Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • 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
      • 160 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 6071 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

Hi guys,

My fight with these ppl goes on. I filled in my AQ and dropping it of the court tomorow with the following letter regarding cobbetts crap request;

 

 

 

The Court Manager

 

 

Diceboy -v- National Westminster plc

Claim no. ########

 

Dear Sirs,

 

I would like to bring to the courts attention the following issues with regard to the defendants request for further information;

 

1.- A full breakdown of the charges with the dates that they incurred on have been supplied to the defendant previously and further also when registering the claim, which the defendants solicitors, Cobbetts, should have copies of.

 

2.- Since the claim has been allocated to the small claims track the, CPR part18 request, which has been made by the defendant, are specifically excluded by the part 27 unless the court requests for one. A fact that Cobbetts should be aware of.

 

 

I would like the courts notices that information requested by the defendant has either been supplied previously (1.), or are not necessary unless the court requests for one (2.)

I believe this manner of dealing with my legitimate claim by the defendant solicitors are intent to delay the claim and further meant to intimidate.

 

 

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

 

 

 

What do you think? Should i send one to Cobbetts as with a X-mas card?

 

 

(or maybe skip the X-mas card:))

 

Any thoughts would be great.

 

Ill keep you all posted of the progress.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 425
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Since the claim has been allocated to the small claims track

Strictly speaking, it hasn't. That's what the allocation questionnaire is for. The judge reviews the claim and POC's, the defence and the AQ's and then decides which track.

 

Since the claim is likely to be allocated to the small claims track

Link to post
Share on other sites

New to all this posting I'm afraid, but I've just won against Natwest (£300) and as soon as I received their notification od defence (via moneyclaim online) I immediatley sent copies of ALL previous correspondence, POC etc, together with covering letter asking them not to attempt standard delay & disruption tactics (ie no CPR part 18 et. al) back to the trainee solicitor whose name appeared on the court doc's. Cheque then received 3 days later, on grounds of being too expensive to defend blah blah. I won, they lost, and all is well

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us not forget that the solicitors are instructed very clearly by the Bank. It's my contention that Cobbetts are EXTREMELY uncomfortable (and rightly so) with the line that they have been asked to take by the Bank; and this dearth of comfort will lead to the breakdown of their relationship. They are being paid a fortune to do this, but in the end it won't be enough; they have the law society on their backs and a large proportion of claimants actually laughing at them (when they're not seething).

 

It's the BANK we should be directing our vitriol at - it's the BANK who drive this appalling behaviour, and it's the BANK who are breaking the Law. Cobbetts are unfortunately just another victim of the banks' complete arrogance; their total abandonment of any pretence at Customer Service.

 

Let's concentrate on bringing the BANKS down a notch or two, and look at the solicitors as just another brick in that wall.

 

 

Good point Stoney.

Personally I agree that they are under instructions but as litigators will still be in the driving seat.

My own feelings is that there have been 3 ways here,as Mr Tommy McLean the infamous Scottish link has had lots of succcess in his dealings by e mail and phone calls with claimants so we have him,Cobbetts and the bank itself.As you probably know Cobbetts have opened a further 2 offices and diversified a lot of their work to Leeds for this stuff,they are reputed to be a class outfit and are not fools,but I agree there is a lot of frustration behind the scenes and trying to work to their own agendas with both RBS and Natwest will undoubtably pile the pressure on.I dont see as their services will be relinquished......theres no other firm of litigants big enough to represent these high street Banks together.

I think the Abbey scenario was a completely different ball game in that the Solicitors hoodwinked the bank into beleiving the Microfiche arguement was watertight.

One Abbey found out it was not going to win this I think it was on the cards that their Lit depos had to go.

They were made scapegoats for the shareholders.

I could not see the same happening to Cobbetts.

They are as big if not bigger in the legal circles than RBS and Natwest are in the banking sector.

I have no doubt at all that there would be a queue to engage them by the other majors.

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

Please help what do I do next,

 

I issued on line and have received and acknowledment of service, ect. Thismorning I received the defence and request for more details from Cobbetts (part 18).

 

I wrote the response as suggested staing that I was not willing to answer the CPR part 18, and that the request was intimatadory.

 

Please can you advise me what to do next, and indeed I should send a copy of my reply to the court and indeed complain that I have supplied this information in correspondece to the bank and complain that I belive this just to be a delaying tactic.

 

Regards

 

TMR

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just received the copy of defence from Cobbetts and a CPR part 18 request. I rang the court this morning (28 Dec), to check whether they had received anything - they said not but that the defendant had until 4pm today to lodge the defence, despite the 28 days being up on the 26th.

 

Needless to say, I am preparing the response letter now to go in the post at the end of the day.

 

See what they throw back in the New Year!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest peed orf

Hi guys.

I have to send Cobbetts a copy of the charges, the speedsheet has updated itself, and therefore the figure is different to the one I sent the Court. Is this this a problem?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just received the copy of defence from Cobbetts and a CPR part 18 request. I rang the court this morning (28 Dec), to check whether they had received anything - they said not but that the defendant had until 4pm today to lodge the defence, despite the 28 days being up on the 26th.

 

Needless to say, I am preparing the response letter now to go in the post at the end of the day.

 

See what they throw back in the New Year!

 

they must allow for bank holidays maybe...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys,

The battle continues here with cobbetts and thought to keep you updated;

 

Have received their "goodwill offer" of half the money im claiming...

on condition that i will keep quiet about it and bla bla,

 

gonna write them that they can stick it where santa cant find it. further also wrote to the court about their scare tactics....

 

anyway gotta send of my rejection letter now and ill keep you all updated

 

 

seasonal greetings to all of ya

 

diceboy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi thought I'd say thanks to this thread and ask a couple of questions. I recieved my letter from Cobbetts requesting my CPR 18 bla bla.... So I've been reading round alot because I got a little worried. Anyway phoned the court today 28/12 and they said the Nat West put there defence in yesterday. The court told me it has been moved to Bristol County court and I will be hearing from them shortly.

Has anyone else been referred to their local court?

I've sent a letter to Cobbetts and MCOL clarifying all previous infromation.

 

Good luck to all X

 

:):|:)

It's just a waiting game.....

:p;):lol: 8-)

Nat West Won = £4008 03/07 :D

Prelim Letter to Cap One - 25/01/08

Rejection Letter to Cap One - 03/02/08

LBA to Cap One - 11/02/08

S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) Welcome - 25/01/08

Received Statements - 08/02/08

Link to post
Share on other sites

i was moved to my local court, then i just recieved a letter stating its been moved yet again to cardiff court

18/10/06 sent lba for current account

18/10/06 claim issued against NatWest for £2,495.00

30/09/06 O'Neill V NatWest - declined offer of £1216.00 sent responce to settlement letter

30/09/06 O'neill v Woolwich plc mortgage account sent Data Protection Act notice for not replying

30/09/06 Oneill v citifinancial sent S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)

30/09/06 O'neill V Capital One sent S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)

 

If u can do it, SO CAN I!!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all, I am currently taking Nat West to Court for appr £4500. I've been asked to send the CPR Part 18 request but along with that they have said:

 

"In relation to the case of the Claimant that the charges are unreasonable within the meaning of section 15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (SGSA) the Defendant pleads as follows:

 

The claimant is required to plead and prove the necessary factors (referred to in section 15 SGSA) concerning the contract between the claimant and defendant which mean that pursuant to SGSA section 15 there is an implied term that the claimant pay a reasonable charge for the service under the contract.

 

Furthermore the claimant is required to plead and prove a) that the bank charges which have been debited are unreasonable b) all facts and matters relied upon by the claimant in support of this case and c) what charges would of been reasonable".

 

What do I need to do here? Do I just quote the office of fair trading regarding not making a profit out of these charges? It also says at one point what charge would I deem fair?!

 

Any help appreciated! Thanks for all your help so far! :o))

 

Fleur

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who has asked for this? The court, or Cobbetts? If it's Cobbetts, then send them the standard "Sod off until the court ask for it" letter - as long as your claim for charges only is less than £5000. Otherwise:

 

(a) The standard marketplace mark-up for services is approximately 100%. These services, being automated and applied to thousands of customers per day, are presumed to cost the bank a very small amount in the absence of evidence to the contrary and the cost to the consumer of £35 per transaction is presumed therefore to be unreasonable.

 

(b) See court bundle

 

© No formal assessment can be made of a reasonable price for these "services" without details of how much it costs the bank to provide them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Received notification of defence from MCOL Northampton County Court, also transfer of the claim to my local court, Buxton.

Included was the Allocation Questionnaire (small claims track) - straightforward other than sections D - Witnesses and E - Experts.

 

Has anyone proferred witnesses or experts?

In the small claims track (which I assume I am now on due to the AQ (N149) received) against the banks, does the judge make a ruling?

 

I'm not sure how these things work and can't find a reference. Apologies if there's any duplication...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Received notification of defence from MCOL Northampton County Court, also transfer of the claim to my local court, Buxton.

Included was the Allocation Questionnaire (small claims track) - straightforward other than sections D - Witnesses and E - Experts.

 

Has anyone proferred witnesses or experts?

In the small claims track (which I assume I am now on due to the AQ (N149) received) against the banks, does the judge make a ruling?

 

I'm not sure how these things work and can't find a reference. Apologies if there's any duplication...

 

The Allocation Questionnaire is used by the court to DETERMINE what track you're on, not NOTIFY you. You'll be notified when you get your hearing date.

 

Usually you will not be allowed to call expert witnesses, and unless you have someone who knows the details of your case from the bank's side, you will have no use for any other witnesses.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all and a very happy (and fruitfull) New Year to all.

 

I have just received Cobbetts AQ on my case. In it they claim that I they had requested "That I remedy the lack of POC......" I have gone over all the corespondence and I never received any such request.

 

I'm not too worried (after reading all the previous posts) but would it be prudent to send Cobbetts a letter, cc to the court, pointing out that there was no such request and that all such information was submitted with the original N1 Claim Form.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you post your Particulars here, just to see if there is any lack? remember that the POC on the Online form is too small to get much detail in and that they have no basis for complaints if you submitted online and got all you could into it. Post it here anyway and let's see if there's anything missing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you post your Particulars here, just to see if there is any lack? remember that the POC on the Online form is too small to get much detail in and that they have no basis for complaints if you submitted online and got all you could into it. Post it here anyway and let's see if there's anything missing.

 

Hi StoneLaughter. I assume your post is in reply to my earlier message. I submitted the hardcopy version of POC which I took from the Bank Templates Library written by Bank Fodder. I only added the relevant figures and names, as instructed.

 

My point is that Cobbetts have in their AQ, told the court that I did not respond to their request to remedy lack of particularity pleaded in the POC. I received no such request.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi StoneLaughter. I assume your post is in reply to my earlier message. I submitted the hardcopy version of POC which I took from the Bank Templates Library written by Bank Fodder. I only added the relevant figures and names, as instructed.

 

My point is that Cobbetts have in their AQ, told the court that I did not respond to their request to remedy lack of particularity pleaded in the POC. I received no such request.

 

Yes I understand the point; my point was that if your POC was fully and correctly completed they have no grounds to be contesting it anyway; Simply state in your AQ that you received no such communication from them and that if the court so wishes you can supply any information which they feel is missing. I would enclose a letter with your allocation questionnaire that you feel they're using intimidatory tactics and trying to scare you off - and that you will respond to no procedural requests from the Defendant however that you will be happy to supply the court with any information they feel is lacking in your case as presented.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone help????

 

Myself and my partner have recieved a defense submitted to the court by the now infamous Cobbetts.

This is what we did:

1) Preliminary letter requesting return of charges over 6 years

2) standard 'get lost' letter recieved from Natwest.

3) Letter before action sent to Natwest.

4) standard 'tough luck, forwarded to lawyers and litigation dept' letter recieved

5) MCOL claim registered

6) Notification recieved by Court of served date.

7) defense papers rcvd from Cobbetts on behalf of Natwest CPR 18 included (please read entire defense below)

8)N150 questionnaire rcvd from court.

 

The bottom line is this, we are confused a little beyond belief, and quite concerned also..

We have filed for £4757.00 plus interest taking us to £5584.69.

 

National Westwinster Bank PLC Defense:

1) This defense is filed and served without prejudice to the defendants case that the particulars of claim do not disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim against the claimant to recover the bank charges(and interest thereon) referred to in the particulars of claim or any other sum(s). in the event that the claimant does not properly particularise his claim then the defendant will apply to strike out the claim and/or for summary judgement in respect of the same.

 

2) Without prejudice to the non-admission set out in the foregoing paragraph, if and to the extent that the claimant proves the allegation that the defendant debited charges to his bank account, in so far as such charges were debited on a date or dates more than six years prior to 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 judgment.

 

3) No admissions are made as to what charges have been debited to the claimants bank account.

 

4) The claimant referrs, under paragraph 3 of the particulars of claim to having provided the defendant with a copy of his list of charges. the defendant has not yet recieved a copy of this list. the claimant is therefore put to strict proof of each and every charge (a) the date the same was debited, (b) the amount of the same and © the description applied to the charge.

 

5) In relation to the allegation that the contractual provisions pursuant to which the charges have been applied are unenforceable by virtue of the unfair contract terms act 1977 (UCTA 1977), and/or the unfair contract terms in consumer regulations 1999 (the regulations), and/or the common law, the claimant is required to identify:

 

5.1) (a) the section(s) of the unfair contract terms act 1977 (UCTA 1977)

(b) the regulations of the unfair contract terms in consumer regulations 1999 (the regulations); and © the principles of common law relied upon by the claimant in alleging that the contractual provision(s) referred to are unenforceable; and

 

5.2) the cantractual provisions that the claimant allege are invalid by reference to UCTA 1977 and/or the regulations

Until such a time as these sections/regulations/provisions are identified the defendant cannot (save as appears below) plead to the allegations referred to in paragraph 5 above. The defendant therefore reserves tits right to plead further to the allegation once (and if) the claimant identifies the relevant contractual information.

 

6) In relation to the case of the claimant that the charges are unreasonable within the meaning of section 15 of the supply of goods and service act 1982 (SGSA) the defendant please as follows:

 

6.1) The claimant is required to plead and prove the necessary factors (referred to in section 15 SGSA) concerning the contract between the claimant and the defendant which mean that pursuant to SGSA section 15 there is an implied term that claimant pay a reasonable charge for the service under the contract.

 

6.2) Further, the claimant is required to plead and prove (a) that the bank charges which have been debited are unreasonable; (b) all facts and matters relied upon the claimant in support of this case and © what charges would have been reasonable.

 

6.3) In the circumstance no grounds are disclosed for a claim that the defendant has acted in breach of SGSA section 15.

 

6.4) in circumstances (save as appears below) the defendant is unable to plead his allegation beyond denying that it has acted in breach of SGSA section 15 as alleged or at all. The defendant reserves its right to plead further to his allegation once (and if) the defects in the pleaded case referred to in paragraphs 6.1 - 6.3 above are addressed.

 

6.5) It is the case of the defendant that the contract between the claimant and the defendant does not fall within SGSA section 15 because a(a) the consideration of the service would be determined by the contract between the claimant and the defendant and (b) was not left to be determined in a manner agreed by the contract or determined by the course of dealings between the claimant and the defendant.

 

7) The claimants claim for the costs not being sufficiently particularised, the defendants is unable to plead and reserves the right to plead upon further particulars.

 

8) to assist the claimant with the proper particularisation of his claim(s) the defendant serves this defense a request made persuant to CPR 18. If the claimant fails to provide the particulars requested in time stipulated and/or the defects with the claim(s) (referred to in paragraph 1 above) remain then the defendant will apply to the court for (among other things) an order striking out the claim.

 

9) Pending the proper particularistaion of the claim (s) the defendant is unable to plead to the claimants claim(s) beyond at this stage denying that the defendant is liable to the claimant as alleged in the claim or at all. The defendant reserves its right to amend this defense to plead further to the claimants claims once or of the claimant properly particularises the same.

 

 

Ok, so where do we go from here?

How on earth do I prove, what they are asking? I have requested on the N150 form that this is referred to the small claims court, and included the following statement as found on the website :

am respectfully requesting that my claim be allocated to the small claims track. This issue is not a complicated one; it is an issue of fact and not of law. The issue is only whether the money levied by the Defendant in respect of its customer’s contractual breaches exceed their actual costs incurred. I am happy to pay their actual costs and I am surprised the Defendant did not counterclaim for these, because I would have paid them without argument.

 

However, the continuing problem is (in common with the 100s of other cases currently being brought by other bank customers) that the banks refuse to reveal the details of their penalty-charging regime. As the banks have a fiduciary duty towards their customers, they have a duty to deal straightforwardly and in utmost good faith.

 

Accordingly, I would respectfully ask that the court in this case, not withstanding allocation to the small claims track, order standard disclosure. I understand that it is in the courts discretion to do so. I believe this would bring a rapid end to this litigation.

 

Any help, anyone can offer would be hugely important to us.

We both work very very hard for our money in the voluntary sector, and really begrudge giving away a penny unless its to a charity.....

 

Please can you help??

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...