Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


sophia

Help with AQ & defence please

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4842 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi

 

I have just received the AQ form along with a very brief defence. In the G Section - other information - what should i note and do i need to send copies of the spreadsheets, MOLC form etc again. Natwest have been a nightmare to us for years and i am trying hard to sort this and would be very grateful of any help?

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When filling out your AQ in section 'G' Other Information enter the details as below.

 

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's a bit of squeeze, but very important you enter all the details.

 

Yes to schedule

 

Cheque to HM Courts Service

 

Fee will be added automatically to your claim

 

Send copy of your AQ to Cobbetts


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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Sophia and welcome to CAG

 

The response to the defence and the additional info in the AQ can vary according to the amount of your claim. Can you post brief details of where you have got to so far?

 

Paul


Advice given is either my experience or my opinion and is given without liability. If in doubt, consult a qualified professional.

If you PM me for advice I will only reply in your own thread

 

Never under estimate your ability. I won over £17,000!

For the full story - look here

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/NatWest-bank/17630-thecobbettslayer-NatWest.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deller got there first. That's fine unless you are claiming in excess of £5000


Advice given is either my experience or my opinion and is given without liability. If in doubt, consult a qualified professional.

If you PM me for advice I will only reply in your own thread

 

Never under estimate your ability. I won over £17,000!

For the full story - look here

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/NatWest-bank/17630-thecobbettslayer-NatWest.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You onlyneed to include a schedule

 

See here:

Allocation Questionnaires - A guide to completion

 

You canb also propose a Draft Directions Order:

New strategy for Allocation Questionaires

Additionally in Section G:

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.

 

 

 

And this (read carefully and amend to suit, depending on their defence and whether you sent schedule to MCOL etc)

The defendant in its defence contends that this claim is not suitably particularised and the statement of claim is “embarrassing” and shows no reasonable grounds for the claim to be brought. The Claimant disagrees with this contention entirely. The claims particulars clearly state the statutory and common law provisions on which this claim relies, and the claimant will of course elaborate upon the claim particulars at such time as is required upon the direction of the court. Further, contrary to the contention of the defendant, the relevant numbers of the account in question were clearly identified in the claimant’s particulars of claim, and a full schedule of the charges which form the sum claimed from the defendant was sent to Northampton bulk court on the day of issue for inclusion alongside the claims particulars. Additionally, the defendant was served with this information on two occasions previously within a 28 day period allowed by the claimant to attempt to resolve the issue prior to the commencement of this litigation. For the sake of expediency, I have attached another copy of the schedule to this allocation questionnaire.

 

As is known to the defendant, I am a litigant in person in this case. It is respectfully submitted that the contentions of the defendant are highly likely to be an attempt to distress and intimidate, rather than presenting any valid or reasonable objections to the clarity of the Particulars of claim.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks very much - will keep you posted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...