant is ordered to file at court and save a reply on the defendant by 14th Decemeber 2006

 

I don't have a clue what to do now, heres my thread and this is what i've been sending them etc and my progress.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/32743-2nd-claim-natwest-contract.html

[Movingon]

This is what i had from the courts today with regards to the CPR18 request.

 

I don't have a clue what to do now, heres my thread and this is what i've been sending them etc and my progress.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/32743-2nd-claim-natwest-contract.html

 

 

Print off the "Court Bundle" contained in the green section of the forum, and send it to the Court and the Defendant.

[orfoster]

I'll do that when i get home, i haven't actually looked at that court bundle yet as i can't download it here in work lol. Thanks for the help.

[MrMSHarrow]

Try this for a complaint format:

 

The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors,

Victoria Court,

8 Dormer Place,

Leamington Spa, CV32 5AE. Date:

Dear Sir,

I am currently in dispute with The National Westminster Bank over charges which I consider to be unfair. I am dealing with a Lynsey Claire Burgoyne of Messrs Cobbetts in Manchester. I regret that I consider her conduct as a solicitor to be below an acceptable standard.

My claim states ‘Damages as specified below: Item 1, Excessive Charges’. Ms Burgoyne in her Defence states that she is embarrassed by the lack of particularity pleaded in the Particulars of Claim ….. they set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, are incoherent and do not disclose any legally recognisable claim ….’ She then goes on to state that the Claimant is time-barred from bringing a claim of unauthorised bank charges …

If she is embarrassed by the lack of particularity, how has she managed to identify the core issue of my reclaiming unauthorised bank charges and refer to it in a later paragraph?

I have to suggest that Ms Burgoyne is attempting to intimidate and belittle a litigant in person in order to gain unfair advantage.

I have attempted to bring her conduct to the attention of the Partner responsible for professional standards at Messrs Cobbetts in Manchester. They have failed to reply to my request and so have failed to provide the name of the Partner on whom this responsibility rests.

Whilst I fully accept that it is hearsay, I am given to understand that Ms Burgoyne has attempted to intimidate and belittle a number of litigants in person and I believe some of them will also be contacting you regarding her conduct. I would be obliged if you would treat this as a formal complaint of unprofessional conduct by a solicitor and investigate it accordingly.

[chrid25]

I just wanted to say thank you to all of the thread members here. I received my defence and a request for further information from Cobbetts on the 22nd November. I have until the 6th Dec to respond to there request for information and to submit my AQ. I have been absolutely bricking it because I thought "oh no what did I do wrong", but hearing your stories and the advise you have given, I'm about to right to Cobbetts advising I do not need to provide this information and the court saying that I am feeling intimidating.

Thank you so much - wish me luck!!

[mickpercy]

CPR Part 18 - We've had to do one at the request of the judge. There were further requests as Natwest felt we weren't being very clear, so we wrote a letter claiming it was simply a matter of just how disproportionate these charges were... and something we could never easily ascertain as the bank would not release this information. Here's the Judge's request after he recieved that letter:

 

The papers in this claim were considered by Judge ***** who allocated the Claim to the Small Claims Track to be heard. He also went on to say...

 

The Following Direections Apply To This Claim:

 

1. The Claimant shall within 28 days of service of this order send to the Defendant and to the Court:

 

a) A schedule setting out each charge repayment of which is sought, showing the date, amount, and reason given (if any) for that charge being made;

 

b) Copies of any statement or other document relied upon as showing that each and everry charge has been made;

 

c) A statement of evidence of all matters relied upon as tending to show that the charges are irrecoverable as penalties or otherwise;

 

d) Copies of decided cases and other legal materials to be relied upon.

 

If the Claimant fails to comply with this order, the claim will be struck out without further order.

 

Sounds pretty tough, but we think we have all the answers to these questions... Interestingly the Court order continues...

 

2. The Defendant (Natwest Bank) shall within 28 days thereafter file and serve a response to the Claimant's schedule, stating in respect of each item claimed;

 

a) Pursuant to what contractual provision such charge was made, producing a copy of the contractual document relied upon;

 

b) Whether such charge is accepted to be a penalty, and if not why not;

 

c) If such charge is alleged to be a pre-estimate of the Defendant's loss incurred by the Claimant's actions (whether or not such action is treated as a breach of contract between the parties), all facts and matters intended to be relied upon as showing that such proper estimate of such loss, and all evidence to be adduced at trial as to what the true cost of dealing with the matter was.

 

d) Any witness statements.

 

e) Copies of decided cases and other legal materials to be relied upon.

 

If the Defendant fails to comply with this order, the Defence will be struck out without further order.

 

 

So you see, at worst fellow CAB' ers, answer the four questions above and you will win your case. We're not there yet but, we know we will be and wish to impart this knowledge to anyone worrying about CPR Part 18 Requests. For this case to get to the courtroom, Natwest will have to give a detailed breakdown of costs to them appertaining to each charge levvied. Will they do it. No, as if the lose (very likely) this will set a precident, which means everyone can claim back their charges simply and quickly.

 

Hope this is useful

 

Cheers and good luck everyone

[veryannoyed]

Just a quick point - it wouldn't technically set a precedent legally speaking as judgements in small claims court do not do this, HOWEVER, it would be a major major step forward as a) the public would know the true cost of bank penalty charges, and b) the details of this case could be quoted in everyone elses battles! - so for all intents and purposes it is almost as good as legal precedent!

[Movingon]

Correction - the public would know the costs associated with Nat West's bank charges.

 

Answering the first four questions is simply a case of printing off the entire "Court Bundle" available on this site, the Excel Spreadsheet also so available (filled in with your charges and interest details), and a copy of the statements and/or bank printouts showing each statement.

 

Excellent development Mick - best of luck!

[Rimardo]

Hey,

 

I'm bricking it about my claim although reading this thread makes me feel a bit more confident...

 

I received a CPR Part 18 from Cobbetts & I have a REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION AND CLARIFICATION

 

Should I just send the letter saying I am not prepared to answer the CPR part 18 request???

 

It's all pretty confusing to me!

[Movingon]

Rimardo this depends on the details of your claim; post your request in your own thread with full details of the status of your claim, amount, etc etc etc.

[sue day]

Hi,

 

I sent a letter saying that i was not going to answer the questionnaire and i did not get a response instead they made me an offer shortly after. It was only half of what i wanted so i have told them to stick it basically So do not worry they are sending these questionnaires as standard i think.

 

Best wishes

 

Sue Day

[Hillsey]

Received Nat West's AQ today and in the "Other Information" box Cobbetts put the following:

 

"Case management directions cannot be proposed until the Claimant serves a Reply to the Request for Further Information which was due on 29 November 2006. In light of this, the Defendant may amend its Defence or apply to strike out."

 

I pesume that this is in response to their CRP request which I did not complete but instead sent the standard response.

 

Should I be worried or is this par for the course?

[Movingon]

As long as you anticipate allocation to the Small Claims Track, and as long as you have not had an Order for Standard Disclosure from the Court, it's par for the course. The Judge and court staff will spot this immediately as an attempt to intimidate.