Mistake Made With Mcol

[Lucylou]

Hello, this is my first post although I follow the site daily with interest and find loads of interesting advice and info.

I have just submitted 2 claims through MCOL. I have read the FAQ's and numerous threads up till now to send all letters and requests to the banks, and I think I have just about got through to this stage the same as everyone else.

My problem is however, that although I used the standard script from this site to complete the POC on the claim form I have just realised that I did not add in the part about relying on s69 of the County Court Act even though I have added the 8% to my claim.

Does anyboy know if and how I can resolve this? The claims ( 1 small one to Barclays and the biggie to Nat West ) were on issued on January 18th and I was just going to send a hard copy of the schedule of charges today.

Also, is there a standard template for the covering letter I should send with the schedule of charges?

 

Any help and advice is really appreciated!!

 

Thanks:-|

[Guest NATTIE]

You can amend your claim but I believe there is a cost of £35 to do so(please someone correct me if I am wrong)

[Lucylou]

Thanks for your reply - I think I was over panicking a bit though as I re-checked everything and I did include the section relating to the County Courts Act. I just didnt mention s69 specifically which is why I went into panic mode I think!

I have now printed out a neater version of my POC to send in with my schedule of charges as the text tends to get all muddled when you have to squeeze it into the box allowed on-line.

Thanks again

[Lucylou]

Hi,

I have received the defence from Cobbetts :

This defence is filed and served without prejudice to the defendants case that the POC do not disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim against the claimant to recover bank charges (and interest thereon) referred to in the POC or any other sums. In the event that the claimant does not properly particularise her claim then the defendant will apply to strike out the claim and ask for summary judgement in respect of the same.

2. Refers to the Limitations Act – but I’m not claiming more than 6 years.

3. The claimant states “The defendant applied numerous charges to the claimants bank account” If the claimant is to bring such a claim against the defendant then she must identify the account to which the charges have been applied.

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

5. The claimant is to put to strict proof of each and every charge the subject of the claim and must identify in respect of every charge (a) the date the same was debited (b) the amount of the same and © the description applied to the charge.

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

6.In order for the claimant to sustain a claim that the charges debited by the defendant are in the nature of a penalty she will need to plead and prove (a) the clause pursuant to which the charges were applied (b) that the charges were applied due to a breach of contract by the claimant and ©identifying in each case the particular breach of contract ( by reference to the appropriate terms of the contract) that the charges related to. As presently pleaded the claim does not plead these matters and therefore does not disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim that all or any of the charges referred to in the POC have been applied pursuant to an unenforceable penalty clause.

6.2 Until such a time as the claimant pleads the matters referred to in para 6.1 above the defendant is unable to plead 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 clauses.

7. 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 in Consumer Relations 1999 (the “regulations”)

7.1 the claimant is required to identify the contractual provisions that she alleges is invalid by reference to the regulations. Until such time as these provisions are identified the defendant cannot (save as appears below) plead to the allegation referred to in para 7 above. The defendant therefore reserves its right to plead further to the allegation once and if the claimant identifies the relevant contractual provisions.

7.2 In relation to the case of the claimant that the contractual provisions are invalid pursuant to the Regulations the defendant pleads as follows:

7.2.1 If the claimant is to rely upon para 1(e) od Schedule 2 to the regulations then she is required to plead and prove in relation to each bank charge that she seeks to recover the matters referred to in para 7.1 above and all facts and matters relied upon in alleging that the sums paid are disproportionately high.

7.2.3 In the circumstances no grounds are disclosed for a claim that the contractual provisions ( whatever they are alleged to be see para 7.1 above) falls foul of the regulations and in particular para 1(e) of Schedule 2.

7.2.4 The defendant is therefore unable 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 the particulars referred to in para 7.2.2 are provided.

7.2.5 Without prejudice to para 7.2.4 it is the case of the defendant that the regulations have no application because the charges amount to payment 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 of fairness under the regulations.

8. To assist the claimant with the proper particularisation of her claim the defendant serves with this defence a request made pursuant to CPR Part 18. If the claimant fails to provide the particulars requested in the time stipulated and/or defects with this claim remain then the defendant will apply to the court for (among other things) an order striking out the claim.

9. Pending the proper particularisation of the claim the defendant is unable to plead to the claimants claim beyond at this stage denying that the defendant is liable to the claimant as alleged in the claim or at all. The defendant reserves the right to amend this defence to plead further to the claimants claim once or of the claimant properly particularises the same.

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

I dont know if this is pretty standard or if there is something in there I should be concerned about?

Q: I assume I am to send the standard letter refusing to answer the Part 18 is this correct?

Q: I dont send anything in response to the defense at this stage do I?

Q: Can you recommend which of the original or new startegies I should adopt for filling in the AQ? I'm not entirely sure about the real pro's or cons in my case.

Thanks for your help.

[Deller]

Send the standard letter with regards to the cpr18 request.

 

The defence seems to be their standard one.

 

In regards to the AQ

 

See here:

 

Allocation Questionnaires - A guide to completion

 

You could also propose a Draft Directions Order:

New strategy for Allocation Questionaires

 

Other Information - 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.

 

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.

 

Include copy of schedule

 

Cheque to HM Courts Service

 

Fee will be added automatically to your claim

 

Send copy of your AQ to Cobbetts

 

Hope this helps!!

[Lucylou]

Thanks for checking that over for me.

 

So, basically I should just stick to the original strategy for filling in the AQ and add the notes you provided in section G?

 

I was reading loads about this "new way" of filling in the AQ where you dont ask for standard discloure but something different and it could speed things up for some people. It sounded a bit more complex and so I wasnt sure if you would only use this in specific circumstances?

[natwesttookmymoney]

Hi, LucyLou

 

There are a couple of points in the defence I wonder if you can clarify for us.

 

First, did you submit a standard MCOL - i.e., with just the brief particulars of claim?

Second, did you put in it your account number and sort code?

 

If you just submitted brief PoCs with your MCOL, then you will have to expand your particulars. Fear not - I have a monster that you can use!

 

I agree about the 'new way' for AQ - it looks pretty cool to me. I'd use it as it forces the bank to disclose information quickly - and they don't want to do that, indeed, they don't want to disclose their costs at all, as we all know. Standard disclosure doesn't have to be complied with until, at the latest, two weeks before the hearing date - which could be some time.

 

Hope that helps.

 

W

[Lucylou]

Hi Westy,

I submitted the standard MCOL and did inclue the account number but not sort code. I forgot to send in the hard copy of the Schedule of charges though so that was a mistake on my part but I will obviously submit this with everything else and hopefully that will be ok?

You say you have a monster that could help me....... All monsters gratefully received!!!

 

Thanks for your advice on the AQ - you can read post after post and confuse yourself with all the info and advice everybody is sharing. It's just that you're always conscious that you dont want to make a single mistake that will give the buggers at cobbetts any more of a fighting chance!! One post mentioned that when using this new AQ you had to be VERY careful with the schedule of charges as mistakes had cost a couple of people in the past. Now I'm starting to wonder if my spreadsheet calculations are all correct!!!! ( I used the advanced s/sheet template )