karmicsurfer -v- NatWest

[karmicsurfer]

I have today received a Notice of Transfer of Proceedings from Northampton to my local area court whereupon I rang an official in the Claims Department with a view to explore next steps and feasible timetable, after completion of Allocation Questionnaire, to first (and possibly) only hearing, which in my area is mid-end July.

 

The lady stated that the letter from Cobbetts did NOT have to be responded to as the return of the Allocation Questionnaire with supporting documentation was sufficient, and should the judge require further information they will order so accordingly.

 

The dismissive tone used by the official when referencing Cobbetts demands struck home as to who is in charge here. It is the judge who needs to be satisfied not some qualified litigation people tasked to wear you down with legalese.

 

That said; I do intend to answer Cobbetts if only to continue the paper-trail and provide the court with all the information as posted on many informative threads on this site.

 

I am however left in a quandary as to reply in the almost provocative manner as proposed by ED1237 or adopt an almost more cautious clinical response as penned by MARTIN3030.

 

Both authors presenting a lucid reply to the formality of dealing with Cobbetts CPR 18 request.

 

In closing I would I would like share with you being quite heartened by the response of the court official as she patiently detailed the process including the hearing, should it come to one. The judges are not ogres, they have a job to do so let’s make it easy for them.

 

As others have said; read the site, take notes, follow the process as outlined and forward a bundle of supporting documentation that will allow a just outcome to occur.

[steven4064]

Hi karmicsurfer

 

I don't think it really matters how you reply as there is little evidence that Cobbetts actually take any notice. We are in a similar position although we have not been asked for anything under CPR18 but we filed using an N1 which gives a lot more space.

 

In their defence, Cobbetts said that our claim was not sufficiently particularised and then gave a list of things they wanted, all of which are actually specifically and clearly in the PoC! THey also gave a load of waffle about s15 of the Supply of Gods and Services Act 1982, which I have used in my letter to tell tham that I intend to ask the court for an order requiring NatWest to dissclose its costs so we can all see how "reasonable" a la s15 they are.

 

(see http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-832264.html)

 

We'll se if

 

a) they read it

b) they read it right

c) it makes any difference

 

Steven

[Parkvale]

karmicsurfer, Thats a good response from the courts. They can be extremely helpful

and informative of the present state of your claim. Also they don't seem to mind you

phoning up occasionally to check progress. So the motto of all this is don't upset the courts, but give Cobbetts hell. Good luck.

[karmicsurfer]

Thanks Steven for your input, I will follow your thread through.

 

Thanks also Parkvale for the encouragement.

 

I will continue the thread detailing progress hoping for further advice from you all.

 

Good luck to you all.

 

Bests.

[steven4064]

Thanks karmicsurfer, I'll follow your progress with interest too. All the best

 

Steven

 

If this post is helpful, please click the scales

[Parkvale]

As steven says we will follow your progress with interest. Good luck.