Jump to content


CPR 32.18 - Notice to admit facts


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5681 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Just noticed this in the CPR rules (http://www.dca.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/parts/part32.htm#rule32_18) - This sounds similar to part 18 (request for further information) but something that could both be used in small claims and used to get the banks to admit their costs??? Or I've just spent too long reading legal crap all day!

 

Anyone?

If you found this post useful please click on the scales above.

 

Egg - £400 - Prelim sent. On hold.

Mint - On the list Est £800

GE Capital - On the list (3 accounts!) Est £4000

 

MBNA - £545 Prelim sent 13/11/2006

LBA sent 1/12/2006

£350 partial payment received 18/12/2006.

Full settlement received 20/1/07

 

NatWest - Est £4000 not incl interest

Data Protection Act Sent 10/1/07

Statements received 24/1/07

Prelim sent 3/2/07

Full Settlement received 22/2/07

 

The contents of this post are the sole opinions of The Cornflake and not necessarily the opinions of any other members of this group. They do not constitute sound legal or financial advice and if in doubt you are advised to seek advice from a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Alison82

This sounds intersting, seems like it could work, lets see what BF, Dave and the other mods say!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Part 32 is excluded from small claims (apart from Part 32.1)

 

So we are in the same boat as with Part 18 requests.

 

One would not norally expect to come across a Notice to Admit facts in a small claim but, as has been stated before, your claim is not a small claim until it is allocated to that track by the judge after the allocation questionnaires have been filed at the court. So there is scope to serve a notice to admit facts between the time that you receive the defence and the allocation of the case to the small claims track.

 

Again, as with Part 18 requests, if the notice remained unanswered or the defendant objected to answering it because it is excluded from the small claims procedure, the judge may decide at any hearing that the defendant need not answer it because by then the claim will be a small claim. However, before allocation the rules are quite clear that a Notice to Admit Facts can be served so you would not be non-compliant with the rules if you did serve it - although to do so is certainly not within the "spirit" of the small claims procedure.

 

One of its uses in my view would be to serve it in relation to evidential matters before allocation as a means to increase the costs to the defendant of dealing with the claim and therefore as a way of helping them decide to settle on commercial grounds - i.e. too expensive to defend.

 

I can see that a Notice could however be quite effective. Lets assume you are suing one of the banks whose senior officers gave evidence to the Parliamentary Committee on bank charges. I recall that one of them made clear that penalty charges pay for the bank's whole debt collection operations and that therefore a charge on your account is used to fund the collection activity on other accounts - i.e. it is not a cost associated with just your account in respect of the cost of that particular breach. If he happened to be a senior officer of the bank that you are suing then one could serve a Notice to Admit facts attaching a transcript of this evidence to the Parliamentary Committee and ask the defendant to admit that the charges are not, in fact, a true assessment of the loss in respect of your account and your breach. That would put a big woody stick right in their spokes :)

 

As with Part 18 requests I don't think there's a definitive answer that you should or shouldn't use them. I think its up to each individual but I don't see that you would be criticised by a judge for serving a Notice to Admit Facts before the case is allocated, but he/she might take the view that it is outside the spirit of the small claims procedure and therefore not require it to be answered.

 

Hope this helps :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your post was very useful, thank you for taking the time to reply in such detail. It sounds like you are legally qualified or at the very least very kowledgeable - if so could I ask that you take a quick look at another thread on the bank's claim that the charges are for a service here -

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=6718

 

Anyway,

 

I fully intended to use it based on the fact that up to a certain point the track has not yet been decided. Plus I can get away with trying stuff 'outside the spirit' etc because I'm not a lawyer. The worst case is they refuse and that's that. The best case is they either get worried and refund the full amount (possible) or actually provide their costs (not likely).

 

I can see that a Notice could however be quite effective. Lets assume you are suing one of the banks whose senior officers gave evidence to the Parliamentary Committee on bank charges. I recall that one of them made clear that penalty charges pay for the bank's whole debt collection operations and that therefore a charge on your account is used to fund the collection activity on other accounts - i.e. it is not a cost associated with just your account in respect of the cost of that particular breach. If he happened to be a senior officer of the bank that you are suing then one could serve a Notice to Admit facts attaching a transcript of this evidence to the Parliamentary Committee and ask the defendant to admit that the charges are not, in fact, a true assessment of the loss in respect of your account and your breach.

 

Would it not be possible to just use a transcript of this evidence directly without having to use the CPR to get them to admit the facts are true? They can't really deny it after all...

If you found this post useful please click on the scales above.

 

Egg - £400 - Prelim sent. On hold.

Mint - On the list Est £800

GE Capital - On the list (3 accounts!) Est £4000

 

MBNA - £545 Prelim sent 13/11/2006

LBA sent 1/12/2006

£350 partial payment received 18/12/2006.

Full settlement received 20/1/07

 

NatWest - Est £4000 not incl interest

Data Protection Act Sent 10/1/07

Statements received 24/1/07

Prelim sent 3/2/07

Full Settlement received 22/2/07

 

The contents of this post are the sole opinions of The Cornflake and not necessarily the opinions of any other members of this group. They do not constitute sound legal or financial advice and if in doubt you are advised to seek advice from a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely and anyone going to court should print off evidence like this and serve them as documents to be relied on at the hearing. But with the Notice you are asking them to specifically admit the fact - not the same as introducing the evidence yourself at the hearing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 12 years later...

This topic was closed on 10 March 2019.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group

If you found this post useful please click on the scales above.

 

Egg - £400 - Prelim sent. On hold.

Mint - On the list Est £800

GE Capital - On the list (3 accounts!) Est £4000

 

MBNA - £545 Prelim sent 13/11/2006

LBA sent 1/12/2006

£350 partial payment received 18/12/2006.

Full settlement received 20/1/07

 

NatWest - Est £4000 not incl interest

Data Protection Act Sent 10/1/07

Statements received 24/1/07

Prelim sent 3/2/07

Full Settlement received 22/2/07

 

The contents of this post are the sole opinions of The Cornflake and not necessarily the opinions of any other members of this group. They do not constitute sound legal or financial advice and if in doubt you are advised to seek advice from a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5681 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...