Cobbetts Cpr part 18 request/CPR part 16.4.1

[MARTIN3030]

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

 

 

 

Additional Information Added 21.June 2007;

 

 

CPR 16.4.1

 

More recently it is likely Cobbetts will refere the Courts to this one.

Despite proven POCS being available and a checklist for claimants there still appears to be many mistakes and lack of detail going into some claims and Cobbetts will spot this.

CPR 16.4.1 IS something you should familiarise youself with as it DOES apply.

My post (400) in this thread gives an overview.

Check it out and make sure that you have followed it all.

[MARTIN3030]

Dont worry .

Lots of claimants have expressed concerns that Cobbetts were requesting the part 18.

We know they read this site,and several claimants have warned they will referre the matter to the court.

I know of 1 claimant who has made a complaint to the law society and I think Cobbetts are aware of the implications of this.

So maybe they will refrain from using these practices in the future I hope they do,as many claimants patience is wearing thin.

[MARTIN3030]

Write back and say that you have provided everything you feel you are obliged to.

say for clarification I once again submit the following;

account no........

full name....................

total amount being claimed.................

 

a schedule of charges.

 

 

Say you will be prepared to furnish any additional information to the coiurt should thr Judge request it later.

 

on the bottom of the letter write...."copy sent to ........County Court.

[MARTIN3030]

Yes to all your questions.....

[MARTIN3030]

Hi Lisa.......dont worry this is a standard scare tac used by Cobblers

 

Have a look at post number 7 above.

 

This will do the trick.

 

Martin

[MARTIN3030]

No need to wait.Send it off now.

[MARTIN3030]

This is something I have heard of......a block complaint to the Lsc .....anyone interested in adding their names to the list ?

[MARTIN3030]

Send the original figures.

Your claim partics will state that you will be claiming interes at a daily rate of ..... which naturally will acrue from the date odf claim

 

No need to send a copy of n1

[MARTIN3030]

Yes the AQ will cost you 100.00 based on the amount of your claim.

[MARTIN3030]

Have you already filed ?

If not with small claims then yes.

Here is a guide to a part 18 request.

 

 

-and-

NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PLC Defendant (or as applicable )

 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR FUTHER INFORMATION AND CLARIFICATION

 

NOTE- IMPORTANT

 

 

1. This response is served pursuit to CPR 18

 

The Response

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

This example is for a business account but you will get the idea

[MARTIN3030]

If your case has yet to be allocated and if there is a likelyhood that it will stay in small claims then there is no need to fell out or send the part18.

The oribinal letter which referes to this will be sufficient.

[MARTIN3030]

I think we have prob got enough names here to do somethin.

[MARTIN3030]

Yes Giz dont I know it !!

Dunno why you didnt e mail it........both addresses are there in my profile !!!

However space in my pm now...........for the moment at least !!

[MARTIN3030]

In relation to the complaint to the LSC, I am in the process of drafting something but wanted to ask Martin to read through it and add his expert advice to the ltter, however his inbox is full (or he is ignoring me as his own personal stalker), so Its at a stand still?

 

So dont know where to go know?

 

 

Expert advice on the Litter ?

I am hopeless with cats lol

[MARTIN3030]

This is the third one today.

Cobbetts are treading a fine line.

Looks like the NW claimants will have to join with the RBS peeps who are already in the process of drawing up a bulk complaint against these tacticts to the Law Society.

[MARTIN3030]

You are dealing directly with them since you have no solicitor.

It would do no harm .....but I would also let the court have copies of anything that you hand over.

We know the court already has all this.........as Indeed does Cobblers:rolleyes:

[MARTIN3030]

Its not something that I am aware of.

In the July Banking code bulletin the Banks were reminded that they should make serious considerations before closing accounts on the strength of the claims alone.

That said,if they are adamant it is somthing they can look at in other areas.

Most of the banks warn against further account mismanagement saying they reserve the rights to serve termination notice should future instances occur.

This is mandatory for Halifax customers.

[MARTIN3030]

Yes send them a letter of rejection stating that it falls well short of the amount being claimed.

No need to inform the Court as the offer is without pred anyway.

 

Next step will involve Cobblers telling the bank that you have declined its then on their instructions that they will offer the full and final.

There seems no pattern to this as some have been sorted 10 days after the 50% offer whilsty others have waited up to a month......and some even still waiting...which is really all that you can do now !!

[MARTIN3030]

Yes you should take out "Therefore" as they are ulawful regardless of anything they do or do not do.

[MARTIN3030]

Ha Ha I will explain......I married a Russian girl (now not here )....so went over there a few times.One of her relations is top brass in the Military so after a few Vodkas one night we had a session on the Karaoke.I got most votes and instead of winning the rubles I asked for the hat !!

He duly obliged.

Its something they did not forget......on subsequent trips there after this I was being given more....the last one by an 18 year old lad on the train from Moscow to Stavropol (all russian teenagers have to do a 2 year stint in the army )

I now have 5 of these ....all different.

My favourite is of course the Fur Cossack ....I have a blue one as worn by the Police in Moscow.....complete with Badges.

A real party piece

If you ever get chance to go there then you should.......its one of the most interesting countries in the world and the Russian people adore the English !

[MARTIN3030]

Yes we know what you mean.

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

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

[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.

[MARTIN3030]

Seems that Cobbetts have dropped the actual wording of the part 18 request recently but are still saying that claims are not fully particularised.

Stick to the advice given ........let them have copies of your charges account details and remind them that your N1 claim partics form the basis of your claim.

As regards anything further if you have your terms and conditions that were active during the account then prepare to have these for submission.Watch the forums for details of this.Its likely that this will form greater importance in the future.

[MARTIN3030]

The Court may order claimants to comply with CPR16 4.1

Cobbetts are known to have asked for this in particular where claimants have not followed guidelines or stuck to well tried and tested POCS.

Here is an overview.

Check the points and make sure your claim form has addressed them all.

 

 

 

 

CPR 16.4

 

Contents of the particulars of claim 16.4 (1)Particulars of claim must include –

(a)a concise statement of the facts on which the claimant relies;

(b)if the claimant is seeking interest, a statement to that effect and the details set out in paragraph (2);

©if the claimant is seeking aggravated damages (GL) or exemplary damages (GL) , a statement to that effect and his grounds for claiming them;

(d)if the claimant is seeking provisional damages, a statement to that effect and his grounds for claiming them; and

(e)such other matters as may be set out in a practice direction.

(2)If the claimant is seeking interest he must –

(a)state whether he is doing so –

(i)under the terms of a contract;

(ii)under an enactment and if so which; or

(iii)on some other basis and if so what that basis is; and

(b)if the claim is for a specified amount of money, state –

(i)the percentage rate at which interest is claimed;

(ii)the date from which it is claimed;

(iii)the date to which it is calculated, which must not be later than the date on which the claim form is issued;

(iv)the total amount of interest claimed to the date of calculation; and

(v)the daily rate at which interest accrues after that date.

 

(Part 22 requires particulars of claim to be verified by a statement of truth)

[MARTIN3030]

Thanks Hedgey,

 

But how do I start a new thread, being a bit thick I guess?

 

 

Will do this for you.

 

here you are;http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/110461-gemhew-natwest.html