Templates - question regarding rbrears response to thread

[bill-k]

--

[CrispDust]

rbear wrote:

The MCOL template patently fails to plead the claim properly and in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules.

 

Would you be knid enough to expand on this?

Do you have any suggestions to improve on the current template?

Curious

[noomill060]

The British legal system is by nature adversarial rather than an actual search for the truth, so we need all the help we can get.

[noomill060]

have a nice day

[rbrears]

Noomill - I already have - its here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/15172-reply-stock-defence-18-a.html#post116506

[noomill060]

Oh, thank you! **shuffles off**

[Guest bong]

sorry just testing to see if replies to the thread are working. I keep receiving email notifications of other users' replies to this thread and when I open the link the reply isn't showing in the thread. But it is obviously working, so not sure why this is happening.

[bill-k]

--

[Guest bong]

don't think so Bill, all my other subscribed threads are working. I had three replies yesterday to this thread in my email and every time I link in I see your beautiful face stepping off the Clapham Omnibus!

(Not now ofcourse, I see my beautiful black belt.)

 

I could copy and paste them here from my email if anyone wanted to see them. Didn't you receive them? One from CrispDust and two from Noomill060?

[Guest bong]

here's the first one at 22:26 yesterday -

 

Dear bong,

 

CrispDust has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled

- alanfromderby v Bristol & West - In court 20th December - in the

Mortgage companies forum of Consumer Action Group.

 

This thread is located at:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgage-companies/2424-alanfromderby-bristol-west-court-new-post.html

 

Here is the message that has just been posted:

***************

rbear wrote:

The MCOL template patently fails to plead the claim properly and in

accordance with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules.

 

Would you be knid enough to expand on this?

Do you have any suggestions to improve on the current template?

Curious

***************

 

p.s. should I post up the other two?

[bill-k]

--

[Guest bong]

What was wrong with the OMNIBUS post Bill? It was useful to hear your opinion. Ding!! Ding!!

 

Sorry Alan, I won't mess up your thread with any more annoying rubbish after this.

[Guest bong]

here was the second one that came in at 00:07 this morning -

 

noomill060 has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled

- alanfromderby v Bristol & West - In court 20th December - in the

Mortgage companies forum of Consumer Action Group.

 

This thread is located at:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgage-companies/2424-alanfromderby-bristol-west-court-new-post.html

 

Here is the message that has just been posted:

***************

rbear- "The MCOL template patently fails to plead the claim properly

and in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules."

 

Maybe you would like to like write a more appropriate template which

does?

***************

[Guest bong]

and last but not least at 00:29

 

noomill060 has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled

- alanfromderby v Bristol & West - In court 20th December - in the

Mortgage companies forum of Consumer Action Group.

 

This thread is located at:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgage-companies/2424-alanfromderby-bristol-west-court-new-post.html

 

Here is the message that has just been posted:

***************

"The banks lawyers do not agree and they are absolutley entitled to

defend the claims (of unlawful charges) and ask people to properly plead

their cases. In fact the lawyers would be in breach of their duties to

their client if they didn't."

 

It would be a different story if the word "unlawful" were to be

replaced with "illegal"

 

Intentional deception intended to injure another person by concealing

something or making a false representation could be considered as

obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception.

***************

[bill-k]

What was wrong with the OMNIBUS post Bill? It was useful to hear your opinion. Ding!! Ding!!

 

Sorry Alan, I won't mess up your thread with any more annoying rubbish after this.

Apology repeated from me, Alan.

 

In case this glitch is linked to my post #125, can you delete it ? (and subsequents if req'd)

 

Continuity of this thread is far more important than that post, despite Bong's kind comments !!

 

Can affected subscribers re-subscribe - and give Bong a break ? !!!

 

Power to you, mate,

 

Bill.

[bill-k]

...I think we can all consider ourselves well and truly "bounced" then !!

 

I do apologise to those others here who got bounced with me. I asked Alan to delete MY posts, because it seemed one particular one might have brought a glitch with it.

 

Still, it was Alan's thread after all.

[rbrears]

Problem is that now this thread has been moved and is titled "question regarding...." I can't actually see a post that has a question in it

[natwesttookmymoney]

Berserker said

"If I was paying for legal representation I would expect that representation to take instruction from me, offer me advice on my instruction and then act on my instructions."

My query, rbrears, is: at what point does a legal adviser, whether internal or external, advise the client that they're getting caned every time they take on one of these actions and the court fees - original claim and AQ cost - plus statutory interest are costing them a fortune over and above the original amount claimed and suggest the obvious - if the case being made against the banks (in the LBA, eg) has merit and is well presented, then cut the losses and settle before summons?

I know the clients aren't obliged to take the advice and they're still entitled to their day in court. But, if the lawyers firmly believe the banks have a case, why don't they take it all the way to court? It really needs just one well-prepared case that proves the charges are legitimate and lawful for this lot to come to a juddering halt. Until that day comes (and I doubt it ever will, without a change in the law) then the banks are squandering money, aren't they?

 

BTW - thanks for the help you've given.

Westy

[rbrears]

You're right NatWest. It is true that they could settle the claims as a way to avoid the costs of the litigation. But I guess for them its a rock and a hard place. They want to pay off the small claims on a commercial basis (and it almost certainly is true that it would cost the banks more to fight almost all of the charges claims individually than they cost to settle), BUT they don't want to be seen to settle all of them on day1 - sends the wrong message I suppose.

 

Of course there might also be a little bit of beligerence in there- if the b*ggers want their money then they can go through the hoops - after all we can afford it.

 

I'm just glad that they are settling them. I have a feeloing they are waiting to lay into the OFT's next investigation into charges, let the OFT have their "costings" for dealing with defaults on the accounts and see if they can get a decent result from that - maybe a £12 charge and then hope that this will stem the tide at least to a significant extent. Even that would be better than the two professors and the ex Nat West Excxecutive who recently stated that the maximum charge should be a couple of quid!!!