Jump to content


Cobbetts defence!!


pezza01
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5519 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

Help needed....

 

I recieved cobbetts defence this morning, with it being the 29th day!

Here is the outline of the defence:

1. Particulars of claim do not disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim against the to recover the bank charges (and interest thereon) referred to the particulars of claim or any other sum(s). In the event that the claimant does not properly particularise his claim then the defendant will apply to strike out the claim and/or for summary judgement in respect of the same.

2.On allocation the defendant invites the court to direct that there be a case management conference in order for the court to consider the making of appropriate orders to give the claimant the opportunity to properly particularise his claim.

3.No admissions are made as to what charges have been debited to the claimant's bank account.

4.In relation to the allegation that the contractual provisions pursuant to which the charges have been applied are unenforceable by virtue of the 'UCTA 1977' and/or the 'Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999' and/or the common law, the claimant is required to identify:

4.1 a) the section(s) of UCTA 1977; b) the regulations of The Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999; and c) the principles of common law relied upon by the claimant in alleging that the contractual provision(s) referred to are unenforceable; and

4.2 the contractual provision(s) that the claimant allege are invalid by reference to UCTA 1977 and/or the 'Regulations'.

Until such time as these sections/regulations/provisions are identified the defendant cannot plead to the allegation referred to in paragraph 4 above. The defendant therefore reserves its right to plead further to the allegation once (and if) the claimant identifies the relevant contractual information.

5. Save as hereinbefore appears the defendant joins issue with claimant on his claim and denies that it is liable to the claimant as alleged or at all.

 

This is signed by.... Lynsey Clare Burgoyne

 

I was expecting to get the CPR18 or something, i dont know what i should do? Shall i reply to Cobbetts... if so, what should i include?

Any help would be greatly appreciated, i would be gutted if the case got stuck out!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Help needed....

 

I recieved cobbetts defence this morning, with it being the 29th day!

Here is the outline of the defence:

1. Particulars of claim do not disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim against the to recover the bank charges (and interest thereon) referred to the particulars of claim or any other sum(s). In the event that the claimant does not properly particularise his claim then the defendant will apply to strike out the claim and/or for summary judgement in respect of the same.

2.On allocation the defendant invites the court to direct that there be a case management conference in order for the court to consider the making of appropriate orders to give the claimant the opportunity to properly particularise his claim.

3.No admissions are made as to what charges have been debited to the claimant's bank account.

4.In relation to the allegation that the contractual provisions pursuant to which the charges have been applied are unenforceable by virtue of the 'UCTA 1977' and/or the 'Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999' and/or the common law, the claimant is required to identify:

4.1 a) the section(s) of UCTA 1977; b) the regulations of The Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999; and c) the principles of common law relied upon by the claimant in alleging that the contractual provision(s) referred to are unenforceable; and

4.2 the contractual provision(s) that the claimant allege are invalid by reference to UCTA 1977 and/or the 'Regulations'.

Until such time as these sections/regulations/provisions are identified the defendant cannot plead to the allegation referred to in paragraph 4 above. The defendant therefore reserves its right to plead further to the allegation once (and if) the claimant identifies the relevant contractual information.

5. Save as hereinbefore appears the defendant joins issue with claimant on his claim and denies that it is liable to the claimant as alleged or at all.

 

This is signed by.... Lynsey Clare Burgoyne

 

I was expecting to get the CPR18 or something, i dont know what i should do? Shall i reply to Cobbetts... if so, what should i include?

Any help would be greatly appreciated, i would be gutted if the case got stuck out!

 

 

That sounds pretty similar to mine, but Mine had somewhere...To assist the claimant with the proper particularisation of his claim, the defendant serves with this defence a request made persuant to CPR Part 18.....

 

Do you not have any reference any where to CPR 18?

 

I also received "request for further information and clarification" and on there is specifically asked mt to respond to the cpr part 18 by a certain date?

 

Do you not have any thing like that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the abbreviation for Money Claim Online

IF MY COMMENTS HAVE HELPED PLEASE CLICK MY SCALES

 

Don't be like the banks - give a little back

 

 

:D NAT WEST - WON - £4282.36:D

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

I've put in a pretty comprehensive response to this letter in charlie_spencer's thread.

Have a look there.

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

Hi

I've put in a pretty comprehensive response to this letter in charlie_spencer's thread.

Have a look there.

Westy

 

 

cheers mate, but i cant seem to find charlie_spencer's thread... where abouts is it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had word for word the same defence as you - don't worry. Simply acknowledge receipt as they have asked you.

 

Oh so this is just a standard defence, you think? What happend next in your case?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh so this is just a standard defence, you think? What happend next in your case?

 

You will receive the AQ to complete, fill it out and return it to the court. Also attach a schedule of charges and copy to the solicitors.

 

 

 

 

 

I am not a legal expert my advice is given without prejudice and is purely my opinion only. If you are in doubt please seek professional advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Pezza

sorry for the delay - had some work to do (and food to eat).

The thread is here (http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/48884-partial-offer-rejected-subsequently.html#post392013)

As well as the response, take on board what Allyxia says about keeping the paperwork down!

Hope it helps!

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

Have to say, I had exactly the same defence I think, as listed in my thread....

 

Innocent vs Natwest...need a double check....

 

No request for cpr18 either, like lager lou

 

Have got a copy of my defence, my response letter and my aq that i completed within the thread too...

 

All's fine, relax....

 

 

Cheers

 

Innocent ;)

:D CLICK MY SCALES IF I HAVE BEEN USEFUL :D

*

BARCLAYCARD WON £307

*

CAPITAL ONE WON £2.1k

*

NATWEST WON £3.4k

*

LLOYDS TSB CURRENT

Start 26/4 LBA 7/6 conLBA 22/1 N1 12/3 AQ 3/5/07ONHOLD

MORE THAN/ LLOYDS MCARD

Start 2/11 CONTL LBA 15/1/07 NOW RE-RESEARCHING

MONUMENT VISA

Start 1/11 CONTL LBA 15/1/07 NOW RE-RESEARCHING

NATWEST BUSINESS

RESEARCHING

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Pezza

sorry for the delay - had some work to do (and food to eat).

The thread is here (www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/48884-partial-offer-rejected-subsequently.html#post392013)

As well as the response, take on board what Allyxia says about keeping the paperwork down!

Hope it helps!

Westy

 

Cheers Westy, your diamond mate!

 

so this is the letter i'v come up with, using the references you made in the above link... what do you think?

 

Cobbetts LLP

Ship Canal House

King Street

Manchester

M2 4WB

07th December 2006

ADITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED

 

Dear Sir/Madam

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

In response to your queries, using the same numbering as per your defence for simplicity:

4.1

(a) The Claimant refers to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, particularly but not limited to sections 3 and 11 and Schedule 2. (See attached reference’s marked 4.1a)

(b) The Claimant refers to the Unfair Terms In Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 particularly but not limited to Regulations 5, 6 and 8 and Schedule 2, 1 e) (see attached reference’s marked 4.1b)

© The Claimant refers to the common law relating to liquidated damages and penalties in contracts. It is an established principle that a party acting in a fiduciary role or with fiduciary responsibility has to place the interests of the party to which it has such responsibility above its own interests. A fiduciary must not put their personal interests before the duty, and must not profit from their position as a fiduciary, unless the principal consents. I it is the Claimant's contention that the Defendant has established and operated its regime of charges as a profit-making scheme, rather than as a means of reclaiming its genuine liquidated losses. The Claimant has asked the Defendant to supply details of its genuine costs and losses incurred in the management of its account and the Defendant has, thus far, failed so to do. The principle has been established and upheld in many cases (see attached reference’s marked 4.1c)

 

Having now identified the relevant contractual information as requested, I trust that my claim can now proceed to court.

 

For clarity, I confirm that the charges I am claiming were applied to the following account:

 

Account Name: Mr. X XXXXX

Account No: XXXXXXXX

Sort Code: XX-XX-XX

 

Full details of each and every charge applied to the account are already in the possession of the Defendant, from whom I obtained the information prior to this claim. However details of all charges, the amounts, dates debited and a description of each is attached.

 

I will forward a copy of this letter to Northampton County Court for their records.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great stuff. ;)

IF MY COMMENTS HAVE HELPED PLEASE CLICK MY SCALES

 

Don't be like the banks - give a little back

 

 

:D NAT WEST - WON - £4282.36:D

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Pezza

Yes, that looks good to me - with a couple of typos to correct.

Para marked ©, fifth line, you start the sentence 'I it is"

Aye, it is the claimant's contention but i suggest it should be 'It is...':)

Second, apostrophe s. I bugbear of mine. Plurals - as in references - don't have an apostrophe. You've put 'reference's' a couple of times. Find all and replace with 'references'. And any other plurals I may have missed.

 

Yours learnedly:D

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

Hi, Pezza

Yes, that looks good to me - with a couple of typos to correct.

Para marked ©, fifth line, you start the sentence 'I it is"

Aye, it is the claimant's contention but i suggest it should be 'It is...':)

Second, apostrophe s. I bugbear of mine. Plurals - as in references - don't have an apostrophe. You've put 'reference's' a couple of times. Find all and replace with 'references'. And any other plurals I may have missed.

 

Yours learnedly:D

Westy

 

Cheers for that westy! I'm a nightmare with typos....

The letter has been sent off to Cobbetts, first class recorded.

Just phoned MCOL to find out where to send a copy to the court, and apparently they have sent me a copy of the defence cobbetts gave them along with AQ. So i should just wait for that, before sending anything into the court.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Will probably come with a Notice of Transfer of Proceedings, which means it'll be transferred to your local court.

IF MY COMMENTS HAVE HELPED PLEASE CLICK MY SCALES

 

Don't be like the banks - give a little back

 

 

:D NAT WEST - WON - £4282.36:D

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...