cobetts playing hardball. HELP!!!

[Diceboy]

Hi,

I posted a while back and I am taking NatWest to court for £1220.00 (charges, interest and courtfees). Cobbets are asking for a CPR part 18.

I have read the cobbetts thread and understand that its a tactic those b------s use to stall and scare us legitimate claimants.

However reading their defence that they have put in it states that If I fail to provide proof that NatWest is in breach and if i dont identify the sections of the;

 

- "Unfair contract terms of 1977"

- The regulations of "The Unfair contract Terms in Consumer Regulations of 1999"

- "The principles of common law relied upon be the claimant"

(and it just goes on and on...)

 

but the main thing is that it says if i fail to provide them with proof they will apply to the court to STRIKING OUT THE CLAM!!

 

can they do that? Am i truly obliged to provide them with all this information or is that just further part of their scare/stall tactics.

 

 

Please help because I am really bricking it here at the moment and dont know how to proceed.

 

 

Many thanks,

 

Dice

[Godders]

Don't worry!

 

Yes they're trying to intimidate you (and doing a pretty good job by the looks of things:-D ).

 

They asked me for the same info albeit not in the form of a CPR part 18 request. You are not obliged to provide this info but there has been at least one instance where a claimant has not provided this info only for the court to request it although I understand this is rare.

 

I say head them off at the pass although ultimately it's up to you; there is a template letter for refusal to respond to CPR part 18 request if that's how you want to play it.

 

I sent the following (mostly cobbled together from here) as a part of a larger letter responding to their defence:

 

I give the following clarification in response to paragraph 6 of your defense:

 

The Claimant refers to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, particularly but not limited to sections 3 and 11 and Schedule 2.

 

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) which states:

 

“INDICATIVE AND NON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF TERMS WHICH MAY BE REGARDED AS UNFAIR

 

1. Terms which have the object or effect of-

(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;”

 

The Claimant refers to common law relating to liquidated damages and penalties in contracts. Penalty clauses in contracts in English law for breach of contract are not legal if the penalty exceeds the actual cost of the breach of either party. The principles upon which my claim is based have been established and upheld in the following cases (among others):

 

In the case of Lord Elphinstone v. Monkland Iron and Coal Co [1886], Lord Watson stated that: "There is a presumption (but no more) that a charge is a penalty when a single lump sum is made payable by way of compensation, on the occurrence of one or more or all of several events, some of which may occasion serious and others but trifling damage".

 

In the case of Castaneda and Others v. Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. [1904] 12 SLT 498 the House of Lords held that a contractual party can only recover damages for actual or liquidated losses incurred from a breach of contract as oppose to a charge which represents a penalty.

 

In the case of Commissioner of Public Works v Hills [1906] AC 368, Lord Dunedin formulated the test for Penalty clauses as follows: "The general principle to be deduced …is …that the criterion of whether a sum -- be it called penalty or damages -- is truly liquidated damages, and as such not to be interfered with by the Court, or is truly a penalty which covers the damage if proved, but does not assess it, is to be found in whether the sum stipulated for can or can not be regarded as a 'genuine pre-estimate’ of the creditor's probable or possible interest in the due performance of the principal obligation”

 

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 the account and the Defendant has, thus far, failed to do so.

 

Good luck

[The cobbett slayer]

The amount of your claim means it will be allocated to the small claims track so you don't need to respond to the Part 18 request.

 

Have a look here for how to reply to Cobbetts

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/35672-cobbetts-cpr-18-request.html

[MARTIN3030]

Cant believe they are still using this old chestnut.

They have already been reported to the LS for this:rolleyes:

[Diceboy]

Thank you guys for the replies.

I have now send back a letter as you guys have recommended. I even wrote if they do continue in this manner i will report them to the Law society, now gotta wait for their reply and see how they gonna play it.

 

thanks once again for the support

 

dice