Jump to content


Templates - question regarding rbrears response to thread


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5513 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

rbear wrote:

The MCOL template patently fails to plead the claim properly and in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules.

 

Would you be knid enough to expand on this?

Do you have any suggestions to improve on the current template?

Curious

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry just testing to see if replies to the thread are working. I keep receiving email notifications of other users' replies to this thread and when I open the link the reply isn't showing in the thread. But it is obviously working, so not sure why this is happening.

Link to post
Share on other sites

don't think so Bill, all my other subscribed threads are working. I had three replies yesterday to this thread in my email and every time I link in I see your beautiful face stepping off the Clapham Omnibus!:D

(Not now ofcourse, I see my beautiful black belt.)

 

I could copy and paste them here from my email if anyone wanted to see them. Didn't you receive them? One from CrispDust and two from Noomill060?

Link to post
Share on other sites

here's the first one at 22:26 yesterday -

 

Dear bong,

 

CrispDust has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled

- alanfromderby v Bristol & West - In court 20th December - in the

Mortgage companies forum of Consumer Action Group.

 

This thread is located at:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgage-companies/2424-alanfromderby-bristol-west-court-new-post.html

 

Here is the message that has just been posted:

***************

rbear wrote:

The MCOL template patently fails to plead the claim properly and in

accordance with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules.

 

Would you be knid enough to expand on this?

Do you have any suggestions to improve on the current template?

Curious

***************

 

p.s. should I post up the other two?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What was wrong with the OMNIBUS post Bill? It was useful to hear your opinion. Ding!! Ding!!

 

Sorry Alan, I won't mess up your thread with any more annoying rubbish after this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

here was the second one that came in at 00:07 this morning -

 

noomill060 has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled

- alanfromderby v Bristol & West - In court 20th December - in the

Mortgage companies forum of Consumer Action Group.

 

This thread is located at:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgage-companies/2424-alanfromderby-bristol-west-court-new-post.html

 

Here is the message that has just been posted:

***************

rbear- "The MCOL template patently fails to plead the claim properly

and in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules."

 

Maybe you would like to like write a more appropriate template which

does?

***************

Link to post
Share on other sites

and last but not least at 00:29

 

noomill060 has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled

- alanfromderby v Bristol & West - In court 20th December - in the

Mortgage companies forum of Consumer Action Group.

 

This thread is located at:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgage-companies/2424-alanfromderby-bristol-west-court-new-post.html

 

Here is the message that has just been posted:

***************

"The banks lawyers do not agree and they are absolutley entitled to

defend the claims (of unlawful charges) and ask people to properly plead

their cases. In fact the lawyers would be in breach of their duties to

their client if they didn't."

 

It would be a different story if the word "unlawful" were to be

replaced with "illegal"

 

Intentional deception intended to injure another person by concealing

something or making a false representation could be considered as

obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception.

***************

Link to post
Share on other sites

What was wrong with the OMNIBUS post Bill? It was useful to hear your opinion. Ding!! Ding!!

 

Sorry Alan, I won't mess up your thread with any more annoying rubbish after this.

Apology repeated from me, Alan.

 

In case this glitch is linked to my post #125, can you delete it ? (and subsequents if req'd)

 

Continuity of this thread is far more important than that post, despite Bong's kind comments !!

 

Can affected subscribers re-subscribe - and give Bong a break ? !!!

 

Power to you, mate,

 

Bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...I think we can all consider ourselves well and truly "bounced" then !!

 

I do apologise to those others here who got bounced with me. I asked Alan to delete MY posts, because it seemed one particular one might have brought a glitch with it.

 

Still, it was Alan's thread after all. :sad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Berserker said

"If I was paying for legal representation I would expect that representation to take instruction from me, offer me advice on my instruction and then act on my instructions."

My query, rbrears, is: at what point does a legal adviser, whether internal or external, advise the client that they're getting caned every time they take on one of these actions and the court fees - original claim and AQ cost - plus statutory interest are costing them a fortune over and above the original amount claimed and suggest the obvious - if the case being made against the banks (in the LBA, eg) has merit and is well presented, then cut the losses and settle before summons?

I know the clients aren't obliged to take the advice and they're still entitled to their day in court. But, if the lawyers firmly believe the banks have a case, why don't they take it all the way to court? It really needs just one well-prepared case that proves the charges are legitimate and lawful for this lot to come to a juddering halt. Until that day comes (and I doubt it ever will, without a change in the law) then the banks are squandering money, aren't they?

 

BTW - thanks for the help you've given.

Westy

Westy

 

 

 

If you like my post, click the scales!!

 

Nov 1 2006 Preliminary letter

21 Feb 2007 - cheque arrived for charges+DEBIT interest +Statutory Interest! Hurray!

Read all about it: natwesttookmymoney - v- NatWest

DONATE AS MUCH AS YOU CAN TO KEEP THE SITE GOING.

 

What can you claim? Vampiress has a good idea:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/69877-what-can-you-claim.html

Anything I say is just a suggestion. I'm a bigmouth, not a lawyer!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

You're right NatWest. It is true that they could settle the claims as a way to avoid the costs of the litigation. But I guess for them its a rock and a hard place. They want to pay off the small claims on a commercial basis (and it almost certainly is true that it would cost the banks more to fight almost all of the charges claims individually than they cost to settle), BUT they don't want to be seen to settle all of them on day1 - sends the wrong message I suppose.

 

Of course there might also be a little bit of beligerence in there- if the b*ggers want their money then they can go through the hoops - after all we can afford it.

 

I'm just glad that they are settling them. I have a feeloing they are waiting to lay into the OFT's next investigation into charges, let the OFT have their "costings" for dealing with defaults on the accounts and see if they can get a decent result from that - maybe a £12 charge and then hope that this will stem the tide at least to a significant extent. Even that would be better than the two professors and the ex Nat West Excxecutive who recently stated that the maximum charge should be a couple of quid!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...