GuidoT v Natwest **Settled**

[natwesttookmymoney]

Oi!

 

Lynsey at Cobbetts!

 

Guido is a righteous man, so give him his money!!

 

(Hope that helps, Guido)

Westy

[GuidoT]

Thank you Westy - I think you need to try a bit harder, use your charm on the lady.

 

Received the Notice of Acknowledgement of Service today and they Intend to Defend all of the Claim. It is Cobbetts acting.

[GuidoT]

Received what would have been a full offer before filing the N1, i.e. the charges only - no interest or court fee.

 

On the same day I also receive a copy of the Acknowledgement of Service from Cobetts saying they are going to defend the matter in full.

[GuidoT]

On the offer letter they say that if I do not accept the offer, then they may consider changing my account and giving me a 'simple account' account only.

 

Is this an empty threat?

[natwesttookmymoney]

Probably not, but don't worry too much.

 

Do you have a parachute a/c in place? If not, now's the time to get one.

 

Best wishes and adios

[GuidoT]

Parachute in place.

[GuidoT]

Sent letter of rejection to the post 28 above offer yesterday.

[GuidoT]

My 1000th post.

 

I have received a defence, is there anything to be concerned about or is it standard, I was expecting the Part 18 nonsense, but that part seems to be missing. Anyways here it is:

 

'Defence

 

1. This Defence is filed and served without prejudice to the Defendant's case that the Particulars of Claim do not disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim against the Defendant to recover the bank charges (and interest thereon) referred to in the Particulars of Claim 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 Claimant's 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 claim and/or for summary judgment.

 

3. On allocation the Defendant invites the Court to direct that there be a case managment conference in order for the Court to consider the making of appropriate orders to give the Claimant the opportunity to properly particularise his 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 contractual provisions pursuant to which the charges have been applied are unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair contract terms act 1977 ("UCTA 1977") and/or the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999 (the regulations), and/or the common law, the claimant is required to identify:

 

5.1. (a) the section(s) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 ("UCTA 1977"); (b) the regulations of The Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999 ("the Regulations"); and © the principles of common law relied upon by the Claimant in alleging that the contractual provision(s) referred to are unenforceable; and

 

5.2. the contractual provision(s) that the Claimant alleges 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 5 above. The Defendant therefore reserves its right to plead further to the allegation once (and if) the Claimant identifies the relevant contractual information.

 

6. 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:

 

6.1. 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 to SGSA section 15 there is an implied term that claimant pay a reasonable charge for the service under the contract.

 

6.2. 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 the claimant in support of this case and © what charges would have been reasonable.

 

6.3. In the circumstance no grounds are disclosed for a claim that the Defendant has acted in breach of SGSA section 15.

 

6.4. 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 his allegation once (and if) the defects in the pleaded case referred to in paragraphs 6.1 - 6.3 above are addressed.

 

6.5. 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 of 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. Save a 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.

 

Statement of Truth'

[Josamolly]

Very similar to mine Guido.... no CPR 18 either

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/post-589538.html

[GuidoT]

Josamolly, thank you again for the Reply to the Defence by PM.

 

I thought it is unusual to issue a Reply in small claims - I know I have not been allocated yet, but this claim is likely to be in small claims - £4K.

 

Is the Reply essential and does the issue of it speed up the settlement process?

[Josamolly]

I'm not sure if its essential but i faxed over to Cobbets last week my AQ, the reply to the defence, the Draft Orders and another copy of my spreadsheet.. I had an offer the next day by recorded delivery...

 

Today i have filed my AQ as they had put conditions on my acceptance which i wasn't prepared to accept...

[GuidoT]

AQ completed will be posted tomorrow (with draft order).

[Parkvale]

GuidoT

Good luck.

[GuidoT]

Received Cobbetts AQ today, in section G they have stated:

 

'The Claimant has not shown that he has reasonable grounds for bringing the Claim and despite the Defendant requesting the Claimant remedy the lack of particularity pleaded in the Particulars of Claim, the Claimant has failed to do so. Case management directions cannot be proposed until the Claimant fully particularises his Claim. In light of this, the Defendant may amend its Defence or apply to strike out.'

 

I have not issued the reply that Josamolly kindly PMed me yet.

 

Is this section G part normal?

[Parkvale]

Absolutely normal cobblers from cobblers.http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/11644-allocation-questionnaires-guide-completion.html. Have you sent cobblers and the courts your charges spreadsheet . If so just sit back and enjoy. The court will issue directions. On the home straight now.

[GuidoT]

Thanks Parkvale, yes schedule of charges sent.

[Parkvale]

Brill then onwards and upwards now.

[GuidoT]

Sent this letter to the Bank with a copy to Cobetts (the offer is for £10 less than I am claiming):

 

 

'I am disappointed that you have failed to settle my claim as above and I am affording yourselves one final opportunity to resolve the matter to avoid incurring further costs.

 

The present position is that I have filed a claim, that was deemed served on the 16 February 2007 (copy enclosed) you have filed a defence, allocation questionnaires have been filed and we are presently awaiting directions from the court.

 

You have filed a defence in the knowledge that you will settle the matter in full prior to the hearing. This tactic which is an abuse of the court process. I attach an example list of claims that you have settled in such a manner. If you were the Claimant you would be considered a vexatious litigant.

 

My claim stands at £x (including court fees and interest to the 12 February 2007) to that sum a daily rate of interest from the 13 February 2007 applies of £0.xp per day and the Allocation Questionnaire fee of £100.00 should be added. Therefore, the total sum claimed presently stands at £x, i.e. £x + ((72 days x £0.xp) + £100.00).

 

If you continue pointlessly defending the matter you will incur further costs, viz:

• Your own legal costs, i.e. Cobetts LLP’s
  
• Further interest that accrues
  
• My costs. I realise the recovery of costs is restricted as this claim is likely to be allocated to the small claims track, but on the basis of your unreasonable conduct of dragging out litigation before conceding liability I will claim the same. Authority for this can be found in Mahmood v Watson

I am prepared to fully and finally settle the matter for £x, providing your deposit that sum in my bank account within 14 days from the date of this letter. If that sum is paid, I will of course discontinue my claim.'

[GuidoT]

Received a cheque for full sum less some pre 6 years charges of £250.00 today. Not sure if my letter in the immediately preceding post acted as a catalyst.

 

Not worth the time, I am going to take the just under £4K cheque.

[hedgey06]

CONGRATULATIONS Guidot!! I'd do exactly the same myself.............. enjoy the cash! xx

[Guest NATTIE]

Congratulations!!

[GuidoT]

Thank you Hedgey, Nattie..