Me V Swift

[alanfromderby]

Now the case is in Fast Track it opens the door to making a Part 18 request for further information. I would suggest a carefully worded request for them to supply a complete breadown of their costs in relation to each charge levied.

[alanfromderby]

Keep to this format, but adapt as necessary. You do not need to send a copy to the court unless the bank fail to respond - but we will cross that bridge if/when that happens.

 

Keep a copy for yourself, and one for the court should it be needed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE XXXXX COUNTY COURT Claim No: XXXXXX

 

 

 

 

 

BETWEEN: -

 

 

 

 

XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX Claimant

 

 

-and-

 

 

 

WHATEVER BANK PLC Defendant

 

 

 

_________________________________

 

REQUEST FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION UNDER CPR 18

 

_________________________________

 

 

1 I request that you supply a full certified breakdown of the actual expenditure incurred by Whatever Bank PLC, in relation to each of the charges levied to my account and detailed in the claim.

 

2 Where the charge is purely an administration fee applied under the terms & conditions of the mortgage, I request that you provide certified details of how this charge was set, and the calculations used in the process of arriving at this figure

 

3 This request is being posted today by Royal Mail Special Delivery, and should therefore be delivered before 1pm on [insert date]. I require that you respond within fourteen days to: [Your name and address]

 

 

 

 

Signed……………………………… Dated …………………………

[alanfromderby]

Yes, it is part of the process for preparing your case and is intended as a means for parties to challenge the other sides case in advance - rather than having time-consuming arguments in court that may result in having to adjourn the proceedings because the other side can't provide an instant answer to a key question.

 

Use the process to ask anything that they would be expected to have to provide an answer in court.

 

If they fail to respond, or refuse, then you may have grounds to get their defence struck out.

[alanfromderby]

Have just sent you a PM.

[alanfromderby]

They court did exactly the same with me - very frustrating!

 

Certainly I would follow through to ask the Judge to make a Part 18 order. In your approach to Swift's solicitors I would remind them of the responsibility placed on both parties to avoid the necessity of having to go to trial.

 

Clearly the information requested under Part 18 will be pivotal to the case, and by the defendant not providing this you will not be in a position to properly analyse it prior to any trial. This will cause a severe imbalance in the footing of the parties, and goes against the overriding objectives, in particular CPR 1.1(2)(a).

 

Worth a try!

[alanfromderby]

Starting to feel bit nervous about the whole fight to be honest, with all ERC being shot down at present, although mine is not ERC im still jittery!

 

With claims that have ordinary charges, it should not be a problem to pursue the ERC part as well. If nothing else, it can be used as a bargaining chip later in the process.

 

The danger would come if they agreed to settle the charges part of your claim, but fight the ERC. At that point you would need to review your position - but until they start to talk realistic settlement figures you are on well trodden ground.

[alanfromderby]

One area that you will need to investigate is the level of automation. The disclosure I had from Bristol & West seemed to indicate that they have a computerised case log system.

 

This system automatically scans account activity against a criteria for intervention. The system will them make AUTOMATED decisions about whether to send out a letter, and which letter to send, or whether a case needs to be flagged up for a telephone call, or moved on to the collections department.

 

It is only when cases have moved to collections that some manual actions take place. HOWEVER, that does not mean a person is manually going through the file, and making individual decisions - they are merely responding to on-screen prompts.

 

Genuine manual intervention only seems to come where a file is moved to litigation - and only then where court action is imminent.

 

I posted this point elsewhere some time ago, and it was subsequently confirmed by someone who works within another company.

[alanfromderby]

You seem to have things well in hand - with regard to your last point, I would ring the court for clarification.

[alanfromderby]

I am going to seek further advice on this as it does seem extremely odd. Will try and get back to you tomorrow.

[alanfromderby]

I have to admit that I am totally perplexed by this case. I would not consider that a claim for more than £3.5k could be regarded as small. Whilst it is a possible argument that the information requested would require some effort and expense, it is absolutely key to your claim.

 

My only conclusion would be that the judge is trying to force this claim into court, for whtever reason. I might be wrong with that view, but it seems to go totally against the overriding objectives to effectively force the questions to be asked in court - rather than through a process that is specifically designed to reduce the length of, or indeed the need for, a trial.

[alanfromderby]

issue 57 - October/November 2006

 

Worth looking at this document from the Chief Ombudsman regarding the bank disclosing its costs. In particular the penultimate paragraph contains these words:

 

"But for certain charges, the law on contract variations and penalties demands a reasonable relation between cost and price, and requires those who seek to justify the price to produce evidence of their actual costs."

[alanfromderby]

Very well done, and I am sure they will be extremely unhappy with the thought of facing a commercial judge.

[alanfromderby]

Nice...it gets better.