Parkvale v Natwest ***WON***

[enaid]

yes but I think you are supposed to mention it before as well, cause once they have paid up your knackered

[GaryH]

No, costs is only an option when they settle, and even then they are not a right - they'll only be awarded if the judge thinks the defendant has acted unreasonably.

[Parkvale]

Cheers Gary, Bankfodders own words. " We now recommend that once you have received your settlement from the bank that you go onto to apply to the court for a wasted costs order."

[hedgey06]

Hey parkie............ how in hells bells do you manage to stay so calm with all this going on? A true star methinks, and Fendy's right............. you are........... Sparticus!!!!!!!!! xxxxxxxxx

[enaid]

sorry Parky read it all wrong again, me. Thought it was going to happen all the time if the banks did not show and had wasted court time. The way I read it, it was going to be a matter of course to make them pay a little more

[Parkvale]

Enaid, the amount of threads i skip across to give advice gets me quite confused sometimes. It's great that peeps like Gary point us in the right direction. Enaid you keep giving your advice it is extremely helpful.

hedgey, oh hedgey calmness is one of my virtues. My dad told me when i was a kid that son you are born with a life clock, and everytime you get stressed out you lose hours or minutes depending on the stress you endure. You can gain some of that time back if you learn how to cope and manage your problems in life. So their we have it. Parky's secret is out.

[Mendipman1]

Bankfodder

 

Some of us, in our dotage & not wholly computer literate, SAR (Subject Access Review) a bit like Court directions/rules, all very confusing to the laity. My preliminary experience, with FOS (Financial Ombudsman Service) practitioners of 'plain English' moreso excemplars in responding to correspondnece.

 

It could well be, Consumer Action Group, similarly tucked away 'process' in the ether! In the event can you point us ametuers, in the right direction?

[Parkvale]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/516-1-data-protection-act.html

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/faqs-please-read-these/

These will help you. If you start your own thread it makes it easier to help you and follow your progress. Good luck.

[Mendipman1]

Parkvale

 

Remind me once, how to activate 'thread' thought my missives 'joined' up?

[photoman]

Parkvale

 

Remind me once, how to activate 'thread' thought my missives 'joined' up?

 

Mendipman1

 

Go to here:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o.uk/forum/

 

Find the name of the Bank your action will be against.

Click on it (the name of the Bank in Bold Blue)

On that page, you will then find a label saying "Forum Tools" (just under the list of page numbers).

Click on it. It will show you some options.

Firstly, it's a good idea to subscribe to the Forum ,as you'll then recieve updates from people in similar situatioins against the same Bank. So click on Subscribe. It will ask how often you want updates (Personally I like Daily).

Once Subscibed to the Forum it will redirect you back.

Hit the same button and choose "Start new thread"

Give your Thread a title eg: yourforumname v whatever bank

(choose how often you want updating by email if anyone posts responses in your thread)

 

Then your up and running !

 

Whilst your there, you might want to take some time to have a look at some of the threads by people taking action against your same Bank, very helpful. Remember, any threads you want to follow, you can either choose the thread tools button, and choose subscribe to thread, or simply whenever you make a post in a thread it will automatically subscribe you to that thread.

On the main page I've posted above, you'll also find lots of highlighted "stickies", which have lots of very informative stuff in them too.

 

Best regards and good luck

 

photoman

[photoman]

Mendipman,

Once you've started a thread:

When you have the thread open.

Go to the address line (the bit on your browser that says http; etc etc)

Use the right click on your mouse to highlight it then scroll down to the Copy function.

Then come back here to this thread and paste the link into a post.

Then lots of people will hopefully come and visit your thread, and post their thoughts, help and suggestions.

Best regards

[Parkvale]

Right here we go. I have another claim running behind this claim on the same account. Don't all shout at me for splitting the claim. Things change so quickly. This claim we shall call claim; B. I have just received the AQ from the County Court who have placed a claim that i paid £250 to lodge into Fast track. The court has allocated it to the small-claim track. The total claim with contractual interest comes in at £ 9,100. I am not sure why they have done this. Any constuctive comments welcome.

[scott150663]

hi Parky

 

Im not an expert but i did read on a thread that small track handles claims under £5000 not including interest as u cant say whether u will recieve one of the following

 

Nil Interest (settled b4 court)

8% statutory(court action started)

CI(you hit the jackpot).......LOL

 

So i believe its worked nett of interest

 

Hope this helps

 

Scott

[Parkvale]

Yeah you are right Scott. Iam having a memory block. Cheers mate.

[Parkvale]

Scott, Just to clarify,found this on FAQ'S.

Q. When referring to the "track" of the County Courts, does the £5000 limit include interest and costs?

 

 

A. No, it doesn't. You can claim up to £5000 net of costs and interest and this will not affect the track allocation. However, in determining court costs only, the value of your claim will be the charges total PLUS any interest claimed. If this is the case, then court costs will be set at £250 rather than £120.

Remember though, that these court costs will be reclaimable should you win....

 

---

[windymiller2014]

I have to say mate It looks like I will reject our situations look very similar. Have you found any other threads in this situation.

Gary...

[Parkvale]

Gary, No doubt their will be. My directions from the court are very specific. In that they are asking Nasty West to disclose the true cost of their charges. They made me that last offer i rejected as possibly a last roll of the dice. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place and basically have no other legal tricks to pull. Unless they don't answer and default or show the true cost of their charges. Which we know they will not do. They are paid by Nat West to pursue any claim to its legal end , but never to allow a precedent. Thus opening the floodgates. So i hope that helps you make your decision.

[ripoffstopper]

Hi Photoman, I found the help you offered to Mendipman1 most useful. I have been following and posting threads for a while and was unaware of some of the facilities the site offers.

 

Maybe a mod or a techie could post some further info about the site and how to get the best out of it. It might in the long run prevent a lot of what might be seen as "dumb questions" being asked.

 

Cheers again Photoman ROS:)

[Parkvale]

Right been away for a week and on return had to go to the post office to pickup a special delivery. Turns out to be the same cheque i sent back last week on top of my court bundle. It came with a very intimidating letter from Alexandra M**** at Paralegal ??? For and on behalf of Cobbetts. The letter stated that i cannot claim any amount which falls into the pre-limitation category. They then quoted me Section 5 of the limitation act and that it precludes me from claiming back such charges. Then they tell me that they have re-sent me the cheque and await a copy of the enclosed Notice of Discontinuance, failing which they will be applying to the court to strike out the pre- limitations part of the claim on the basis it is unfounded and irrecoverable. (The best is yet to come.) The letter then says that. "You are also put on notice that should you fail to accept our clients payment. we reserve the right to refer this letter on the issue of costs at any subsequent hearing.

Comments Please.

[enaid]

Well parky that is a bit of a blow, what is all the talk about going back then over six years? I thought that was being done now.

Are you not in the small claims court, as I thought you could not incurr any of the defendants costs?

Not much help to you i know but there must be a way out of this surely.

[Parkvale]

Fast track Enaid. They are throwing everything but the kitchen sink at me to throw the towel in. They have to answer the judges directions by 28th May. In which he has ordered thm to show that their charges are not penalties. I am afraid its not over until they decide. Never mind the pressure is on.

[fendyweather]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/80486-claiming-beyond-6-yrs.html#post712882

 

Parky, here, read this......................... It explains everything.......... should help. And for your info. Its the same B*tch dealing with mine at Cobblers. I told her in an e mail to get her head out of her ass........... so of course shes gonna make me wait now till the death................ Fendy xxxxxxxx

 

I also found this too. It might help. Fendy xxxx

 

You are still a fair way off appearing in court. You can answer their defence if you wish. Or you can now wait for the court to send you an AQ. Cobbetts defence sounds like the usual stuff. At this moment you don't have to prove anything. So just sit tight. ( Claiming beyond 6 yrs - important new information!!!

This is a great answer to a defence by josamolly.

• I am a litigant in person. I make this reply to the defence as a response to the banks defence and the also the banks application to have part of this claim dismissed. I make this response from matters within my own knowledge.
  
• It is acknowledged that the defendant denies that the punitive charges were debited unlawfully however it should be noted that the defendant has settled many hundreds of claims without once defending any in a court hearing, this is a clear and systematic abuse of the court system.
  
• I base my claim for Contractual Interest being awarded due to the imbalance in favour of the defendant in applying compounded contractual interest to the penalty charges and the borrowing of my money and no fairness in this being reciprocated by Claimant in their use of my money or any legal redress by the Claimant. This therefore being deemed an unfair term in the contract.

Insofar as it is possible and material to this case the Claimant pleads and maintains as follows with regard to the Defence and this Claim.

 

1. At several points in the Defence the Defendant avers that the Claimant must plead further than he already has in the Particulars of Claim (‘PoC.’) The Defendant calls upon the Claimant to plead information (and in some cases evidence) which the Claimant isn’t required to plead at this point

 

1.1 For the avoidance of all and any doubt, it is specifically denied that the Claimant needs to plead further than he already has in this case.

 

1.2 The Defendant makes several averments in the Defence reserving its “right” to plead further in this case.

 

1.2.1 It is denied that the Defendant has such a right to plead further in this case, as alleged or at all.

 

1.2.2 Nothing in this Reply or the PoC should be construed as giving the Defendant the right to plead further at a later date.

 

1.2.3 Nothing in this Reply or the PoC should be construed as derogating from the provisions of CPR 15.9, or giving the Defendant the right to do so.

 

2. In your defence (paragraph 2) you make reference to the Claimant not being able to bring a claim more than 6 years after the date on which the cause of action accrued.

 

2.1 I feel if your client had disclosed their true costs to me, this would have ended any dispute. However although your client has had every opportunity to do so, they have failed to avail themselves in this matter. I am also prepared to argue and show the court that the Limitation Act 1980 restriction does not apply under the specific exemptions in Section 32(1).a, b, and c and therefore my claim is not time barred under s5. I am fully prepared to prove to the court that your client’s charges are punitive in nature, excessive, unfair, not a true reflection of actual costs. And therefore show the court that my claim is not time barred due to your client concealing and or fraudulently concealing and or making a misrepresentation and or making a fraudulent misrepresentation. The Claimant avers that Section 5 of the Limitations Act is not relevant in respect of this claim.

 

3.1 The Defendant is a major financial institution within a group of companies that have interests throughout the world. They operate as fiduciary to many thousands of customers in the UK, and employ a large number of staff, including experienced corporate lawyers and accountants.

 

3.1.2 As a company regulated under the Financial Services Authority (“the FSA”), the Defendant has agreed to abide by the Principles for Businesses, as outlined in Chapter 2 of the FSA Handbook:

 

1. Integrity - A firm must conduct its business with integrity.

2. Skill, care and diligence - A firm must conduct its business with due skill, care and diligence.

3. Management and control - A firm must take reasonable care to organise and control its affairs responsibly and effectively, with adequate risk management systems.

4. Financial Market Conduct - A firm must maintain adequate financial resources.

5. Market Conduct - A firm must observe proper standards of market conduct.

6. Customers’ interests - A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly.

7. Communications with clients - A firm must pay due regard to the information needs of its clients, and communicate information to them in a way which is clear, fair and not misleading.

8. Conflicts of interest - A firm must manage conflicts of interest fairly, both between itself and its customers and between a customer and another client.

9. Customers: relationships of trust - A firm must take reasonable care to ensure the suitability of its advice and discretionary decisions for any customer who is entitled to rely upon its judgment.

10. Clients' assets - A firm must arrange adequate protection for clients' assets when it is responsible for them.

11. Relations with regulators - A firm must deal with its regulators in an open and cooperative way, and must disclose to the FSA appropriately anything relating to the firm of which the FSA would reasonably expect notice.

 

3.1.3 This document is produced under the powers given to the FSA within the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, and provides a benchmark by which financial companies should operate within the United Kingdom. Paragraph 9, places a duty on companies to “take reasonable care to ensure the suitability of its advice and discretionary decisions for any customer who is entitled to rely upon its judgment”. The Claimant contends that a bank’s fiduciary responsibility is encapsulated in law, and therefore if such a regulated company informs a customer that it is entitled to levy a charge against an account, it would be reasonable to expect the account holder to believe that the actions of the bank are lawful, and that the charge does relate to it’s internal costs, as they continue to contend is the case.

 

3.1.4 In addition and without prejudice to the above, as a Litigant in Person, the Claimant could not reasonably have discovered that the making of such payments was a mistake before the report of the Office of Fair Trading (“the OFT”) was published on 5th April, 2006, and the up swell of public information regarding unlawful bank charges during 2006.

 

3.1.5 It is worth noting that the Defendant and its peers will not allow the issues involved in these claims to be judged on merit in court, which would resolve the issue of the lawfulness (or otherwise) of banks’ penalty charges.

 

3.1.6 In support of this, the Claimant will also rely on Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council; Kleinwort Benson Ltd -v- Mayor Etc Of The London Borough Of Southwark and Others; Kleinwort Benson Ltd -v- Birmingham City Council; Kleinwort Benson Ltd -v- Mayor Etc Of The London Borough Of Kensington And Chelsea And Others [1998] UKHL 38; [1999] 2 AC 349; [1998] 4 All ER 513; [1998] 3 WLR 1095; & Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group Plc (Respondents) v. Her Majesty's Commissioners of Inland Revenue and another (Appellants)[2006] UKHL 49 (on appeal from [2005] EWCA Civ 78)

 

4. Regarding the reference to the doctrine of laches in Paragraph 2 of the Defence. Again, it is submitted that, given the reputation of National Westminster Bank and their duties as outlined by the FSA above, after being made aware of the possibility of challenging these charges, the Claimant took the following actions:

 

4.1 The Claimant made a Subject Access Request (“S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)”) under s7(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 (“Data Protection Act”) to the Defendant on 14th November 2006 to obtain bank statements for this account.

 

4.2 A preliminary refund request was sent to the Defendant on 2nd December 2006. This request gave the Defendant 10 working days to reply, which it decided not to do so.

 

4.3 As the reply had not been received, despite the Claimant giving ample opportunity and more time to take into account the festive season, a Letter Before Action was sent to the Defendant on 5th January 2006. This letter gave the Defendant a further 14 working days to settle the amount in dispute before court action would commence.

 

4.4 The Defendant did not make a timely reply to the Claimant’s letter of 5th January 2007, and thus the claim was prepared and taken to Luton County Court on 25th January for issue on 27th January 2007.

 

4.5 On 6th February 2007 in a reply to the letter dated 4th December 2007 (some 2 months later), the Defendant made a conditional settlement offer which did not satisfy the Claimant’s requests in full.

 

4.6 In a letter of 13th February2007, the Claimant advised the Defendant that the conditional settlement offer of 6th February 2007 did not meet the Claimant’s requests in full, but would be accepted in partial settlement without any conditions.

 

4.7 Further to the above, it is submitted that the doctrine of laches cannot be applied as the Claimant has not unreasonably delayed in asserting his equitable right.

 

5. Paragraph 3 of the Defence - it is the Claimant’s case that the Claim is properly particularised in the first instance and fully discloses grounds for bringing a claim against the Defendant.

 

6. Paragraph 4 of the Defence - if no admission is made of the charges that have been debited to the account, does the Defendant require further proof? Submitted with the PoC, at Appendix 1, was a full schedule of charges & interest paid, complete with 66 pages of statements showing the application of each and every charge and interest deduction.Since the Defendant supplied the statements and the data contained therein it is contended that no further evidence in support of the application of the charges is required.

 

7. Paragraph 5 of the Defence is denied in its entirety, and it is denied that the Claimant must identify the Contractual provisions which are Penalty clauses

 

8.Paragraphs 6.1 & 6.2 of the Defence – the Defendant’s case in relation to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA) are denied in their entirety, subject to the additions, deletions, replacements, amendments, clarifications, etc. that appear in the sub paragraphs below.

 

8.1 It is denied that the Claimant must identify the Contractual provisions which are invalid under the UCTA.

 

8.2 The Defendant’s interpretation of s4 UCTA contained within paragraph 6.2 of the Defence, is specifically denied.

 

9. Paragraph 6.3 of the Defence – the Defendant’s case in relation to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“the UTCCR”) - is denied in its entirety, subject to the additions, deletions, replacements, amendments, clarifications, etc. that appear in the sub-paragraphs below:

 

9.1 It is denied that the Claimant must identify the Contractual provisions which are invalid under the UTCCR

 

9.2 Paragraph 6.3.1 of the Defence is admitted, insofar as it quotes the title of Schedule 2 to the UCTCCR. The Claimant contends that the emphasis of “may” by the Defendant is irrelevant. By virtue of the fact that Schedule 2 is a “non-exhaustive” list, it is implied that any clause can be deemed to be unfair, providing it meets the criteria of any item contained within Schedule 2.

 

9.3 Paragraph 6.3.2 of the Defence – the Defendant’s contention that the Claimant is required to plead further - is denied in its entirety. Evidence is not required to be pled in a PoC. In any event, the Claimant has given an indication of the factors and evidence which he intends to rely upon in the PoC.

 

9.4 Paragraph 6.3.3 of the Defence – the Defendant’s contention that the PoC disclose no reasonable grounds for a claim under the UTCCR - is denied in its entirety.

 

9.5 Paragraph 6.3.4 of the Defence is denied in its entirety.

 

9.6 Paragraph 6.3.5 of the Defence – the Defendant’s contention that the UTCCR have no application - is denied in its entirety, subject to the additions, deletions, replacements, amendments, clarifications, etc that appear in the sub-paragraphs below.

 

9.6.1 If the Defendant wishes to contend that the Charges are consideration for services rendered, then it is required to plead and prove the nature of the service provided.

 

9.6.2 In any event, even if the Charges are consideration for a service it is the Claimant’s contention that the UTCCR still apply, as detailed in the PoC.

 

10 Paragraph 6.4 of the Defence – the Defendant’s case in relation to the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (“the SGSA”) - is denied in its entirety, subject to the additions, deletions, replacements, amendments, clarifications, etc that appear in the subparagraphs below.

 

10.1 Denied that at this time the Claimant is required to plead further than he already has.

 

10.2 In response to paragraph 6.4.4 (c ) The Claimant is not in a position to determine what level the penalty charges should be. The Defendant can only levy a charge which is a genuine pre-estimate of its liquidated losses or the actual liquidated losses. It is therefore denied that the Claimant can suggest an appropriate fee. However, when determining the liquidated losses it would be reasonable to take account of the fact that the charges are applied automatically to the Claimants accounts; the charges are applied by way of systems put in place to manage the whole of the account along with those of the millions of other accounts operated by the Defendant.

10.2 Paragraphs 6.4.3, 6.4.4, 6.4.5 of the Defence are specifically denied.

11. The PoC outlines three interest rates that the Claimant will take the Court's direction on which rate should be applied – these are 29.50% compounded (unauthorised borrowing rate), 16.99% compounded (authorised borrowing rate) and 8% simple interest as allowed by s.69 County Courts Act 1984.

 

11.1 It is further submitted that Paragraph 7 of the Defence does not comply with CPR 16.5(2)

 

11.2 In relation to entitlement to interest, the Defendant charges interest to the Claimant, via the Account, at its published “unarranged overdraft rate” of 29.50%. The Defendant claims that it is entitled to charge this rate by virtue of the Terms & Conditions.

 

11.2.1 In maintaining the principal of fairness and balance, the Claimant has at no time disputed the interest charged by the Defendant, either unauthorised or authorised, nor has the Claimant attempted to seek any restitution on the interest charged.

 

11.3 The unarranged overdraft rate was charged to the Claimant, via the Account, when the Claimant drew money from the Account whilst he had not obtained prior permission from the Defendant for exceeding any overdraft limit that he had. It is in effect, a rate that the Defendant charged the Claimant when he drew funds from the Defendant when he had no right for doing so.

 

11.4 Using the reasoning as outlined in 11.3 and maintaining the principal of equity, mutuality and reciprocity and fairness and balance between the parties, the Claimant contends that he is entitled to an equal rate of interest in this case. The Claimant notes in particular that the Defendant erred in law, had no legal right to levy the charges to the Account and refused to refund the Charges when asked to do so by the Claimant.

 

11.4.1In addition the Defendant has had the enjoyment of this money to use as they so wished. It is averred that the Defendant has been able to re-lend the money unlawfully taken at the rates set out in the contract including the rate for unauthorised overdraft.

 

11.5 If the Terms and Conditions form part of contract between the parties hereto then there is an implied and/or imposed term of contract that the Defendant must pay the Claimant at the same rate of interest which it reserves for itself in similar circumstances.

 

11.6 Without prejudice to 11.5, if no express contract exists between the parties hereto then the Claimant contends that an implied and/or imposed contract exists between the parties hereto relating solely to the Claimant’s right to charge interest to the Defendant at the rate which it reserves for itself in relation to similar circumstances.

Lots of Love

Fendy xxx

[fendyweather]

Can I claim back beyond 6 years?

 

Here Parky, found this for ya too......... I do hope it helps and bolsters your flagging nerves a bit............ Dont be scared, its normal scare tactics I think from the nutty cobblers....................... Fendy xxxx

 

 

 

The Limitation Act 1980 says that claims in contract which relate to breaches more than 6 years old are barred from recovery because too long a time has passed.

 

However, s.32 (1) (b) of the Act says:-

 

 

Quote:

32.--

Quote:

• (1) .... where in the case of any action for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act, either-
  • (a) the action is based upon the fraud of the defendant; or
    
  • (b) any fact relevant to the plaintiff's right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant; or
    
  • © the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake;

  the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it....

The OFT by their investigation has announced that at least all charges more than £12.00 are unfair in that they are most unlikely to represent the true costs of a breach of the banking contract. Also the OFT has made it clear that this is their tolerable maximum before automatic intervention and that charges will normally be much less than this figure. (OFT Report, April 5th, 2006)

 

 

The OFT has based their conclusion upon evidence provided by the banks and by their own research. Therefore we can reasonably conclude that the banks must have known this all along.

 

 

The banks have always refused to reveal their costs - even to a Treasury Select Committee and certainly to their customers. Most customers have received letters in which the banks have claimed that their charges have been fair and reasonable.

 

 

It seems quite reasonable to infer that the banks must have concealed the information and therefore the cause of action and that this has been done deliberately.

 

 

Of course, the test is simple. If the bank agrees to go to court with you, then simply ask them at the hearing if they will say what their costs are. The Bank will probably refuse to do so.

 

 

This refusal alone would probably establish the deliberate concealment.

 

 

 

The six year period should be calculated from the date of issue of your claim.

 

 

 

Section 5 of the Limitation Act states that the action must be brought within 6 years of the cause of action, ie. when the charge was made. The act also defines 'action' as meaning court proceedings. Practice Direction 5.1 (CPR Part 7) also defines the bringing of the action as the date the claim form is issued.

 

 

 

If you would like to try and claim your charges as far back as you have ever paid them, you should try to do so.

 

 

However, do note that you will only be able to rely directly on the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regs.1999 if your bank contract was entered into post 1995

 

 

As long as they are less than £5000 you will be claiming on the Small Claims track.

 

 

If the figure rises to between £5000 and £15,000 your claim will go onto the Fast track. This will means a limited cost penalty but you may think that it is a worthwhile risk for a larger claim.

 

 

It is likely that the banks would argue strongly against the application of s,32 (1)(b) of the Act.

 

You should state the limitations argument in your particulars of claim.

[fendyweather]

Here Parky, Definition of paralegal..........

 

Background and Definition

 

Legal assistants and paralegals are individuals who assist lawyers in the delivery of legal services. Legal assistants and paralegals cannot give legal advice to consumers of legal services. Legal advice may only be relied upon if given by an attorney. All states require attorneys to be licensed and most have statutes imposing penalties for the unauthorized practice of law. The following definition was adopted by the NALA membership in 1986.

Definition: Legal assistants, also known as paralegals, are a distinguishable group of persons who assist attorneys in the delivery of legal services. Through formal education, training and experience, legal assistants have knowledge and expertise regarding the legal system and substantive and procedural law which qualify them to do work of a legal nature under the supervision of an attorney.

In recognition of the similarity of the definitions and the need for one clear definition, in July 2001, the NALA membership approved a resolution to adopt the definition of the American Bar Association as well. The ABA definition reads as follows:

A legal assistant or paralegal is a person qualified by education, training or work experience who is employed or retained by a lawyer, law office, corporation, governmental agency or other entity who performs specifically delegated substantive legal work for which a lawyer is responsible. (Adopted by the ABA in 1997)

SO IN OTHER WORDS MY DEAR FRIEND, SHE IS AN UTTER NOVICE. NOW WHO WILL BE RUNNING SCARED............ NOT YOU MY FRIEND. LOL XXXXX

[Parkvale]

Pick the bones out of that Eh!! Answer complete. Thanks alot.