Josa v Natwest ~ 6 years with Contractual Interest

[gashton]

Thanks for the advice guys - please forgive my greed.

 

All the best with your claims

[natwesttookmymoney]

Hi Gashton... I would strongly advise AGAINST amending your claim at this stage to include contractual. There are no guarantees anyway of the banks paying it, and it will just delay you claim even further.

 

So far there have been no significant payouts on contractual, and those that have won have been smaller claims anyway.

 

There are no legal grounds for claiming it and a judge may see it as 'undue enrichment' or 'carpetbagging' if you were to change and it were to end up in court.

 

My advice would be to keep your claim as it is and enjoy when the bank sends you a cheque...

 

Hi, Josa

 

Agree with your advice to Gashton (it's far to far down the process now to be amending, especially in this way) but not entirely with everything else.

 

There have been payouts on contractual and not just by NatWest but I suppose whether or not they're 'significant' depends on your point of view. I think I agree with your subtext, though, that some folks may be perceived as 'trying it on'. However, I wouldn't go as far as to describe most contractual claims I've seen as carpetbagging and I would certainly disagree that there are no legal grounds for contractual - there are.

 

The first, and most obvious, is the situation I am in. the bank has levied charges against my account and, as I've been in overdraft and/or had a loan for the period (the loan having been required by them to cover the overdraft) , I have been charged interest on those charges. Sometimes it's been the authorised rate and sometimes it's been the unauthorised rate - but it's definitely more than the 8% statutory. that being the case, then my loss is the charges PLUS interest I've been charged. I would say, in contrast with your argument, that the bank would have a bit of a job to argue that it's entitled to retain the interest it levied on charges that were unlawful to begin with. That is 'unjust enrichment'.

 

I also believe there is a case to be made by someone who has, like myself, been in O/D and/or loan, for unauthorised contractual rate. The bank has re-lent money it has taken from us - principal and interest - to other people, at rates frequently well above statutory. That is enriching themselves by means of money gained unlawfully and can also be argued as 'unjust enrichment. The Court may rule against a claimant and award only a lower amount but that's for it to decide.

 

Interestingly, it would appear that at least two of the credit card companies - I think it's Capital One and GE Capital - are now paying charges and, in at least one case, interest charged thereon PLUS statutory interest. So the principle is established and at least two institutions don't seem to be arguing about it any more. They are then prepared to argue and defend any claims for higher interest.

 

(as an aside, I think anyone who gets charges plus interest levied plus statutory interest back is being somewhat optimistic if they proceed with the claim, seeking an even higher rate. They've won, they should take their money and get on with their lives, in my opinion).

 

Anyway, in conclusion - I disagree with your observation about contractual interest. I think it's valid, when approached the right way, and clearly has every chance of succeeding.

 

If, on the other hand, you're arguing that some people are getting a bit excited about 29.x per cent interest and are seeking to claim it with little basis on the facts of their situation or in Law - effectively, on nothing more than a wing and a prayer, then I wholeheartedly agree with you. I think they will be doomed to disappointment.

 

Best wishes anyway

[Josamolly]

As always, thanks for your input Westy. I'd agree with your points that there are occasions when claiming contractual is completely justifiable, but the law behind the arguments can at times be a grey area, and open to interpretation.

 

Because of the complexities with contractual, i don't advise people to go down this road.

[Josamolly]

Right. N244 now sent and a refusal letter done to Mr Higley..

 

Just waiting for Cobbets next move.. If they offer charges + 8% and costs, its game over for me. Don't feel comfortable just chasing contractual at a highr rate. If not, i will just see what the fair winds bring...

[maxine989]

Hi folks.

 

I am just reading your views on claiming contractual interest.

 

I don't see why you are unsure or worried about claiming contractual. If it gets to the court stage, then it will be left to the judge to decide. I haven't read about anyone's claim getting thrown out or anything like that. Aren't all claims still being settled before the court date anyway?

 

I am not saying my views are right so please let me know if you guys know something I don't.

 

Natwesttookmymoney, you mentioned that people going for the 29% might be doomed to dissapointment. Why do you say this? Has there been cases where they have gone to court and lost?

 

I have won two of my claims so far, both with contractual interest. One at 16.9% and the other at the higher 29.8%. Was I just lucky or is it hit and miss as to whether you manage to win with the higher interest or not?

 

I have a few other claims still on the go... at different stages. Should I be worried that some are including the higher rate?

 

I believe we are justified to claim that amount and would be happy for one of my claims to go to court and for a judge to tell me otherwise. The banks have been using our money for years to get rich with... and they do not hesitate to charge the high rate of interest when our overdrafts go over it's limit without prior arrangement. Surely it is only fair that we charge the banks the same rate for taking our money without authorisation?

[maxine989]

P.S. The claims I won were not small either... one was 4.5k (Natwest) and the other 1.8k (Halifax).

[Josamolly]

well thats good news maxine, thanks for that.... Its ok if they are settled out of court with contractual, but pushing a claim further if you get offered the charges + 8% isn't necceserily a good thing. the general consencus is that a judge would not look to kindly on it..

[petrafyde]

well thats good news maxine, thanks for that.... Its ok if they are settled out of court with contractual, but pushing a claim further if you get offered the charges + 8% isn't necceserily a good thing. the general consencus is that a judge would not look to kindly on it..

 

I'm with Maxine, regarding the unauthorised borrowing, but I must admit - if they offered me the 8%, I would be hard pushed not to accept, afterall, my original reasoning behind getting my money back, was just that, to get my money back. I certainly wouldn't have expected more on top. I wouldn't want to appear greedy if it went to court afterwards either.

[maxine989]

Ah I see, so you are saying that if you get offered a full refund of charges plus the 8% interest then to take it?

 

But surely the banks are going to make a lesser offer first anyway. Do you know of anyone who has had this scenario put before the judge? I still haven't read about anyone who has actually got to discuss their claim in court. Wouldn't the banks have to reveal their true costs if it got to that stage?... which is something they obviously are trying to aviod doing.

 

So... surely we have the banks over a barrel, so to speak, and can try and claim what they charge us in the same circumstances? I am not being argumentative about it, or greedy... I just think that it is a rate we have a right to try and claim. And we only have one shot at this.

[petrafyde]

Well personally I would. I don't think you are being either argumentative, nor greedy - I think its all down to each individual's circumstances.

 

As to whether we have them over a barrel or not, thats down to the Judge in question and how favourably they view our claims isn't it?

[natwesttookmymoney]

Hi, Maxine

 

If you read the whole of thee post, I think you'll see that I'm not saying that those going for unauthorised rate are universally going to be doomed to disappointment: it's about what is being claimed and how.

 

If you've been in o/d or loan the whole time, then unauthorised rate is, IMHO, entirely justifiable and I would expect you to win, on mutuality & reciprocity, unjust enrichment and on denial of benefit. If I was starting again now, I'd probably go that way.

 

If you're going for charges plus authorised, plus unauthorised on top, then I don't think you're going to succeed.

 

If, as someone else has been, on another thread, offered charges, plus interest paid, plus 8% on top, then I think you're being a bit optimistic if you go for unauthorised.

 

If you go in unprepared, unaware of the arguments, without the documents, case law, examples, etc to back you up, you're risking a royal spanking.

 

IMHO

 

Westy

[millymollymoo]

well thats good news maxine, thanks for that.... Its ok if they are settled out of court with contractual, but pushing a claim further if you get offered the charges + 8% isn't necceserily a good thing. the general consencus is that a judge would not look to kindly on it..

 

 

Hi Josamolly, I am in this boat, however their were unfair conditions attached, one being if they found out I had breached their confidentiality they would be entitled to recalim the whole lot back. Having said that if they now reoffer without conditions I will take it. The balls in their court and I think a judge would deem a offer put forward should have NO unfair conditions attached, surely.

 

After all say I took that and then they said {a long shot} that you have been discusing this case on CAG , apublic internet site which is viewedby thousands , so now we are perfectly within our rights to reclaim all money?

 

I think it depends how they offered the money, no conditions then accept. IMHO

 

 

Milly X

[natwesttookmymoney]

Ah I see, so you are saying that if you get offered a full refund of charges plus the 8% interest then to take it?

 

But surely the banks are going to make a lesser offer first anyway. Do you know of anyone who has had this scenario put before the judge? I still haven't read about anyone who has actually got to discuss their claim in court. Wouldn't the banks have to reveal their true costs if it got to that stage?... which is something they obviously are trying to aviod doing.

 

So... surely we have the banks over a barrel, so to speak, and can try and claim what they charge us in the same circumstances? I am not being argumentative about it, or greedy... I just think that it is a rate we have a right to try and claim. And we only have one shot at this.

 

What some credit card companies are doing is paying back the charges, plus 8% and challenging the claimant to then argue the interest. In that scenario, the charges themselves - and the costs - will not, they could argue, be in dispute: after all, they've paid them back.

 

So to say we have them over a barrel isn't always going to be the case.

 

However, I'm not aware that any bank has taken this approach. Not yet.

 

W

[maxine989]

I too had a letter with my cheque millymolly, stating I must not discuss or make public the conditions of the settlement.

 

I wrote to the court to say I accepted the offer but not the conditions.

 

In response to the comments about the contractual interest. I would be happy to accept just the 8% if a judge tells me so... but when has a claim got to the stage where a judge has made the decision? The banks always pay up before the court date (sometimes on the same day)...

 

So, what I meant when I said 'we have got the banks over a barre'l (maybe it was the wrong phrase to use)... is that if the banks want to argue about the higher amount of interest being claimed and decide to take it to the judge, then that is when the banks will be asked to reveal their true costs... whether they have made a part payment to our accounts or not.

 

Even if we, as the claimant, have recieved some sort of refund before the court date, if we still insist on claiming the higher interest in relation to each penatly charged and it gets to the court stage... the banks will have to show their true costs in reflection to the WHOLE claim, and not just argue the issue over the interest.

 

As the banks do not want to reveal their true costs, they are likely to make a settlement including the higher rate of interest if claimed rather than actually go to court.

 

If we had made a fictitious amount of interest up and was trying to claim that, then that is another matter... the claim would be struck out for being innacurate... but as we are using current interest rates which are currently being used by the banks, then we have a justified reason to attempt to claim it.

[maxine989]

and no, I wouldn't expect to win if I was claiming interest on top of interst. I have claimed for charges plus contractual interst alone.

[maxine989]

ooo... kids need feeding.

 

I will catch up with this debate again later tonight.

 

Thanks for all of your imput on this issue and allowing me to air my views on your thread Jos.

 

It is good to hear other's experiences and points of view.

 

And hey, it's Friday!! Another reason to be smiling!!

 

Maxine

[Josamolly]

Still awaiting NW defence.. it was served on the 29th Jan which i believe gives them a deadline of Monday 26th Feb.. getting bored now...lol

[squarepeg]

Watching this thread with interest (scuse the pun! good luck with your claim, from what i read on the board, it must be nearly over for you.

 

sp

[Josamolly]

I hope so... i'm sure i will get the inevitable defence tho, followed by the AQ etc... But i'm quite a patient guy and thye have no idea yet that another claim from 1990 - 2000 will be with them once i have recieved my statements..

 

A lot of reading to do for that tho...

[maxine989]

Josa... you never know... they might be muppets in this case and forget to send their defence (like they did with my NW ac number 1)... then you will win by default and have it all over and done with pretty quick.

 

I received my cheque two weeks after I entered the judgement. It came via the Royal bank of Scotland (who must own Natwest) and was in full with the 16% interest. Nice!!

 

Give the court a call today to see if they have received anything. Often the court knows if their has been a defence entered before you get informed.

 

Fingers crossed they are over loaded with claims and can't keep up to speed with them all!

 

[Josamolly]

The defence arrived today!! Got home and there it was, duly signed by the enagmatic Lynsey Bourgoyne..

 

So, here it is...

 

Defence

 

1. This defence is filed without prejudice to the Defendants case that the Particulars of Claim do not disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim against the Claimant to recover the bank charges (and interest thereon) referred to in the PoC or any other sum(s). In the event that the claim is not properly particularised then the Defendant will apply to strike out the claim and/or for summary judgement in respect of the same.

 

2. Without prejudice to the non-admission set out in the foregoing paragraph, if and to the extent that the claimant proves the allegation that the defendant debited charges to the Claimants bank account, insofar as such charges were debited on a date or dates more than six years prior to the issue of this claim, any remedy in respect of the same, whether damages, restitution or otherwise, is barred by the operation of the Limitation Act 1980 and/or the doctrine of laches and the Defendant will apply to strike out this aspect of the clam and/or for summary judgement.

 

3. On allocation the Defendant invites the court to direct that there be a case management conference in order form the court to consider the making of appropriate orders to give the Claimant the opportunity to properly particularise the claim.

 

4. No admissions are made as to what charges have been debited to the Claimants bank account.

 

5. In relation to the allegation that the bank charges amount to an unenforceable penalty the Defendant pleads as follows:

 

5.1 In order for the Claimant to sustain a claim that the charges debited by the Defendant are in the nature of a penalty the Claimant will need to plead and prove (a) the clause(s) pursuant to which the charges were applied; (b) that the charges were applied due to a breach of contract by the Claimant; and © identify in each case the particular breach of contract (by reference to appropriate term(s) of the contract) that the charge related to. As presently pleaded the claim does not plead to these matters and therefore does not disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim that all or any or the charges referred to in the PoC have been applied pursuant t an unenforceable penalty clause.

 

5.2 Until such time as the Claimant pleads the matters referred to in paragraph 5.1 above the Defendant is unable to plead to the claim brought against it and therefore (pending the provision of full and proper particulars of the claim) at this stage denies that any charges have been applied to the claimants bank account pursuant to unenforceable penalty charges.

 

6. In relation to the allegation that the contractual provisions pursuant to which the charges have been applied are invalid pursuant to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA 1977) and/or the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999 ( “ the Regulations”) and/or section 15 Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (SGSA)

 

6.1 The Claimant is required to identify the contractual provisions that are alleged to be invalid by reference to UCTA 1977 and/or the Regulations. Until such time as these provisions are identified the Defendant cannot (save as appears below) plead to the allegation referred to in paragraph 6 above. The Defendant therefore reserves the right to plead further to the allegation once (and if) the Claimant identifies the relevant contractual provisions.

 

6.2 In relation to the case or the Claimant that the contractual provisions are invalid pursuant to section 4 UCTA 1977 then it is a case of the Defendant that the section is not applicable as any contractual provisions relating to charges do not relate to the Defendants liability for negligence or breach of contract.

 

6.3 In relation to the case of the Claimant that the contractual provisions are invalid pursuant to the Regulations of the Defendants pleads as follows:

 

6.3.1 Schedule 2 to the Regulations is an Indicative and non exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair (emphasis supplied).

 

6.3.2 If the Claimant is to rely upon paragraph 1(e) of schedule 2 to the Regulations then the Defendant will require the Claimant to plead and prove in relation to each bank charge that is sought to be recovered the matters referred to in paragraph 6.1 above and all facts and matters relied upon alleging that the sums paid are disproportionately high.

 

6.3.3 In the circumstances no grounds are disclosed for a claim that the contractual provisions (whatever they are alleged to be – see paragraph 6.1 above) falls foul of the Regulations and in particular paragraph 1(e) of Schedule 2.

 

6.3.4 The Defendant is therefore unable (save as appears below) to plead to this allegation beyond denying that any bank charges have been applied pursuant to terms which contravene the Regulations. The Defendant reserves its right to plead further to this allegation once (and if) the particulars referred to in paragraph 6.3.2 above are provided.

 

6.3.5 Without prejudice to paragraph 6.3.4 it is the case of the Defendant that the Regulations have no application because the charges amount to payments for services provided by the Defendant and the adequacy (or otherwise) of consideration paid under a contract for services is not an issue to be judged by reference to principles fairness under Regulations.

 

6.4 In relation to the case of the Claimant that the charges are unreasonable within the meaning of SGSA section 15 the Defendant pleads as follows:

 

6.4.1 The Claimant is required to plead and prove the necessary factors (referred to in section 15 SGSA) concerning the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant which mean that pursuant factors (referred to in section 15 SGSA) concerning the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant which mean that pursuant to SGSA section 15 there is an implied term that the claimant pay a reasonable charge for the service under the contract.

 

6.4.2 Further, the claimant is required to plead and prove (a) that the bank charges which have been debited are unreasonable, (b) all facts and matters relied upon by the Claimant in support of this case and © what charges would have been reasonable.

 

6.4.3 In the circumstances no grounds are disclosed for a claim that the defendant has acted in breach of SGSA section 15.

 

6.4.4 In the circumstances (save as appears below) the Defendant is unable to plead to this allegation beyond denying that it has acted in breach of SGSA section 15 as alleged or at all. The Defendant reserves its right to plead further to this allegation once (and if) the defects in the pleaded case referred to in paragraphs 6.4.1 – 6.4.3 above are addressed.

 

6.4.5 It is the case of the Defendant that the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant does not fall within SGSA section 15 because (a) the consideration for the service would be determined by the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant and (b)was not left to be determined in a manner agreed by the contract or determined by the course of dealings between the claimant and the Defendant.

 

7. If, which is denied,the Claimant is entitled to the return of the amounts debited in respect of charges, the Defendant denies that the claimant is entitled to claim interest at a rate of 29.5% or 16.99%.

 

8.Save as hereinbefore appears the Defendant joins issue with the Claimant on the claim(s) and denies that it is liable to the Claimant as alleged or at all.

 

 

LCB

 

 

So, how does that look.. taken me ages to type it all out and it seems like a big 'un..

 

far too late for me to decipher exactly what it all means, so i will do that tomorrow..

 

But feel free to break it down, comment, advise etc... Does it look bog standard?? Reply needed to be sent soon i guess

[Trish76]

Got it then finally....

Good luck with it lol

T

[Glenn UK]

The defence arrived today!! Got home and there it was, duly signed by the enagmatic Lynsey Bourgoyne..

 

So, here it is...

 

Defence

 

1. This defence is filed without prejudice to the Defendants case that the Particulars of Claim do not disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim against the Claimant to recover the bank charges (and interest thereon) referred to in the PoC or any other sum(s). In the event that the claim is not properly particularised then the Defendant will apply to strike out the claim and/or for summary judgement in respect of the same.

 

2. Without prejudice to the non-admission set out in the foregoing paragraph, if and to the extent that the claimant proves the allegation that the defendant debited charges to the Claimants bank account, insofar as such charges were debited on a date or dates more than six years prior to the issue of this claim, any remedy in respect of the same, whether damages, restitution or otherwise, is barred by the operation of the Limitation Act 1980 and/or the doctrine of laches and the Defendant will apply to strike out this aspect of the clam and/or for summary judgement.

I have some stuff which is good for limitaitons act and in particualr gives gorunds to apply sec 32.1.b and c so in other words you can make a claim for concelament and your mistake in paying the charges.

I also have stuff whcih is good for the docitrien of laches which i can share with you if you wish.

 

3. On allocation the Defendant invites the court to direct that there be a case management conference in order form the court to consider the making of appropriate orders to give the Claimant the opportunity to properly particularise the claim.

 

4. No admissions are made as to what charges have been debited to the Claimants bank account. Confrim you have stamenets provided by the defndant confirming the charges applied.

 

5. In relation to the allegation that the bank charges amount to an unenforceable penalty the Defendant pleads as follows:

 

5.1 In order for the Claimant to sustain a claim that the charges debited by the Defendant are in the nature of a penalty the Claimant will need to plead and prove (a) the clause(s) pursuant to which the charges were applied; (b) that the charges were applied due to a breach of contract by the Claimant; and © identify in each case the particular breach of contract (by reference to appropriate term(s) of the contract) that the charge related to. As presently pleaded the claim does not plead to these matters and therefore does not disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim that all or any or the charges referred to in the PoC have been applied pursuant t an unenforceable penalty clause. state the cluase int heir t&c

 

5.2 Until such time as the Claimant pleads the matters referred to in paragraph 5.1 above the Defendant is unable to plead to the claim brought against it and therefore (pending the provision of full and proper particulars of the claim) at this stage denies that any charges have been applied to the claimants bank account pursuant to unenforceable penalty charges.

 

6. In relation to the allegation that the contractual provisions pursuant to which the charges have been applied are invalid pursuant to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA 1977) and/or the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999 ( “ the Regulations”) and/or section 15 Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (SGSA)

 

6.1 The Claimant is required to identify the contractual provisions that are alleged to be invalid by reference to UCTA 1977 and/or the Regulations. Until such time as these provisions are identified the Defendant cannot (save as appears below) plead to the allegation referred to in paragraph 6 above. The Defendant therefore reserves the right to plead further to the allegation once (and if) the Claimant identifies the relevant contractual provisions.

 

6.2 In relation to the case or the Claimant that the contractual provisions are invalid pursuant to section 4 UCTA 1977 then it is a case of the Defendant that the section is not applicable as any contractual provisions relating to charges do not relate to the Defendants liability for negligence or breach of contract.

 

6.3 In relation to the case of the Claimant that the contractual provisions are invalid pursuant to the Regulations of the Defendants pleads as follows:

 

6.3.1 Schedule 2 to the Regulations is an Indicative and non exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair (emphasis supplied).and confirmt he terms of you T&C which are deemd unfair by vritue of the regs.

 

6.3.2 If the Claimant is to rely upon paragraph 1(e) of schedule 2 to the Regulations then the Defendant will require the Claimant to plead and prove in relation to each bank charge that is sought to be recovered the matters referred to in paragraph 6.1 above and all facts and matters relied upon alleging that the sums paid are disproportionately high. bring on the wheelbarrow with all the reports OFT, competition commissiosners office, etc

 

6.3.3 In the circumstances no grounds are disclosed for a claim that the contractual provisions (whatever they are alleged to be – see paragraph 6.1 above) falls foul of the Regulations and in particular paragraph 1(e) of Schedule 2.

 

6.3.4 The Defendant is therefore unable (save as appears below) to plead to this allegation beyond denying that any bank charges have been applied pursuant to terms which contravene the Regulations. The Defendant reserves its right to plead further to this allegation once (and if) the particulars referred to in paragraph 6.3.2 above are provided.

 

6.3.5 Without prejudice to paragraph 6.3.4 it is the case of the Defendant that the Regulations have no application because the charges amount to payments for services provided by the Defendant and the adequacy (or otherwise) of consideration paid under a contract for services is not an issue to be judged by reference to principles fairness under Regulations.See the thread by GaryH re new allocation procees around page three or four theres some stuff in there re the claim its for a service

 

6.4 In relation to the case of the Claimant that the charges are unreasonable within the meaning of SGSA section 15 the Defendant pleads as follows:

 

6.4.1 The Claimant is required to plead and prove the necessary factors (referred to in section 15 SGSA) concerning the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant which mean that pursuant factors (referred to in section 15 SGSA) concerning the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant which mean that pursuant to SGSA section 15 there is an implied term that the claimant pay a reasonable charge for the service under the contract.

 

6.4.2 Further, the claimant is required to plead and prove (a) that the bank charges which have been debited are unreasonable, (b) all facts and matters relied upon by the Claimant in support of this case and © what charges would have been reasonable.its not your position to determine the bank liquidated losses its a mtter for the banks to provie if they can by means of thier genuine pre estimates if they have any.

 

6.4.3 In the circumstances no grounds are disclosed for a claim that the defendant has acted in breach of SGSA section 15.

 

6.4.4 In the circumstances (save as appears below) the Defendant is unable to plead to this allegation beyond denying that it has acted in breach of SGSA section 15 as alleged or at all. The Defendant reserves its right to plead further to this allegation once (and if) the defects in the pleaded case referred to in paragraphs 6.4.1 – 6.4.3 above are addressed.

 

6.4.5 It is the case of the Defendant that the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant does not fall within SGSA section 15 because (a) the consideration for the service would be determined by the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant and (b)was not left to be determined in a manner agreed by the contract or determined by the course of dealings between the claimant and the Defendant.since their term allowing them to charge you upon your breach of contract then therse are not services.

 

7. If, which is denied,the Claimant is entitled to the return of the amounts debited in respect of charges, the Defendant denies that the claimant is entitled to claim interest at a rate of 29.5% or 16.99%. See Bongs threads re contractulainterest if you cant find it drop me another pm and ill find a link.

 

8.Save as hereinbefore appears the Defendant joins issue with the Claimant on the claim(s) and denies that it is liable to the Claimant as alleged or at all.

 

 

LCB

 

 

So, how does that look.. taken me ages to type it all out and it seems like a big 'un..

 

far too late for me to decipher exactly what it all means, so i will do that tomorrow..

 

But feel free to break it down, comment, advise etc... Does it look bog standard?? Reply needed to be sent soon i guess

 

LOL its beocming bog standard, they are using more and more ink thinking you havent got the wit to answer their pleadings.

 

Seems to me that in truth most of it is bluff and blsuter althogh if you werent careful then they could confuse and bamboozle you.

 

Ill look later tomorrow or whenver i can and perhpas add more if needed.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

[Josamolly]

Thanks Glenn.. Been trawling the site all morning so i can piece together my reply at some stage..

 

Anything that you can help me with would be greatly appreciated, as always, and any links to other nice snippets would definitely be helpful.

[progenic7]

Jos,

 

put your reply together and then PM me i'll look it over and back you up with some juicy bits if ya like, hereinafter referred to as "the nuts)

 

lol piece your pieces and we'll make them whole !