Bev & Tony stuck big time!! ** WON **

[The cobbett slayer]

Hi Tony

 

Glad you are well and back with us.

 

It's nothing to worry about. It might look a bit daunting but it isn't really.

 

You should find everything you need to know here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/35672-cobbetts-cpr-18-request.html

 

If you have any problems with it just ask.

 

Paul

[The cobbett slayer]

Hi

 

This is normal and the £100 is the fee for the AQ. It will be added to your final settlement, it's just a pain in the bum having to pay it in the first place.

 

I'm not sure if I've missed something but I can't see how much your claim is for as the AQ itself and the completion of it varies according to which track your claim will normally be allocated to.

 

This should help http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/11644-allocation-questionnaires-guide-completion.html

 

Paul

[The cobbett slayer]

Tony

 

If you have only just got your AQ the case won't have been allocated yet and in any event it's under 5K so it should automatically go onto the small claims track.

 

What makes you think its been allocated to fast track?

[The cobbett slayer]

Hi Tony and thanks for the congrats.

 

As your claim is under 5k this is a useful tool in the Other Information section:

 

I 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. This would bring a rapid end, not only to this litigation, but would also likely bring an end to much of the litigation in progress against other high-street banks.

It keeps the pressure on them as Standard Disclosure at the stage you are at would include disclosure of actual costs.

Paul

[The cobbett slayer]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/25716-rejection-settlement-offer.html#post200477

[The cobbett slayer]

Sorry Tony - wrong link. I'll get back to you when I've woken up;)

[The cobbett slayer]

Tony - use something like this. Modify it to meet your needs but it just about covers all the angles.

 

 

 

 

 

I respectfully decline your offer of settlement and request, once again, that you return to me all charges imposed on this account, interest and court fees, which together with the daily rate of £0.XX now total £xxxx as of XXth January 2007

 

I will accept the sum offered only as part settlement and on the clear understanding that I will pursue recovery of the remainder.

 

I will be willing to withdraw my claim upon receipt of unconditional full settlement of my claim.

 

I am also not prepared to agree to any confidentiality clauses you try to impose, unless of course your client wishes to make an offer of due consideration in addition to the amount of £xxxxx, in order to be afforded this privilege by myself.

 

I trust this clarifies my position.

 

Yours faithfully

[The cobbett slayer]

No probs.

 

Don't worry too much about their timescales. They can't even respond to a court order in time but obviously the quicker you get back to them the quicker you get a result.

[The cobbett slayer]

It's not strictly necessary as it will only become relevant to your claim if Natwest try to use it against you or you end up going to court, n which case it will form part of your court bundle.

 

Make sure you keep copies of all correspondence but the court don't need to have everything as it happens

[The cobbett slayer]

Tony

 

I've pm'd Rhodes to start a new thread so we don't start putting irrelavant information in yours and I'll have a look at the problem for him/her.

 

Paul

[The cobbett slayer]

Click on the Natwest link at the top of the page and there will be a "new thread" button on the top left.

 

Give it a title and you're away

[The cobbett slayer]

Hi Tony

 

Thread hijack then - Tuesday was fine thanks. 7 hours of reading 4 months worth of emails.

 

I'm doing 2 shifts next week:eek: . Back in training just checking that my clinical skills haven't left me then they let me loose on patients (under supervision) in week 3. In week 4 I do a full 40 hours and then I'm on annual leave for 3 weeks and buggering off to Egypt.

 

Anyone want a job in the NHS?

[The cobbett slayer]

I intend to Tony but there's plenty of people on here who will help you out if you need it.

 

The great thing about this site is collective knowledge and you will soon find yourself with the boot on the other foot. Start reading through other threads and you might just find that you can give advice as well as you receive it. When I started, I knew nothing. 2 weeks ago I took on Natwests barrister in court and came out with a good result.

[The cobbett slayer]

You say what you know.

 

Don't be afraid of being corrected or contradicted as debate is a very important part of building knowledge. Don't be afraid to pitch in!

[The cobbett slayer]

Tony

 

It's complicated but it's good news for you

 

What it is saying is that if you comply with the terms of the order and make whatever submissions it requires of you (the claimant) then the court will throw out their defence.

 

The allocating judge has basically decided that the defence they have filed is a load of old tosh and is instructing them to file a correct and lawful defence. The basis of this is that their standard defence isn't a defence, it is a request for you to quote the sections of law on which you will rely in substantiating your claim. Under Part 16, a defence must offer an alternative version of events. "We didn't do it you honour" simply isn't good enough.

 

Clicky here for the CPR homepage and you can have a look at them yourself. Parts 16 & 27 are most relevant.

 

Civil Procedure Rules Homepage

[The cobbett slayer]

Hi Tony

 

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

 

I'm a little unsure as to what the court are asking for with regard to "copies of decided cases". I would assume that these are the case law included in the basic court bundle

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/33060-basic-court-bundle.html

 

and the statement of evidence will be the relevant parts of the statutes quoted in the POC, so that's the UTCC, SOGA and you can also include the statement from the OFT.

 

Like I say, I'm not entirely sure about this. I've pm'd a couple of others who may have more experience as I have never seen an order like this one before so this is just my interpretation. Hopefully we'll clear it up in the next day or so.

 

It would help a lot if you can post the exact content of the order so others can read it.

 

Paul

[The cobbett slayer]

Not so stuck big time then

 

Let usknow when the cheque lands - should be special delivery so don't camp out under the letterbox. The postman always rings twice:D