Court Bundle Checklist

Dino07

I won't be the first to ask but i've been reading through the thread trying to make sense of things and my it's probably confused me somewhat more!

I've received a letter from my local court. It reads that the judge has considered the statements(which i sent to court and natwest) and allocation questionnaire(which i never filled in or sent) abd gas allocated it to the small courts.

It asks for all copies of documents such as contracts, witness statements, expert reports, photoes to be sent to the court and solicitors 14 days before the hearing date (2nd August)

What would i need to send off now.

I've got the court bundle. Most of which i know i just print off once i've added my statements and latest charges too. I assume i don't have to edit anything on it?

I've read i need statement of evidence, some papers from a FO, terms and conditions and a few other things.

Any list going around of everything which needs to be included? I want to get prepared asap as it looks to be a great amount of work needed to go to court.

Thanks for any help.

dj9928

I should add here for the benefit of others, I was not asked to provide a court bundle, I know some of you's are also getting this letter however I needed one, and thank god I did provide it as the judge today went through it in fine detail. Just something to make yous aware off

Dino07

I also have another issue. The only letters i have from Natwest is the offer they made me and their defence from their solicitors. The others which were mainly we are looking into your claim etc have been misplaced. Whats the best thing to do about this?

MimiJane

Dino07 wrote: »

I won't be the first to ask but i've been reading through the thread trying to make sense of things and my it's probably confused me somewhat more!

I've received a letter from my local court. It reads that the judge has considered the statements(which i sent to court and natwest) and allocation questionnaire(which i never filled in or sent) abd gas allocated it to the small courts.

It asks for all copies of documents such as contracts, witness statements, expert reports, photoes to be sent to the court and solicitors 14 days before the hearing date (2nd August)

What would i need to send off now.

I've got the court bundle. Most of which i know i just print off once i've added my statements and latest charges too. I assume i don't have to edit anything on it?

I've read i need statement of evidence, some papers from a FO, terms and conditions and a few other things.

Any list going around of everything which needs to be included? I want to get prepared asap as it looks to be a great amount of work needed to go to court.

Thanks for any help.

See my post above, no. 247

MimiJane

guardian2020 wrote: »

May be a daft question but when i gave my court form in i also gave them 3 copies of all corrispondance to go with it eg staements, letters etc, 1 for me, 1 for the courts and 1 for Nastywide, i now have a date for court as Nastys intend to defend..do i need 3 more copies of everything? or was the lot i gave to the court all that is needed..there is a extra letter from Nationwide which was sent to me after i made the court application which i will copy but thats all.. Carol

Ring the court and ask them.

MimiJane

moatman007 wrote: »

Have court date for 25/07/07 and am in process of compiling court bundle. I have used CAG standard template together with statement of evidence as incl. below

1. STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE

1. The claimant submits that the charges levied to his bank account, as set out in the enclosed schedule, are, notwithstanding the defence of the defendant, default penalty charges arising from and relating directly to breaches of contract, both explicit and implied, on the part of the claimant. As a contractual penalty, the charges are unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, the Unfair Contracts (Terms) Act 1977, and the common law.

2. It is admitted that the Defendants charges were levied in accordance with the terms and conditions of the account in question. However, it is submitted that the Defendants charges are not related to or intended to represent any actual loss arising from a breach of contract, but instead unduly and extravagantly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such penalty charges with a view to profit.

3. The Claimant cites the case of Robinson v Harman [1848] 1 Exch 850, which states that a contractual party cannot profit from a breach of contract and that the charge for a loss suffered from the breach should be the amount necessary to put both parties in the same position before the breach occurred.
4. Lord Dunedin in the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage & Motor Co [1915] AC 79 set down a number of principles in definition of a penalty clause and how such clause may be ascertained from a liquidated damages clause. These principles include -

"It will be held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greater loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach" and;

"The essence of a penalty is a payment of money stipulated as in-terrorem of the offending part; the essence of liquidated damages is a genuine covenanted pre-estimate of damage"

5. The Claimant will further rely on numerous recorded authorities dating throughout the 20th century up to the most recent case of ffice:smarttags" /><ST1:place w:st="on">lace> v Leisureplay [2005] EWCA Civ 963, all of which have upheld and reinforced the principles set down by Lord Dunedin defining contractual penalty clauses and the unenforceability thereof.

6. Further, under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, schedule 2 (1) includes to define an example of an unfair clause as -

"(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;"


ffice:office" /><O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
7. The breaches of contract in this case relate to exceeding the contractually agreed limits of an overdraft facility, and having insufficient funds available to pay a direct debit or a standing order. Add an example of a charge incurred due to going over by a small amount, for example -On one occasion in June 2006, a direct debit payment was returned due to insufficient funds in my account. The shortfall was only one pound and nineteen pence. I was then penalised for this breach by way of a charge of £**. The claimant holds this charge and indeed every other charge in question, to be punitive in nature, and wholly disproportionate.


8. It is not disputed that the Defendant is entitled to recover its damages following the claimant’s breach of contract, and it is entitled to include a liquidated damages clause. The Claimant contends that the charges made by the defendant are disproportionate, excessive, exorbitant and extravagant, and believes it to be unconscionable that they represent, are a pre-estimate of, or are in any way related to; its actual loss suffered as a result of the Claimants breaches of contract.

9. The defendant has declined to answer the Claimant’s written requests for information regarding its administrative costs, or other such costs, incurred as a result of the contractual breaches from which its charges arise. Further, the Defendant has declined to offer any explanation whatsoever in regard of how its charges are calculated, or any other such justification thereof, despite repeated requests to do so.

10. In a recent study undertaken in Australia, (Nicole Rich, “Unfair fees: a report into penalty fees charged by Australian Banks”) it was estimated that the cost to an Australian Bank of a customers direct debit refusal was estimated to be in the region of 54 cents. By reviewing the banks’ charges against the above figure, the study estimated that banks could be charging between 64 to 92 times what it costs them to process a direct debit refusal. The study’s key findings stated that in its opinion the Australian Bank’s cheque and direct debit return charges were likely to be penalties at law.

11. The Defendant, or indeed any of the <ST1:place w:st="on"><?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com[IMG]http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/ /><st1:City w:st=[/IMG]Murray</st1:City></ST1[IMG]http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/ /><st1:country-region w:st=[/IMG]UK</st1:country-region></ST1:place> banks, has never published any information to support how their charges are calculated, or what their actual costs associated with such breaches are, or what revenue they derive from such charges.

12. For their recent BBC2 documentary “The Money Programme”, the BBC appointed a commission of former senior banking industry figures and business academics to attempt to ascertain the actual costs to the <ST1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">UK</st1:country-region></ST1:place> banks of processing a customer’s breach of contract. They concluded that the absolute maximum conceivable cost that could be incurred by a direct debit refusal or overdraft excess is £2.50, and of a returned cheque £4.50. They did state however, that the actual cost is likely to be much less than this. The commission also estimated that the <ST1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">UK</st1:country-region></ST1:place> banks collectively derive as much as £4.5billion in profit a year from their charging regimes.


<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
13. It is submitted that the Defendants charges are applied by an automated and computer driven process. It is therefore impossible to envisage how the Defendant can incur costs of £30.00 by carrying out a completely automated and computer driven process. Abbey would not normally send letters to detail individual charges, but would advise of numerous charges to be debited from my account on my monthly bank statement.

14. The claimant also cites a radio interview in 2004 with Lloyds TSB’s former head of personal banking, Peter McNamara, in which he states the charges are used to fund free banking for all personal customers as a whole.

15. The claimant cites the statement from the Office of Fair Trading (April 2006), who conducted a thorough investigation into default charges levied by the British financial industry. While the report primarily focused on Credit card issuers, the OFT stated that the principle of their findings would also apply to Bank account charges. They ruled that default charges at the current level were unfair and unlawful within their interpretation of the UTCCR’s.

16. On 22nd May 2006, the House of Commons passed an early day motion which welcomed the OFT's statement that default charges should be proportionate to the actual loss incurred. The house described such default charges as "exorbitant" and "excessive".

17. Further, under the UTCCR:

“5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

(3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract.

(4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was.”

Schedule 2 also includes such clauses (to define examples of unfair clauses) as:

“(i) irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which he had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract;

(j) enabling the seller or supplier to alter the terms of the contract unilaterally without a valid reason which is specified in the contract;
(m) giving the seller or supplier the right to determine whether the goods or services supplied are in conformity with the contract, or giving him the exclusive right to interpret any term of the contract.”

The defendant is a multi-national corporation. The term regarding charges was inserted unilaterally in contract. The contract was pre and mass produced and I had no opportunity to negotiate the clause, or indeed any of the contract.

The cost of Abbey charges have increased twice during the period in which my account was held, neither time was I given the opportunity to negotiate. Therefore the bank has unilaterally altered the terms of my account contract to my detriment, and to their advantage.

18. As set out above, the Defendant’s charges can in no way be considered to be liquidated damages. They are not a pre-estimate of, or in any way related to, the Defendant’s loss incurred as a result of the breach of contract. The charges are punitive, held "in-terrorem", and unduly, substantially and extravagantly enrich the Defendant. As such, they are disproportionate contractual penalties and unenforceable at law.

I, the Claimant, believe all facts stated to be true.


<O:p></O:p>
Signed<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
Dated

This was not included within the CAG template, is it OK to submit ?

I have also got a copy of the current terms and conditions for my account together with tariff of charges, should I included these within my bundle ? I have requested a copy of old T+Cs from the Abbey but am not holding breath fro them, If I dont have old T+Cs will this affect my claim.

Any advice massively appreciated as I've come so far ( since Feb 07 ) and don't want to drop clanger at this stage.

What was not included in the CAG template?

Have you looked on the CAG forum under Abbey, then the Terms & Conditions thread? You should try and include your T&C's for the year you started the claim as well as the end year (the years inbetween don't matter too much).

MimiJane

Dino07 wrote: »

I also have another issue. The only letters i have from Natwest is the offer they made me and their defence from their solicitors. The others which were mainly we are looking into your claim etc have been misplaced. Whats the best thing to do about this?

You only really have two options : either ring the bank and request copies (which they may not send) or don't include them. If they're not particularly important letters and you have copies of your replies which I'm assuming you do, I'd put these in your "bundle" (only if you're requested to submit one) and write a brief note on your replies to explain why the bank's letters are not included.

Dino07

MimiJane wrote: »

You only really have two options : either ring the bank and request copies (which they may not send) or don't include them. If they're not particularly important letters and you have copies of your replies which I'm assuming you do, I'd put these in your "bundle" (only if you're requested to submit one) and write a brief note on your replies to explain why the bank's letters are not included.

Ok thats cleared a few things up thanks.

My letter from the court is as follows.

"Each party shall deliver ot every other party and to the court office copies of all documents on which he intends to rely at the hearing"

What that constitute the need for the court bundle?

guardian2020

i am confused..when i went to court to place the claim i handed 3 copies of all corrispondance to that date in with the forms...do i need to give 3 more copies on the court date or are the ones i gave in the ones they need also what else do i need...not got to that point yet, bank are puting in a defence but i am waiting on that...its just so confusin what i need to take and what i dont...just in case...hellllp!!!!!

MimiJane

Dino07 wrote: »

Ok thats cleared a few things up thanks.

My letter from the court is as follows.

"Each party shall deliver to every other party and to the court office copies of all documents on which he intends to rely at the hearing"

What that constitute the need for the court bundle?

Worded a little differently to mine but, yes, "all documents you intend to rely on" should include at least your charges list, statements and the basic court bundle (OFT report, etc.), T&C's and whatever I mentioned in my post above to ukprincess.

Good luck

guardian2020

I have found this list of things i need for the court bundle...

Copy of bank statements ..got these lol
Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999)
The Supply of Goods and Services Act (1982)
Unfair Contract Terms Act (1977)
Office of Fair Trading Report April 2006 (OFT842)
House of Commons Early Day Motion (EDM 2227)
House of Commons Select Committee on Treasury
Second Report: ‘Transparency in charging’
Report by Kendall Freeman on Liquidated Damages (May 2005)
Case Law Reference: Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd
v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79
Case Law Reference: Alfred McAlpine Capital Projects Ltd
v Tilebox Ltd [2005] EWHC 281 (TCC)

also maybe..

Murray v Leisureplay [2005] EWCA Civ 963
2. Wilson v Love [1898]
3. Lordsvale Finance PLC v Bank of Zambia (1996) QB 752
<!-- / message --><!-- sig --> 4. Bridge v Campbell Discount Co. Ltd. (1962)

do i really need all this? If so where the heck do i get it all from? is there anywhere on this site i can download or copy these from...help....

Tryed to do a search but this sites getting a bit jam packed and its had to find a answer..please help thanks Carol