walton v rbos

[paulwlton]

I've been looking through the CC report and their seems to be some good stuff on Ulster bank, i especially like the project Hanover bit.

 

It seems that Ulster restructed charges in line with their parent company the RBS stating this would be revenue neutral, however to date it's been revenue enhancing. This among other things could be very useful in court.

 

This is my reply to the CPR Part 18 request, hope i've included everthing, comments welcome.

 

Response to CPR Part 18 Request.

1. In your claim you state that the banks charges are a disproportionate penalty and therefore unenforceable as they are contrary to common law.

2. Please provide the following particulars in support of your claim:

2.1 Please specify the clause(s) pursuant to which the charges were applied?

The defendant applied charges to my account in respect of unpaid direct debits, unpaid standing orders, referral charge, unpaid item (cheque), card abuse (cheque),

2.2 Please specify weather the charges applied were due to a breach of contract by the claimant?

.

Under UK contract law; the defendant was indeed entitled to make a charge for losses incurred from a breach of contract. This is not in dispute. Examples of breach of contract in this case are going over a set agreed overdraft limit, not having sufficient funds to pay a direct debit etc. These are explicit or implied breaches

There is both an explicit and implied breach of contract by myself by going over an agreed overdraft limit or not having sufficient funds in the bank to pay a direct debit. These charges are directly related to actual breaches in contract. They are not levied in any other situations that I am aware of.

2.3 Please identify in each case the particular breach of contract (by reference to appropriate term(s) of the contract) that the charge related to.

Referral Charge- Charges levied when the bank makes a payment which creates or extends an unauthorized overdraft.

Unauthorized Overdraft Charges- Transaction charges incurred when a customer goes into unauthorized overdraft.

Unpaid Charges- Charges for returning cheques unpaid, or declining to pay a standing order or direct debit, that if paid, would create or extend an unauthorized overdraft.

3. In your claim you state that the charges are: invalid under the unfair (contracts) Terms Act 1977 s.4 and Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 Para. 8 and Sch.2(1)(e) and unreasonable within the meaning of the supply of goods and services Act 1982 s.15.

4. Please specify all of the facts relied on by the claimant in support of the contentions in paragraph 3 above, and in particular please identify the contractual provision(s)that the claimant alleges are invalid by reference to UCTA/the regulations.

A charge made by way of a penalty on a contractual party by another is void in Law as it unjustly enriches the other party - i.e.; the defendant is earning a profit for doing nothing

The Unfair (Contracts) Terms Act 1977 s.4, says a term in a contract that requires a person acting as a consumer to indemnify another party is void, unless the person seeking to rely on the clause can show that it is justified between the parties. It is unlikely that a Court would decide that a consumer is better placed to carry an indemnity for a multi £million organization that the defendant is, especially, as the contract was pre-drafted and the consumer has not been able to negotiate the terms individually.

The defendant may state that under Section 7 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (UTCCR99) that their prices do not have to be fair, and that they are NOT subject to the scrutiny of a court.

This implies they can set them at whatever level they like - £100 for going over a overdraft limit? £150.00 for not paying a direct debt. The defendant would then imply that their charges can be uncapped and unregulated.

 

However the Sale of Goods and Services Act 1982, sec 15.2 clearly states that the sum must be fair and reasonable. Is a 3000% mark up fair when the average mark up on the High Street is 100%?

This is an unfair term within the contract because it allows the defendant to charge any price they wish for a service - which is far in excess of the cost or value of the service.

 

Further under the UTCCR99, Sec 2 Par 1 states that

 

“A term that allows a party to unilaterally raise the price, or for a price to be determined on delivery is unfair.

And, Para. 8 sch. 2 (1) (e) states that

A term requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation is unfair.

It is worth noting that the defendant charged unauthorised overdraft interest on an account in breach of its limit which is almost 0.30%. Perhaps a good pre-estimate of the loss they incur (i.e. liquidated damages).

A reasonable and LAWFUL charge would be for actual losses the defendant incurrs when default charges are applied due to breaches,

Statement of Truth

The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this CPR Part 18 request are true.

Signed……………………..

DATED this 20th day of November 2006.

[Guest bong]

Paul have you sent this yet? Just wondering in case its too late to offer suggestions.

[paulwlton]

No bong not yet, any suggestions will be welcome.

[Glenn UK]

I've been looking through the CC report and their seems to be some good stuff on Ulster bank, i especially like the project Hanover bit.

 

It seems that Ulster restructed charges in line with their parent company the RBS stating this would be revenue neutral, however to date it's been revenue enhancing. This among other things could be very useful in court.

 

This is my reply to the CPR Part 18 request, hope i've included everthing, comments welcome.

 

Response to CPR Part 18 Request.

 

1. In your claim you state that the banks charges are a disproportionate penalty and therefore unenforceable as they are contrary to common law.

 

2. Please provide the following particulars in support of your claim:

 

2.1 Please specify the clause(s) pursuant to which the charges were applied?

 

The defendant applied charges to my account in respect of unpaid direct debits, unpaid standing orders, referral charge, unpaid item (cheque), card abuse (cheque),

 

2.2 Please specify weather the charges applied were due to a breach of contract by the claimant?

.

Under UK contract law; the defendant was indeed entitled to make a charge for losses incurred from a breach of contract. This is not in dispute. Examples of breach of contract in this case are going over a set agreed overdraft limit, not having sufficient funds to pay a direct debit etc. These are explicit or implied breaches

 

There is both an explicit and implied breach of contract by myself by going over an agreed overdraft limit or not having sufficient funds in the bank to pay a direct debit. These charges are directly related to actual breaches in contract. They are not levied in any other situations that I am aware of.

2.3 Please identify in each case the particular breach of contract (by reference to appropriate term(s) of the contract) that the charge related to.

 

Referral Charge- Charges levied when the bank makes a payment which creates or extends an unauthorized overdraft.

 

Unauthorized Overdraft Charges- Transaction charges incurred when a customer goes into unauthorized overdraft.

 

Unpaid Charges- Charges for returning cheques unpaid, or declining to pay a standing order or direct debit, that if paid, would create or extend an unauthorized overdraft.

 

3. In your claim you state that the charges are: invalid under the unfair (contracts) Terms Act 1977 s.4 and Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 Para. 8 and Sch.2(1)(e) and unreasonable within the meaning of the supply of goods and services Act 1982 s.15.

 

4. Please specify all of the facts relied on by the claimant in support of the contentions in paragraph 3 above, and in particular please identify the contractual provision(s)that the claimant alleges are invalid by reference to UCTA/the regulations.

 

A charge made by way of a penalty on a contractual party by another is void in Law as it unjustly enriches the other party - i.e.; the defendant is earning a profit for doing nothing

 

The Unfair (Contracts) Terms Act 1977 s.4, says a term in a contract that requires a person acting as a consumer to indemnify another party is void, unless the person seeking to rely on the clause can show that it is justified between the parties. It is unlikely that a Court would decide that a consumer is better placed to carry an indemnity for a multi £million organization that the defendant is, especially, as the contract was pre-drafted and the consumer has not been able to negotiate the terms individually.

 

The defendant may state that under Section 7 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (UTCCR99) that their prices do not have to be fair, and that they are NOT subject to the scrutiny of a court.

This implies they can set them at whatever level they like - £100 for going over a overdraft limit? £150.00 for not paying a direct debt. The defendant would then imply that their charges can be uncapped and unregulated.

Further the defendant may state that the charges are a genuine pre- estimate of its liquidated losses and that this estimate need not exactly reflect the actual losses.

However, the losses should be reflective of the contract between the claimant and the defendant specifically and not the losses of a contract between any other parties and the defendant.

Where the contract has been in force between the two parties it would be reasonable for the pre-estimate to reflect very accurately the liquidated losses incurred when the claimant breached the terms of the contract between the defendant and claimant since there is evidence as to those losses.

 

However the Sale of Goods and Services Act 1982, sec 15.2 clearly states that the sum must be fair and reasonable. Is a 3000% mark up fair when the average mark up on the High Street is 100%?

 

This is an unfair term within the contract because it allows the defendant to charge any price they wish for a service - which is far in excess of the cost or value of the service.

 

Further under the UTCCR99, Sec 2 Par 1 states that

 

“A term that allows a party to unilaterally raise the price, or for a price to be determined on delivery is unfair.

And, Para. 8 sch. 2 (1) (e) states that

A term requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation is unfair.

 

It is worth noting that the defendant charged unauthorised overdraft interest on an account in breach of its limit which is almost 0.30%. Perhaps a good pre-estimate of the loss they incur (i.e. liquidated damages).

A reasonable and LAWFUL charge would be for actual losses the defendant incurs when default charges are applied due to breaches,

 

 

Statement of Truth

 

 

The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this CPR Part 18 request are true.

 

 

Signed……………………..

 

DATED this 20th day of November 2006.

 

How about something like the bits in red above?

 

The logic is that the pre estimates are not carried out (if at all) on the actual contract but on the banks perception about how all similar contracts will perform.

 

Secondly if any pre estimates are conducted they should take account of any history on breach and use them to calculate the actual losses. I believe, and i could of course be wrong, but where a Court has ruled that the pre-estimate doesn't have to be exactly the same as the actual losses, this is based on the difficulty of estimate a loss at the beginning of the contract. This premise would only hold good where the contract was a one of affair say like to construct a building. Our contracts are not like that they are long running affairs with breaches in many cases running over years and of course the charges are raised too.

 

So i believe that this should be part of our arguments as to why their charges are penalties and not lawful.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

[Guest bong]

This is my reply to the CPR Part 18 request, hope i've included everthing, comments welcome.

 

Response to CPR Part 18 Request.

 

1. In your claim you state that the banks charges are a disproportionate penalty and therefore unenforceable as they are contrary to common law.

 

2. Please provide the following particulars in support of your claim:

 

2.1 Please specify the clause(s) pursuant to which the charges were applied?

 

The defendant applied charges to my account in respect of unpaid direct debits, unpaid standing orders, referral charge, unpaid item (cheque), card abuse (cheque), It seems to me that they are asking here for the clause numbers, or the exact wording of the part of the contract that allows them to debit the charges?

 

2.2 Please specify weather the charges applied were due to a breach of contract by the claimant?

.

Under UK contract law; the defendant was indeed entitled to make a charge for losses incurred from a breach of contract. This is not in dispute. Examples of breach of contract in this case are going over a set agreed overdraft limit, not having sufficient funds to pay a direct debit etc. These are explicit or implied breaches

 

There is both an explicit and implied breach of contract by myself by going over an agreed overdraft limit or not having sufficient funds in the bank to pay a direct debit. These charges are directly related to actual breaches in contract. They are not levied in any other situations that I am aware of.

Paul do you know whether these contract terms are explicit or implied? It sounds strange to me to state they are both.

2.3 Please identify in each case the particular breach of contract (by reference to appropriate term(s) of the contract) that the charge related to.

 

Referral Charge- Charges levied when the bank makes a payment which creates or extends an unauthorized overdraft.

 

Unauthorized Overdraft Charges- Transaction charges incurred when a customer goes into unauthorized overdraft.

 

Unpaid Charges- Charges for returning cheques unpaid, or declining to pay a standing order or direct debit, that if paid, would create or extend an unauthorized overdraft.

Is this your wording or does it come from the contract?

3. In your claim you state that the charges are: invalid under the unfair (contracts) Terms Act 1977 s.4 and Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 Para. 8 and Sch.2(1)(e) and unreasonable within the meaning of the supply of goods and services Act 1982 s.15.

 

4. Please specify all of the facts relied on by the claimant in support of the contentions in paragraph 3 above, and in particular please identify the contractual provision(s)that the claimant alleges are invalid by reference to UCTA/the regulations.

 

A charge made by way of a penalty on a contractual party by another is void in Law as it unjustly enriches the other party - i.e.; the defendant is earning a profit for doing nothing Again just my opinion but I think this last bit about profits for doing nothing might sound a bit unreasonable to a judge? Maybe you could put in the bit about the defendants charges being an unreasonable pre-estimate of the probable loss to the defendant?

 

The Unfair (Contracts) Terms Act 1977 s.4, says a term in a contract that requires a person acting as a consumer to indemnify another party is void, unless the person seeking to rely on the clause can show that it is justified between the parties. [It is unlikely that a Court would decide that a consumer is better placed to carry an indemnity for a multi £million organization that the defendant is,] especially, as the contract was pre-drafted and the consumer has not been able to negotiate the terms individually. [this bit in brackets doesn't make sense to me - maybe something like - it is unlikely that a court would find this indemnity clause to be reasonable, given the strength of the bargaining position of the claimant, an individual consumer, in relation to the defendant, a multi £million organisation, and given that the contract terms were pre-drafted and not individually negotiated]

 

The defendant may state that under Section 7 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (UTCCR99) that their prices do not have to be fair, and that they are NOT subject to the scrutiny of a court.

This implies they can set them at whatever level they like - £100 for going over a overdraft limit? £150.00 for not paying a direct debt. The defendant would then imply that their charges can be uncapped and unregulated.[have you also considered using para 5 - that a contract term which has not been individually negotiated is unfair if it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' contractual rights and obligations, to the detriment of the consumer]

 

However the Sale of Goods and Services Act 1982, sec 15.2 clearly states that the sum must be fair and reasonable. Is a 3000% mark up fair when the average mark up on the High Street is 100%?

 

This is an unfair term within the contract because it allows the defendant to charge any price they wish for a service - which is far in excess of the cost or value of the service.

 

Further under the UTCCR99, Sec 2 Par 1 states that

 

“A term that allows a party to unilaterally raise the price, or for a price to be determined on delivery is unfair.

And, Para. 8 sch. 2 (1) (e) states that

A term requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation is unfair.

 

It is worth noting that the defendant charged unauthorised overdraft interest on an account in breach of its limit which is almost 0.30%. Perhaps a good pre-estimate of the loss they incur (i.e. liquidated damages). I'm wondering where the 0.30% comes from - is this an annual rate?

A reasonable and LAWFUL charge would be for actual losses the defendant incurrs when default charges are applied due to breaches,

Looking at the wording of question 4 I think you also need to point out the wording of the contract that specifically relates to the legislation you are using.

 

 

Statement of Truth

 

 

The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this CPR Part 18 request are true.

 

 

Signed……………………..

 

DATED this 20th day of November 2006.

 

I hope you are not offended by any of my remarks or suggestions Paul, they are just my opinion and may not be worth anything. I've tried to be constructive, and I hope you don't take it as a criticism of what you've written.

[Guest bong]

Sorry Glenn, not trying to tread on your toes - I hadn't seen your post while I was typing mine. Oh well, better to have two opinions than none, the more the merrier in my view!

[Glenn UK]

Bong

 

Im not sure you have anyhting to apologise for?

 

Even if you had posted exactly the same thing it doesnt matter as long as collectively we make a good job of stuffing the opposition!!

 

glenn

[paulwlton]

Your input is exellent and i will take into account what you have said, my response doesn't need submitting for another 2 weeks so theirs plenty of time to get it right,

 

The problem is i have no access to the original contract.

[Guest bong]

Can't you get a copy of their latest terms and conditions? I can't see why you would need the original, as it no longer applies anyway.

[Guest bong]

If they're on the ball they may pick up on the fact that your account was opened before the UTCCR 99 came into effect on 1st July 1995. Seeing as its in there I wouldn't do anything about it now though, just something to bear in mind.

[Glenn UK]

Have you sen them a request prusautn to CPR 18 ?

 

If not send them one today and ask for a copy of your contract with the bank?

 

I sent one and asked a few questions in relation to their defence, they didnt respond but its just something else to bring to the courts attention.

 

If you want to see the fun im having with Abbey look at Glenn vs Abbey

 

Glenn

[paulwlton]

I made a S.A.R request in August the bank responded 1 week later stating they have no information on the account. I then sent off a CCA request asking for a true signed copy of the original loan agreement, my postal order was returned.

 

Just returned from the local RBS bank with the current terms and conditions, and will be updating my response to the CPR request.

[Glenn UK]

Paul

 

FWIW i had a siilar response from the Co-op bank, following submission of a claim for non-complaince under the DPA i now have data over 9 years old.

 

Just a thought.

 

Glenn

[paulwlton]

Thanks for that Glenn.

 

The sticking point now is the contractual provision. The request states, please identify the contractual provision(s) that the claimant alleges are invalid by referance to UCTA/the Regulations. I have explained in general terms but the request goes further and wants it related to the terms of the contract. i'll post an update to the request tommorow.

[paulwlton]

Hope this is ok need to work on the CC report.

 

 

Response to CPR Request

 

 

 

1. In your claim you state that the banks charges are a disproportionate penalty and therefore unenforceable as they are contrary to common law.

 

2. Please provide the following particulars in support of your claim:

 

2.1 Please specify 2.1 clause(s) pursuant to which the charges were applied?

 

The clauses pursuant

 

D.1.2 The overdraft limit should not be exceeded and we may refuse to pay a cheque (or allow any other payment or withdrawal) which could have that effect. If we do pay a cheque, (or allow any other payment or withdrawal) which results in the overdraft limit being exceeded, it will not mean that the overdraft limit has changed, which would have the same effect.

 

 

D.1.3 (b)carry out a payment instruction in any form [e.g. issue a cheque or make a card transaction on the account] which, either through exercise of our discretion to pay the item on presentation for payment or through payment being guaranteed to a third party, results in the account becoming overdrawn when no agreed overdraft limit is in place or which results in the overdraft limit being exceeded in either case, this will be treated as a variation to the contract [i.e. not revoking and replacing any earlier agreement] under which overdraft facilities are provided by us, either with our prior agreement or which arise through exercise of our discretion to pay items presented for payment being guaranteed to third parties.

 

 

D.1.7 We will confirm to you if we are to charge a fee for arranging an overdraft limit. If a fee is payable, we will debit it to the account on which we have made the overdraft available either on the date of the confirmation or shortly afterwards. You will also be responsible for paying any costs incurred by us in connection with the overdraft whether as a result of you breaking the terms of agreement or not. These costs will include (but not limited to) costs of taking and discharging any security; taking steps, including court action, to obtain payment; enforcing and/or preserving our rights under any security held for the overdraft facility; tracing you if you change address without notice and communicating with you if you break the terms of the overdraft arrangement. If such costs remain unpaid then we may debit them to the account on which we have made the overdraft available.

 

 

D.4.1 The account may not be overdrawn by you.

 

 

 

 

Section H

Highline/Cashline Card – conditions of use.

 

H. 3 You (and any additional cardholder) must not use the card if to do so would overdraw the account without our prior agreement, or would increase any borrowing on the account to more than we have agreed.

 

 

2.2 Please specify weather the charges applied were due to a breach of contract by the claimant?

 

Under UK contract law; the defendant was indeed entitled to make a charge for losses incurred from a breach of contract. This is not in dispute. Examples of breach of contract in this case are going over a set agreed overdraft limit, not having sufficient funds to pay a direct debit etc.

These are explicitly stated in the contract and implicit in the way the account is run. These charges are directly related to actual breaches in contract. They are not levied in any other situations that I am aware of.

2.3 Please identify in each case the particular breach of contract (by reference to appropriate term(s) of the contract) that the charge related to.

 

Unarranged overdrafts

If you borrow more than your agreed overdraft limit you will be liable for a maintenance charge applied monthly, 16 days after the end of the charging period (or the next business day if this is a Saturday, Sunday or Bank Holiday). The charging period is normally in line with the date we send your statement to you.

 

Unarranged borrowing – paid referral

If we pay a debit drawn on your account which results in or increases an unarranged overdraft, a paid referral charge is incurred and will be payable on the 6th business day of the following month and the account will be debited on that date.

 

Unauthorized transaction fees - Unpaid items.

Payable when a cheque, standing order or direct debit is not paid due to there being insufficient funds available in your account.

 

Unauthorised transaction fees- card misuse

Payable when we are forced to pay an item which has been supported by cheque guarantee or maestro although there are insufficient funds available in the account.

 

When your account is overdrawn in excess of any agreed overdraft limit, a maintenance charge will also be applied.

 

3. In your claim you state that the charges are: invalid under the unfair (contracts) Terms Act 1977 s.4 and Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 Para. 8 and Sch.2 (1) (e) and unreasonable within the meaning of the supply of goods and services Act 1982 s.15.

 

4. Please specify all of the facts relied on by the claimant in support of the contentions in paragraph 3 above, and in particular please identify the contractual provision(s)that the claimant alleges are invalid by reference to UCTA/the regulations.

 

 

 

 

 

D. 1.8 If you exceed the overdraft limit, charges will be payable as detailed in the promotional leaflet insert relating to the account. This insert can be obtained from any of our branches.

 

This says the bank can levy a charge detailed in the "promotional leaflet". If this clause has the effect of the customer paying more than the banks actual loss, then it would fail the test of reasonableness, as per section 4(1).

 

This is the relevant part:

 

Under section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, it states that, “A person dealing as consumer cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness".

 

 

It is unlikely that a court would find this indemnity clause to be reasonable, given the strength of the bargaining position of the claimant, an individual consumer, in relation to the defendant, a multi £million organisation, and given that the contract terms were pre-drafted and not individually negotiated.

 

Further the defendant may state that the charges are a genuine pre- estimate of its liquidated losses and that this estimate need not exactly reflect the actual losses.

 

However, the losses should be reflective of the contract between the claimant and the defendant specifically and not the losses of a contract between any other parties and the defendant.

 

Where the contract has been in force between the two parties it would be reasonable for the pre-estimate to reflect very accurately the liquidated losses incurred when the claimant breached the terms of the contract between the defendant and claimant since there is evidence as to those losses.

 

 

The defendant may state that under Section 7 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (UTCCR99) that their prices do not have to be fair, and that they are NOT subject to the scrutiny of a court.

This implies they can set them at whatever level they like - £100 for going over an overdraft limit? £150.00 for not paying a direct debt. The defendant would then imply that their charges can be uncapped and unregulated.

 

However the Sale of Goods and Services Act 1982, sec 15.2 clearly states that the sum must be fair and reasonable. Is a 3000% mark up fair when the average mark up on the High Street is 100%?

 

This is an unfair term within the contract because it allows the defendant to charge any price they wish for a service - which is far in excess of the cost or value of the service.

 

Further under the UTCCR99, Sec 2 Par 1 states that

 

“A term that allows a party to unilaterally raise the price, or for a price to be determined on delivery is unfair.

And, Para. 8 sch. 2 (1) (e) states that

A term requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation is unfair.

Further Para.5.(1) states that

A contract term which has not been individually negotiated is unfair if it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' contractual rights and obligations, to the detriment of the consumer.

 

It is worth noting that the defendant charged unauthorised overdraft interest on an account in breach of its limit which is almost 0.30%. Perhaps a good pre-estimate of the loss they incur (i.e. liquidated damages).

A charge for the defendants actaul losses would be a reasonable charge or a genuine pre-estimate.

 

 

Statement of Truth

 

 

 

The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this CPR Part 18 request are true.

 

 

Signed……………………..

 

DATED this 20th day of November 2006.

[Glenn UK]

Paul

 

I just remembered this thread and thought it might help you

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/royal-bank-scotland-bank/32948-cpr-18-requests-costs-5.html#post267852

 

HTH

 

 

Glenn

[paulwlton]

All documents relied on have been sent into court and also forwarded to Cobbetts, they have the option of ammending the defence if they so wish.

 

An award for costs will be sought on an appeal, so a costs schedule must always be prepared and served by both sides before the appeal hearing.

Generally, an award for costs is not sought at the main hearing, so a costs schedule will not be served. Indeed, to do so, especially if the other side is not represented, may be frowned on by the district judge who may view the service of a costs schedule as tactics to intimidate the opposition, and against the spirit of the rules.

 

Tread a careful path, if a schedule is served on a litigant in person it should be supported by a carefully worded and non threatening letter.

 

This was taken from Patricia Pearls Practical guide to small claims book.

 

I just thought i'de make people aware of the tactics used by Cobbetts.

[Matheos95]

Just subscribing great work so far guys

[paulwlton]

Just a quick update, the court gave the bank untill today to amend their defence, nothing through the post but junk mail.

[livelylad]

Just a quick update, the court gave the bank untill today to ammend their defence, nothing through the post but junk mail.

 

Have you checked with the court?

[paulwlton]

The court have received nothing from cobbetts so i guess their defence is s5.LA only, it seems my response to the CPR 18 request was satisfactory.

and i have proved the charges were levied on the account since copy statements have been forwarded,

I can't honestly see the judge striking the claim out has he was the one urging the defence to have the next hearing has the final hearing.

 

The judge knows the charges are unlawful so does the defence it's all down to s32 v s5 LA,

[livelylad]

The court have received nothing from cobbetts so i guess their defence is s5.LA only, it seems my response to the CPR 18 request was satisfactory.

and i have proved the charges were levied on the account since copy statements have been forwarded,

I can't honestly see the judge striking the claim out has he was the one urging the defence to have the next hearing has the final hearing.

 

The judge knows the charges are unlawful so does the defence it's all down to s32 v s5 LA,

 

Right behind you all the way mate.

[paulwlton]

Thanks for that livelylad, i think we are all in this together, but a word of warning, i don't want to give people the impression that this is a winner, far from it, the common law is still developing and is complex regarding s32, and it needs testing in court i don't think the banks are going to wright big cheques out to people just because they have included s32 in their POCs.I may be wrong though. Just my opinion.

[livelylad]

Thanks for that livelylad, i think we are all in this together, but a word of warning, i don't want to give people the impression that this is a winner, far from it, the common law is still developing and is complex regarding s32, and it needs testing in court i don't think the banks are going to right big cheques out to people just because they have included s32 in their POCs.I may be wrong though. Just my opinion.

 

 

Agreed, but I think that we are developing our strategy well and the banks are ruffled. It will be interesting if we do get a bank into court.

[paulwlton]

I agree i think the banks are starting to feel the heat, but people have got to be aware that the type of claim we are making could end up in a higher court, if they proceed on this basis then good luck to them.