Cobbetts Cpr part 18 request/CPR part 16.4.1

[kennyh]

Hi sg51 - a little careful on bandying around references to "unknowing customers accepting fees and charges on their accounts which are illegal". Please, stick with unlawful (only a word, I know, but what a difference it can make). Don't go down the Martin Lewis route and end up shooting yourself in the foot.

[Movingon]

Hi sg51 - a little careful on bandying around references to "unknowing customers accepting fees and charges on their accounts which are illegal". Please, stick with unlawful (only a word, I know, but what a difference it can make). Don't go down the Martin Lewis route and end up shooting yourself in the foot.

 

Agreed - "illegal" is criminal - if you imply that the bank has been criminal you may find yourself on the end of a libel suit. "Unlawful" simply implies that the Law forbids a certain practice but does not make it an offence.

[Holger]

I would appreciate if someone could help me with the wording for a CPR18 reply. Wandsworth County Court have written to me and asked me to complete CPR 18 so I want to make sure that it’s done properly.

My particular problem: When I filed my claim against NatWest via money claim online, I included the following two paragraphs:

(..)

2. The charges applied constitute an unfair

penalty under the Unfair Terms in Consumer

Contracts Regulations, which state: A term

is unfair if it requires any consumer who

fails his obligation to pay a disproportionately

high sum in compensation. The

amount charged does not reflect the cost of

the breach.

3. Under the law of penalties, the charges

are an unlawful extravagant penalty.

Like most of us I don’t hold a law degree and had the above sentences cut and pasted from another template. Now Cobbetts are asking me in their cpr18 request to be more specific. They write:

(…)

3. In your claim you state that “the changes are an unlawful, extravagant penalty”.

4. Please provide the following particulars in support of your claim

4.1 Please specify the clause(s) pursuant to which the charges were applied;

4.2 Please specify whether the charges applied were due to a breach of contract by the claimant;

4.3 Please identify in each case the particular breach of contract (by reference to appropriate term(s) of the contract) that the charge related to.

5. In your claim you state that the charges are: “an unfair penalty under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999”.

6. Please specify all of the facts relied on by the claimant in support of the contentions in paragraph 5 above, in particular please identify the contractual provision(s) that the Claimant alleges are invalid by reference to the Regulations.

Are there template answers to these questions somewhere on the net? Could someone tell me how I can respond?

Many thanks

Holger

[progenic7]

I would appreciate if someone could help me with the wording for a CPR18 reply. Wandsworth County Court have written to me and asked me to complete CPR 18 so I want to make sure that it’s done properly.

 

My particular problem: When I filed my claim against NatWest via money claim online, I included the following two paragraphs:

 

(..)

2. The charges applied constitute an unfair

penalty under the Unfair Terms in Consumer

Contracts Regulations, which state: A term

is unfair if it requires any consumer who

fails his obligation to pay a disproportionately

high sum in compensation. The

amount charged does not reflect the cost of

the breach.

3. Under the law of penalties, the charges

are an unlawful extravagant penalty.

 

Like most of us I don’t hold a law degree and had the above sentences cut and pasted from another template. Now Cobbetts are asking me in their cpr18 request to be more specific. They write:

 

(…)

3. In your claim you state that “the changes are an unlawful, extravagant penalty”.

 

4. Please provide the following particulars in support of your claim

 

4.1 Please specify the clause(s) pursuant to which the charges were applied; Just look in the terms and conditions and include the "term/clause" that provides for charges being applied to the account

4.2 Please specify whether the charges applied were due to a breach of contract by the claimant; Almost certainly YES

4.3 Please identify in each case the particular breach of contract (by reference to appropriate term(s) of the contract) that the charge related to. Not really necessary just say ALL the charges were applied due to breach of contract (if any) and come under the umbrella of either late charges, unpaid item, unauthorised overdraft, bounced cheque ect ect.

 

5. In your claim you state that the charges are: “an unfair penalty under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999”.

 

6. Please specify all of the facts relied on by the claimant in support of the contentions in paragraph 5 above, in particular please identify the contractual provision(s) that the Claimant alleges are invalid by reference to the Regulations. Again just state the clause in the terms and conditons that actually says the banks will charge you if you bounce a cheque (or they will recover their costs incurred, depends how they word it), and then just list the clauses in UTCCR that say they cant do this.

 

Are there template answers to these questions somewhere on the net? Could someone tell me how I can respond?

 

Many thanks

Holger

 

Its no biggy but generally because you used mcol to file a claim, which isnt possibly large enough to put the text you need to in. Dont worry though its standard fodder to be more specific and make a legally recognisable claim

[progenic7]

To totally clarify whether or not its ok to accept an offer on the basis as being a partial payment. I will try and clear things up for anyone slightly confused.

 

 

Claimant - claiming £4000. (£2000 in charges and £2000 in CI)

Defence offers £2000 (the charges in full) - then decline always

 

Claimant - claiming £4000 (£2000 in charges and £2000 in CI)

Defence offers £1000 then accept as partial payment

 

Claimant - claiming £4000 (£2000 in charges and £2000 in CI)

Defence offers £3000 then decline always

 

Claimant - claiming £4000 (£3000 in charges and £1000 in s69 8%)

Defence offers any amount - accept as partial or decline as it doesnt matter

 

Claimant - claiming £4000 (£2000 in pre six year charges, £1000 in post six year charges and £1000 in s69 interest)

Defence offers £1000 (the post six year charges only) - decline always

 

I hope you can see from the above where im going with this, what i mean is dont leave your self open to argue a tricky issue on its own. Any tricky issue ie CI or LA then always leave them bulked with normal charges (ie keep the claim together in one piece) and dont leave yourself open to possible arguments in court.

 

Remember that to date there HAS NOT been a single case defended in court (with normal charges involved).

 

The banks will not risk having to prove their costs, so as long as you keep some charges in there for them to prove, then you will receive full payment, 100% every time.

 

best of luck

[Movingon]

Do you feel that the contractural interest argument is, then, indefensible? On what basis? If you think it indefensible then why, on a site which attempts to claim the moral high ground, are we attempting to claim it back? If something is legally indefensible then I suspect it's morally wrong..

 

What I think is that Contractural Interest is NOT legally indefensible and therefore should be treated as a legitimate portion of the claim in the same way that charges are; unfortunately this is only based on what I have seen Dave and Bankfodder saying and I don't have any Law or Statute to back up my assertion. I want to get this discussed however because there is differing advice going around.

[Roscopicotrain]

Hi Folk, Firstly, thanks to all of you who have given advice to my original posting, as to whether to accept an offer from NastyWest.

 

I've decided to pursue the whole claim, and reject their kind offer. Incidentally, I haven't claimed for any incidental interest caused by their charges, just the 8% CI which the Court would supposedly apply. I may write this in my refusal letter to NatWest, letting them know that my claim could indeed be larger.

 

Lastly, could any of you good people send me a link to the template I need to reply to Cobbetts / the Court about their CPR part 18 request. Plus, who do I send the letter(s) to? Is it to the COurt with a copy to Cobbetts or the other way around? I know one of the letters I have read seems to be a complaint letter to the Court about Cobbetts wasting time etc.

 

Thanks in anticipation for your help!

[Movingon]

Any reply you need for Cobbetts' CPR Pt 18 will be in this thread...

[progenic7]

Stone,

 

in many ways you are correct, and as much as i respect the fact you have been a member of this site for a good while now, (and without seeming in anyway disrespectful or patronising) i feel you have slightly grasped the wrong end of the stick.

 

Its not that the CI argument isnt legally correct (although there is a huge amount of debate over this exact issue) its that in law, its not actually a well proven point and will leave the claimant almost certainly open to having to argue this, if they leave themselves open to this point...ie accepting all the "charges" back out of court.

 

Recently bankfodder has posted his most recent views on the CI argument, and towards the bottom of the post (around paragraph 14 and 15) i ask you pay particular attention, the post is here

 

Can you see what i mean by leaving your self open. ie accepting the charges back before court, then the bank has nothing to prove and nothing to lose, so clearly they are going to defend.

If you leave atleast part of the charges bulked with the other arguments, then the fact remains, they will have to fully dsiclose their costs, and clearly they are not going to do this are they, so therefore they will pay the claim.

 

what im saying is, in certain situation accepting a partial payment is fine, but it depends on how much the payment is for, what kind of claim it is and whether it would leave the claimat open to attack. Its about damage limitation, i think we are all quite certain as to the unlawfulness of the charges, and we all know the defence will pay, but none of us really want to go to court unless we have to. And i think the best route in all of this is the one that leaves the claimant with the minimum of stress and maximum of payout, with the minimum of fuss.

 

regards

 

johnny

[Movingon]

Yeah - having read BF's post (which I had never seen before) I get it

 

Thanks.

[thebloodster]

Hi

 

I'm claiming £2150.48 + 8% interest from the Natwest and have done everything on moneyclaim online. I got a letter dated 11 Apr from Natwest offering me the charges without the interest.

 

However on the same day I got a defence from Cobbetts asking for the following info

 

1 This request is served pursuant to CPR Part 18 alternatively with regard

to CPR Rule 27.2(3).

2 The reason(s) why this request has been served are set out in the

Defence which has been served by the Defendant.

 

3 You are asked to provide a response to this request in accordance with

CPR Part 18 by 26 April 2007.

 

4 If you are unable to provide a response by this date then you are asked to contact the Defendant's solicitors promptly and tell them when you will be able to provide a response.

 

5 In the event that you do not provide an adequate response to this request by this date (or such other date as may be agreed with the Defendant's solicitors) then the Defendant can apply to the Court for an order requiringyou to provide the information requested or (in view of the deficiencies in the way that the claim is pleaded) an order striking out the claim(s).

 

The Request

1 In your claim you state: "the Defendant debited charges and interest in respect of purported breached of contract".

 

2 Please provide the following particulars in support of your claim:

2.1 To what account(s) (giving details of the account name, number and sort code) were the charges applied.

2.2 In relation to each charge please identify (a) the date when the charge was charged; (b) the amount of the same; and © the reason(s) given for the charging of the same.

2.3 In relation to each charge, please clarify the following: (a) is it the case of the Claimant the same should not have been charged? (b) If yes; please explain why the Claimant contends that the same should not have been charged? © If no; is it the case of the Claimant that the same should not have been charged in this amount? (d) If yes; please explain why the Claimant contends that the same should not have been charged in this amount and identify the sum the Claimant contends should have been charged. (e) If no; please state the Claimant's case.

 

3 In your claim you state that the charges are: "unenforceable under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the common law" and "they must be reasonable under s15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982".

 

4 Please specify all of the facts relied on by the Claimant in support of the contentions in paragraph 3 above, and in particular please identify (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. Please also identify the contractual provision(s) that the Claimant alleges are unenforceable by reference to UCTA/ the Regulations.

 

This has scared me somewhat and I don't know what to do. I want to chase them for all the money but this is scaring me now. Also for some reason the case has gone to Northampton and I'm in Manchester. Also I wouldn't be intitled to my court costs back either would I if I accept the offer.

 

Thanks

[stevepm]

Do not be afraid this is standard for Cobbetts. If you look on th esite there is one of two ways to run either send a letter back as per the draft on the site telling them that you will not comply unles a judge instructs you to or more simply, also on the site , is a spreadsheet where you can fill in the dates and th eclaim amounts and this will automatically calculate the interest and send this both to them and the court when you recieve you Allocation Questoinaire. Most if all do not be frightened by Cobbetts this is their Standard Practice I have already gone thorugh it. I have just recieved Cobbetts Allocation Questoinire and they are basically offering nothing when it goe to court so if gets that far it should be fun. Just keet to it and go through some of the site under NATWEST and everything is there.

[progenic7]

hi bloodster,

 

did you not send a spreadsheet with a complete list of charges to the account and or copy statements ?

 

dont worry too much, like steve said its standard cobbetts stuff just asking for clarity and a legally recognisable claim. Part of the fault is with mcol (which i personally recommend knowbody uses) but as steve also said there are standard templates you can send back to them. Spend a good few days looking around the site and get to know your way around.

I take it you filed your claim by using another websites information then ?

 

best of luck

[thebloodster]

Thank you to you both for replying.

 

I had been using the guide on Moneysavingexpert to get this far. I sent a list of charges to the bank in both the letters I sent when reclaiming my charges. I didn't realise I had to with MCOL as it never mentioned it anywhere - but the bank can't say they haven't had the list especially when the offer I received from them is for £2150.48 - the exact amount (without interest) I'm claiming!!

 

I going to have a look for the other info tomorrow - time for bed now I think.

 

Thanks again!!

[progenic7]

bloodster,

 

rule number one do not assume the other side have any common sense whatsoever, because generally speaking this is a misconception

 

You will need to attach a list of charges to the part 18 request thats for sure, as the bank and their defence solicitors are two different things altogether. Then you can either clarify the points in question (personally i would do this, especially as you filed via mcol) or tell them you dont need to do that and send the template letter.

The judge will of course see your response and bear in mind that if your claim is lacking in detail ( a non legally recognisable claim) then it may well be struck out.

The claim in law, needs to make sense, and needs to be fairly specific about what you are claiming has happened, what law your using, where your using that law and on what points. Put simply the mcol claim (over exagarated i know) goes something like this....the bank have robbed me, now pay or die and BTW i know the law !

 

All the defence want are specific points clarifying eg, what is the contractual term you are relying on (from the banks own terms and conditions)...the one that gives them the contractual right to debit money from your account, then just tally that term up with the UTCCR and generally make your claim a "proper claim" and your done.

 

Any other worries just ask

[paulwlton]

This should help it was submitted to court and Cobbetts, my claim was with the RBS.

Response to CPR Part 18 Request.

1. In your claim you state that the banks charges are a disproportionate penalty and therefore unenforceable as they are contrary to common law.

2. Please provide the following particulars in support of your claim:

2.1 Please specify 2.1 clause(s) pursuant to which the charges were applied?

The clauses pursuant

 

D.1.2 The overdraft limit should not be exceeded and we may refuse to pay a cheque (or allow any other payment or withdrawal) which could have that effect. If we do pay a cheque, (or allow any other payment or withdrawal) which results in the overdraft limit being exceeded, it will not mean that the overdraft limit has changed, which would have the same effect.

 

 

D.1.3 (b)carry out a payment instruction in any form [e.g. issue a cheque or make a card transaction on the account] which, either through exercise of our discretion to pay the item on presentation for payment or through payment being guaranteed to a third party, results in the account becoming overdrawn when no agreed overdraft limit is in place or which results in the overdraft limit being exceeded in either case, this will be treated as a variation to the contract [i.e. not revoking and replacing any earlier agreement] under which overdraft facilities are provided by us, either with our prior agreement or which arise through exercise of our discretion to pay items presented for payment being guaranteed to third parties.

 

 

D.1.7 We will confirm to you if we are to charge a fee for arranging an overdraft limit. If a fee is payable, we will debit it to the account on which we have made the overdraft available either on the date of the confirmation or shortly afterwards. You will also be responsible for paying any costs incurred by us in connection with the overdraft whether as a result of you breaking the terms of agreement or not. These costs will include (but not limited to) costs of taking and discharging any security; taking steps, including court action, to obtain payment; enforcing and/or preserving our rights under any security held for the overdraft facility; tracing you if you change address without notice and communicating with you if you break the terms of the overdraft arrangement. If such costs remain unpaid then we may debit them to the account on which we have made the overdraft available.

H. 3 you (and any additional cardholder) must not use the card if to do so would overdraw the account without our prior agreement, or would increase any borrowing on the account to more than we have agreed.

2.2 Please specify weather the charges applied were due to a breach of contract by the claimant.

When a bank customer exceeds their overdraft limit, they are breaking a term of their contract with the bank, i.e. that they should not do anything that causes their account to break the overdraft limit. This may be explicitly stated in the original agreement that the customer signed when opening the account or it may be implicit in the way that the account is supposed to be operated.

 

If the bank says that there is an “agreed overdraft limit” it is implicit that anything above this amount is “not agreed” and, therefore, the customer is breaking the contract by causing the limit to be breached.

2.3 Please identify in each case the particular breach of contract (by reference to appropriate term(s) of the contract) that the charge related to.

Unarranged overdrafts

If you borrow more than your agreed overdraft limit you will be liable for a maintenance charge applied monthly, 16 days after the end of the charging period (or the next business day if this is a Saturday, Sunday or Bank Holiday). The charging period is normally in line with the date we send your statement to you.

Unarranged borrowing – paid referral

If we pay a debit drawn on your account which results in or increases an unarranged overdraft, a paid referral charge is incurred and will be payable on the 6th business day of the following month and the account will be debited on that date.

Unauthorized transaction fees - Unpaid items.

Payable when a cheque, standing order or direct debit is not paid due to there being insufficient funds available in your account.

Unauthorised transaction fees- card misuse

Payable when we are forced to pay an item which has been supported by cheque guarantee or maestro although there are insufficient funds available in the account.

When your account is overdrawn in excess of any agreed overdraft limit, a maintenance charge will also be applied.

3. In your claim you state that the charges are: invalid under the unfair (contracts) Terms Act 1977 s.4 and Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 Para. 8 and Sch.2 (1) (e) and unreasonable within the meaning of the supply of goods and services Act 1982 s.15.

4. Please specify all of the facts relied on by the claimant in support of the contentions in paragraph 3 above, and in particular please identify the contractual provision(s)that the claimant alleges are invalid by reference to UCTA/the regulations.

D. 1.8 If you exceed the overdraft limit, charges will be payable as detailed in the promotional leaflet insert relating to the account. This insert can be obtained from any of our branches.

The above says the Defendant can levy a charge detailed in the "promotional leaflet". If this clause has the effect of the customer paying more than the banks actual loss, then it would fail the test of reasonableness, as per section 4(1).

 

 

Under section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, it states that, “A person dealing as consumer cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness".

 

It is unlikely that a court would find this indemnity clause to be reasonable, given the strength of the bargaining position of the claimant, an individual consumer, in relation to the defendant, a multi £million organisation, and given that the contract terms were pre-drafted and not individually negotiated.

 

Further the defendant may state that the charges are a genuine pre- estimate of its liquidated losses and that this estimate need not exactly reflect the actual losses.

 

However, the losses should be reflective of the contract between the claimant and the defendant specifically and not the losses of a contract between any other parties and the defendant.

 

Where the contract has been in force between the two parties it would be reasonable for the pre-estimate to reflect very accurately the liquidated losses incurred when the claimant breached the terms of the contract between the defendant and claimant since there is evidence as to those losses.

 

The defendant may state that under Section 7 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (UTCCR99) that their prices do not have to be fair, and that they are NOT subject to the scrutiny of a court.

This implies they can set them at whatever level they like - £100 for going over an overdraft limit? £150.00 for not paying a direct debt. The defendant would then imply that their charges can be uncapped and unregulated.

 

However the Sale of Goods and Services Act 1982, sec 15.2 clearly states that the sum must be fair and reasonable. Is a 3000% mark up fair when the average mark up on the High Street is 100%?

 

This is an unfair term within the contract because it allows the defendant to charge any price they wish for a service - which is far in excess of the cost or value of the service.

 

Further under the UTCCR99, Sec 2 Par 1 states that

 

“A term that allows a party to unilaterally raise the price, or for a price to be determined on delivery is unfair.

And, Para. 8 sch. 2 (1) (e) states that

A term requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation is unfair.

Further Para.5.(1) states that

A contract term which has not been individually negotiated is unfair if it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' contractual rights and obligations, to the detriment of the consumer.

The Claimant specifically pleads that the charges debited to the Claimant’s account by the Defendant are automatically unfair because, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract (which the Claimant pleads is invalid in any event) to the detriment of the Claimant. “Good faith” (as defined by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999) means that that the Defendant must deal fairly and openly with the Claimant. The Defendant has not dealt fairly and openly with the Claimant. Further, as the contractual term (i.e. each and every charge debited from the Claimant’s account according to the “contract” entered into by the parties pursuant to the Defendant’s terms and conditions, as well as the terms and conditions themselves) was not individually negotiated and was drafted in advance, the Claimant was unable to influence the substance of the term, making it unfair. In the absence of a breakdown of the Defendant's liquidated losses and/or actual costs of each and every charge applied to the Claimant's account, the contractual term in force at the time of the charge forced the Claimant to pay a disproportionately high sum to the Defendant in compensation for the Claimant’s alleged failure to fulfil his obligation

It is not for the claimant to reply as to what charges would have been reasonable. This decision will be made by a judge at the final hearing of this matter.

Statement of Truth

The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this CPR Part 18 request are true.

Signed……………………..

DATED this 28th day of November 2006.

[thebloodster]

Wow Paul that is very long and to be honest I'm getting very confused with all the jargon and it now seems that MCOL wasn't a good idea. I have no problem sending them a list of charges though. Have other people had success with the other letter?

 

Also I am concerned that I have not yet had an allocation questionnaire. They served their defence on the 12th April and wanted a response by 26th April so obviously its getting tight.

 

DO I send a copy of the allocation questionnaire with the letter to Cobbetts or just the letter? As I have not yet received the AQ should I just send the letter but I am intending giving it till Tuesday before I post it by recorded delivery?

 

Also I assume if I accept their offer (that I'm not intending to do) that I would not receive my court costs back?

 

Thanks for all your help

[The cobbett slayer]

For anyone who has a claim over £5000 and is therefore in the fast or multitrack, I would strongly recommend that when responding to their Part 18 request you send them one of your own.

 

It is short and to the point:

 

 

 

1. This request is served pursuant to CPR Part18

2. The reason(s) why this request has been served are set out in the Response to Defence which has been served by the Claimant

3. You are asked to provide a response to this request in accordance with CPR Part 18 by (INSERT DATE 14 DAYS FROM REQUEST)

4. If you are unable to provide a response by this date then you should immediately contact the Claimant and tell her when you will be able to provide a response.

5. In the event that you do not provide an adequate response to this request by this date (or such other date as may be agreed by the Claimant) then the Claimant will apply to the Court for an order requiring you to provide the information requested.

The Request

1. In the Defence you state: Further, the Claimant is required to plead and prove that the charges which have been debited are unreasonable; (b) all facts and matters relied upon by the Claimant in support of this case and © what charges would have been reasonable.

2. Please provide the following particulars to enable the Claimant to respond adequately to the Defence

2.1 In relation to each charge identified by the Claimant in response to the Defendants request pursuant to CPR Part 18, please provide the actual cost incurred by the Defendant in administering the alleged breach giving rise to the charge.

When they don't respond, make an application to the court for an order. It will almost certainly be set for hearing. There is an element of risk here because if the Judge refuses the application (unlikely but possible) Natwest will make an application for costs, probably about £1500. I say it's unlikely that the Judge will refuse because establishing actual cost is key to establishing whether or not the charge is a penalty so they would have to provide the information to the court sooner or later.

 

As we know, it's the one piece of information they don't want to share with anyone. It worked for me!

[freerangetracey]

At the defence stage it appears that the NatWest solicitors are asking claimants to complete a Cpr part 18.

They claim they have insufficient POC and request the claimant to send this to them.There is no requirement to do this and the letter below can be sent in response.

Dear Sir or Madam:

Claim No:

 

I Acknowledge the receipt of the defence posted on behalf of National Westminster Bank plc.

I am not prepared at this stage to answer the CPR Part 18 Request. I anticipate that the claim will be allocated to the small claims track and would not then expect to have to deal with a Part 18 request since these are specifically excluded under Part 27 unless the court specifically orders me to do so of its own initiative

Furthermore I consider that the CPR part 18 request is intimidatory and I intend to bring the intimidation to the notice of the court. However, for clarity, I confirm the charges I am claiming were applied to the following account:

Account Name:

Account number:

Sort Code:

 

Please also find enclosed a breakdown of all charges I am claiming.

Yours Faithfully

 

Thanks for putting this on the site. I think you may just have saved my sanity, my head from exploding and my purse from being permanently empy!!!

[troubled2]

if l sent my request through MCOL should l return the solicitors letter (CPR18) with your standard letter of just my name account number sort code and attach my charges as l will be claiming under £1500

 

distressed

[progenic7]

IMHO

 

i think a very simple and straight forward way round this is to make a very complete and detailed PoC, thus the defence cannot then apply part 18 to the claim.

This will serve two purposes, one it will speed things up and two save the claimant alot of stress.

[troubled2]

should l type out what martin3030 states posted just above my letter -freerangetracey - then copy all my letters that l sent the solicitor, do you think that will be enough cos frankly l have had enough stress thought everyone said it was breeze and you got your money back no problem - also think l messed up and no one has answered me, l have claimed back monthly interest and charges plus the returned d/d was this right - this is for my son - thought it would be a lovely surprise for him and his new born son, what a backfire for me

[progenic7]

troubled

 

yes it would be a good idea to do that, and like it says under CPR in the small claims, the judge has to make the order under CPR18 ie order you to be more specific.

This is another area altogether but i really think the standard template PoC that can be found on this site, should be tightened up a little, specifically for this reason.

The POC's are slightly ambiguous and from the defences point of view leave alot to be desired, but thats beside the point.

 

What matters is you get your sons claim done and dusted without anymore stress for any of you, this should be a fairly easy process with hardly any stress if done by the book.

 

so to recap, copy the letter above and personally i would go back over your PoC (particulars of claim) and look for anything that looks slightly ambiguous. (things like im using UTCRR but not saying why, when or where and what term ect) tighten the poc up and send everything back to the defence and leave it in their hands.

Hopefully not long after you should receive an offer from them, as to be honest they are only playing the waiting game and they know that in due course they will have to pay.

 

best of luck

[Dollybird]

I originally was sent a CPR part 18 request and then an allocation questionnnaire which I have completed using the templates from this site and submitted to the court. However I have now received from Cobbetts a copy of their AQ in which they state 'Case Management directions cannot be proposed until the Claimant serves a reply to the Request for Further Infoarmation which was due on the 9th April 2007. In light of this, the Defendant may amend its Defence or apply to strike out'.

 

I feel I am in a complete pickle now and don't know what to do. I have supplied a copy of the spreadsheet to the court with my AQ, and obviously the Nat West had copies of this each time I sent the template letters.

 

I feel like giving up because it seems to be getting complicated.

 

Please help any advice welcomed.

[mazza1970]

Wonder if anyone can help, I got my CPR18 from Cobblers yesterday and have until 22nd May to reply, it looks like the one I got is very similar to everyone else, they are saying that they never received my schedule of charges, I have now sent it to NatWest 3 times, and they are asking me to quote a part of some act UCT i think. Do I send the letter at the beginning of this thread that Martin3030 has done. Is this just a scare tactic that they are using on everyone with the big words they use???

If someone can get back to me on this as soon as, I only have access to a computer at work as my one at home is not working, so I can't get on this site as much as I can at the moment, but if anyone has any advice, it will be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance