Cobbetts Cpr part 18 request/CPR part 16.4.1

[Diceboy]

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.

[Michael Browne]

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

[iggie]

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

[MARTIN3030]

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.

[triley]

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

[Guest peed orf]

Hi guys, had a look at the reply for Cobbetts CPR, I'm claiming £9,500.00 is it the same reply minus the small claims bit?

Thanks.

[nothernrock]

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!

[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?

[nothernrock]

My understanding is that this shouldn't be a problem - please correct me if I'm wrong!

 

If (or when) the claim is judged in your favour the figure will again be different, as the interest is calculated on a daily basis upto the date you are repaid.

[Just Chris]

Do you send the exact same information to the court as you do to cobbetts?

 

I don't remember sending a summary of charges to Moneyclaim - this was never requested on the online form?

[Just Chris]

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...

[nothernrock]

Banks, Bank Holidays, how thick am i?

[Diceboy]

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

[Shazzam]

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

 

[knightreplica]

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

[falcon2]

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

[Movingon]

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.

[nothernrock]

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...

[Movingon]

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.

[XXneilXX]

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.

[Movingon]

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.

[XXneilXX]

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.

[Movingon]

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.

[XXneilXX]

Thanks for that Stone. Will do.

 

As I said in my original message, having read earlier posts I realise that this is just Cobbetts way of trying to intimidate.

[Hopkino]

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??