Phoenix -v- Platform

[thephoenix]

This claim was started way back when i was a nipper :crazy:

anyway, now at the stage
received platforms bundle today.....mmmm
they still ignoring the judge's request for disclosure.
the claim is for unpaid d/d charges etc and is for £500, they have issued a counterclaim for £3000

They are relying on their indemnity clause for counterclaim, which i hit back with unfair terms etc.
platform issued draft directions for fast track, the judge replied, nay way lad..........so small claims it is. the judges directions after allocation did not mention anything about the counterclaim, just my claim for charges.
judge wanted full schedule from me,, duly served, and full disclosure from platform (by the 14th Sept) with a note stating that ' if the defendants fail to adhere to this direction, the defence will be struck out without further direction.

Now I can't rely on the judge to strike out the defence, so I need to issue a N224 form pursuant to CPR 3.4 (i think)

Any help on this would be magic, as the DJ already has the case notes with him.

This claim is getting a bit to close to the wire for my liking

[Amethyst]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

hmmmm bugger.

Have you a copy of the indemnity clause........

N244 form to strike out claim under 3.4 and 3.8

Sanctions have effect unless defaulting party obtains relief 3.8 (1) Where a party has failed to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order, any sanction for failure to comply imposed by the rule, practice direction or court order has effect unless the party in default applies for and obtains relief from the sanction.
(Rule 3.9 sets out the circumstances which the court may consider on an application to grant relief from a sanction)
(2) Where the sanction is the payment of costs, the party in default may only obtain relief by appealing against the order for costs.
(3) Where a rule, practice direction or court order –
(a) requires a party to do something within a specified time, and
(b) specifies the consequence of failure to comply,

the time for doing the act in question may not be extended by agreement between the parties.

Ie. the sanction is the defence being struck out.



So they have supplied a bundle to you.........you will have to specify why it is not full disclosure - and do a request for information I believe before the judge will consider full disclosure has not been made (as he hasnt specified specific) also look at - cpr 31.5 - and 31.6 http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/proc...1.htm#rule31_5

Disclosure limited to standard disclosure 31.5 (1) An order to give disclosure is an order to give standard disclosure unless the court directs otherwise.
(2) The court may dispense with or limit standard disclosure.
(3) The parties may agree in writing to dispense with or to limit standard disclosure.

(The court may make an order requiring standard disclosure under rule 28.3 which deals with directions in relation to cases on the fast track and under rule 29.2 which deals with case management in relation to cases on the multi-track)

Standard disclosure – what documents are to be disclosed 31.6 Standard disclosure requires a party to disclose only –
(a) the documents on which he relies; and
(b) the documents which –
(i) adversely affect his own case;
(ii) adversely affect another party’s case; or
(iii) support another party’s case; and
(c) the documents which he is required to disclose by a relevant practice direction.

Specific disclosure or inspection 31.12 (1) The court may make an order for specific disclosure or specific inspection.
(2) An order for specific disclosure is an order that a party must do one or more of the following things –
(a) disclose documents or classes of documents specified in the order;
(b) carry out a search to the extent stated in the order;
(c) disclose any documents located as a result of that search.
(3) An order for specific inspection is an order that a party permit inspection of a document referred to in rule 31.3(2).
(Rule 31.3(2) allows a party to state in his disclosure statement that he will not permit inspection of a document on the grounds that it would be disproportionate to do so)

Sorry just pasting CPR's at you.

Which CPR covers FULL disclosure ? Whats the actual order from the court on 14th Sept say ?

[thephoenix]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

ok, right here we go.

the mortgage condition 7, states:

7. EXPENSES
7.1 You further agree on demand to pay all reasonable costs, fees, charges and expenses paid or incurred (in each case in
full which means that they are reimbursed on a "full indemnity basis") by, or charged to, us in connection with the
Mortgage including, but not limited to, all reasonable costs, fees, charges and expenses (including legal fees,
administration costs, additional funding costs and any tax on these) paid or incurred by, or charged to, us in connection
with:
(a) the investigation of title or the inspection or valuation of the Property in connection with the Mortgage;
(b) the exercise or attempted exercise by us of any of our powers or any other thing done by us with a view to, or in
connection with, the recovery by us of the Secured Amounts or any part of them from you or any other person;
(c) carrying out or considering any other act or matter which we may consider to be for the benefit, preservation or
improvement (whether before or after any breach of these Conditions on your part) of the Property or any
mortgage or other Security Interest affecting it;
(d) any redemption of the Mortgage;
(e) the making of any further advance;
(f) any application for our consent or approval in respect of any matter whether or not such consent or approval is
granted; or
(g) any breach of these conditions by you or services relating to the administration of the Mortgage.
7.2 The amounts payable under Condition 7.1 shall carry interest at the Interest Rate from the date on which they are paid,
incurred or charged by or to us until the date of payment by you.


....and the order by DJ is as follows:

It is ordered that:

1. AQ's are dispensed with: allocation to small claims track.
2. the claimant shall by 17th August 07 file and serve (all done)
a) schedule of charges showing date, alleged reason etc
b) copies of any statements.
c)statement of evidence.

3. the defendants shall by 14th sept 07 file ans serve a response to the claimants schedule stating in respect of each item claimed:
a)pursuant to what contractual provision such charge was made, producing a copy of the contractual document relied upon. they done that bit
b)whether such charge is accepted to be a penalty and if not, why not they done this as well
c)if such charge is alleged to be a pre-estimate of the defendants loss incurred by the claimants actions (WHETHER OR NOT SUCH ACTION IS TO BE TREATED AS A BREACH OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES), all facts and matters intended to be relied upon as showing that such is a proper estimate of such loss, and all evidence to be adducted at trial as to what the true cost of dealing with the matter was.

If the defendant fails to comply with this order, the defence will be struck out without further order.

4. decided cases and other legal materials should not be filed but brought to the hearing with additional copies for defendant and court.

5.list for hearing next available date after 12-oct-07, 1 hour

6. this order has been made by the courts own initiative without hearing the parties or giving them an oportunity to make representations. Any party affected by the order may apply to have it set aside, varied or stayed.

DJ Atkinson 06-28-07


Hope this helps

[thephoenix]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

sorry, missed one. mortgage condition 17 states:

17.1 You agree as a separate and independent agreement on demand to reimburse us (on a full, complete and unqualified
basis) against all reasonable costs, claims, proceedings and liabilities which:
(a) we may reasonably incur, or which may be made against us, whether before or after our power to sell the
Property has become exercisable in connection with the Mortgage;
(b) arise as a consequence of anything done or purported to be done under these Conditions;
(c) result from you failing to do anything under these Conditions; or
(d) result from any payment or discharge in respect of the Secured Amounts (whether made by you or a third
person) being challenged or declared void for any reason whatsoever.
17.2 The amounts payable under Condition 17.1 shall carry interest at the Interest Rate from the respective dates on which
they were paid or incurred by us until payment in full by you.

[thephoenix]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

I know this is gonna take some reading but thought I'd better add my evidence:

-The Claimants submit that the charges levied against their mortgage account, as set out in the enclosed schedule, are, notwithstanding the defence of the defendant, default penalty charges arising out of 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.

- 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 enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit.

- The Defendant states that the charges levied are liquidated damage clauses and equate to a genuine pre-estimate of loss incurred on the part of the defendant. The claimant has repeatedly asked for proof of this but the defendant has refused to disclose this information. The Claimant further submits that this contention is merely an attempt to ‘cloak’, or disguise, their penalties in order to circumvent the common law and statutory prohibition of default penalty charges with view to a profit.
-The defendant denies that any charges added to the claimants account were i) illegal, ii) were in breach of contract, iii) and/or is denied that such charges were levied in breach of any common law or statutory provision. The claimant claims that i) the claimant is embarrassed to read a statement of that naivety from a professional law firm. The claimant believes the charges to be ‘unlawful’ ii) Please note Mortgage condition 7 Expenses, more importantly condition 7.1(g) ‘ any breach of these conditions by you or services relating to the administration of the mortgage’. This condition clearly states that the claimant is liable to pay all reasonable expenses due to a breach of the said conditions. iii) 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.

- The defendant has described the charges as a core term of the mortgage contract. Without prejudice to the above, the claimant can only surmise that the defendants believe the charges to be a service of some kind. The Claimant believes a 'service', to be a provision of knowledge, skill or other transferable facility that benefits the consumer, and one that the consumer agrees is at a reasonable market rate commensurable with the service provided. The Claimant believes it to be inconceivable that the charges levied to his account by the defendant could be any form of ‘service’, rather than a penalty.

- In the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage & Motor Co [1915], Lord Dunedin stated that a clause is a penalty if it provides for “a payment of money stipulated as in-terrorum of the offending party”, i.e. if it is designed to scare or coerce or is used as a threat.


- Additionally, the terms and conditions of the claimants mortgage contract, explicitly describe the charges as to be levied in instances of breaching those terms. This is true of the contracts of other customers of the defendant that the claimant is aware.
- 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.

- 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. A penalty however, is unenforceable.

- The law states that a contractual party cannot profit from a breach and the charge for a loss suffered from a breach of contract should be the amount necessary to put both parties in the same position before the breach occurred. This means that Liquidated damages should be charged. This is backed up by case law – Robinson Vs Harman 1848.

- It is settled law that the charge for loss or damage arising from a breach of contract must be proportionate to the loss incurred.

- Lord Dunedin stated in the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage & Motor Co 1915 -


“the sum is a penalty if it is greater than the greatest loss which could have been suffered from the breach”

- 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;

- In order to ascertain whether the Defendant’s charges are an unenforceable penalty or are liquidated damages, the true costs incurred by the Defendant need to be thoroughly examined to establish whether or not the defendants charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of its likely loss incurred by our contractual breaches.

- On numerous occasions, the Claimant has requested that the Defendant justify its charges by providing details of the costs incurred as a result of my contractual breaches. Each time those requests were rebutted or ignored.

- 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 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 refusal fees were likely to be penalties at law.
-I reference to the above and below statements, the claimant is aware that the banks are governed by the relevant laws of Australia and USA and not UK law. The claimant just wishes to outline that the automated electronic process by which they rely is a very similar practice to the UK.

- Further, in an American study (Consumer Federation of America “Bounced Cheques: Billion Dollar profits II”) it was estimated that the American banks’ cost to process a returned direct debit payment was between US$0.48 and US$0.65.

- The Defendant, or indeed any of the UK 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.

- 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 UK 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 UK banks collectively derive as much as £4.5billion in profit a year from their charging regimes.



- It is submitted that the Defendants charges are applied by an automated and computer driven process. This process consists of a computer system ‘bouncing’ the direct debit, and sending out a computer generated letter. It is therefore impossible to envisage how the Defendant can incur costs of £15-30 by carrying out this completely automated process.
- Additionally, I asked the Defendant to provide evidence of any manual intervention that may have occurred in relation to the said account, under a Data Protection Act 1998 right of subject access request. No such information was forthcoming.

- 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".

-The charges are punitive, and unduly and substantially enrich the Defendant. As such, they are contractual penalties and unenforceable at law.

[Amethyst]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

Thankyou Phoenix - I'll have a good read through.

From the order - platform havent complied with ''c)if such charge is alleged to be a pre-estimate of the defendants loss incurred by the claimants actions (WHETHER OR NOT SUCH ACTION IS TO BE TREATED AS A BREACH OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES), all facts and matters intended to be relied upon as showing that such is a proper estimate of such loss, and all evidence to be adducted at trial as to what the true cost of dealing with the matter was. ''

so partial non compliance, and they haven't applied to set that part aside.

[thephoenix]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

partial non compliance, an order is an order and they have failed to comply...........and as far as the courts are aware, as of yesterday, they have not requested anything to be set aside.

the defence looks generic in style, cuz it starts off explaining the redemption charge and defending it. our claim has nothing to do with an ERC.
all they have submitted is a half hearted generic defence and a copy of the mortgage offer and t&c's.

they can't apply to have the costs bit set aside, thats the core part of the claim, the reason these types of claims are bought before the court.


:bud:

[thephoenix]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

Hi. this formed part of our AQ.

1In response to Para 2 & 21, the claimant has already explained why the charges for unpaid direct debit/ late payment fee’s should not have been applied but for the avoidance of doubt, the claimant alleges that the charges are a disproportionate penalty, amounting to the value of £415.00 plus contractual interest at which those charges where charged at the time, due to claimants breach of contract, and are irrecoverable at common law. The precedent for this was Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor co Ltd [1915] AC 79.along with Murray v. Leisure play [2005] EWCA Civ 963 It was held that a contractual party can only recover damages for an actual loss or liquidated losses.


2In response to Para 22 (a) the claimant should not have been charged an amount above the true administrative cost incurred by the respondents, proof of this has been requested by the claimant but the defendant has refused to disclose this information to the claimant. (b) the claimant should not have been charged for reason out lined in Para 2 responses. Therefore, the claimant should have been charged the true administrative cost pursuant to the Unfair Terms In Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 schedule 2 (e)

3In response to Para 26, The claimants believes the entitlement to relief is a just one. An entitlement to claim Interest, pursuant to s.69 county courts act 1984 at such a rate and for such a period as the court shall deem fit.

4The defendant states that the Mortgage Conditions signed by the Claimants, notably condition 7.1, entitles the defendant to charge the claimants account any reasonable cost’s, fee’s, charges and expenses etc, including, against any breach of the mortgage conditions by the claimant. The defendant also states in para 22 (a) that the charges levied were liquidated damages clauses and the charges equated to a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The claimant has requested proof of this breakdown of costs to show liquidated damages but the defendant has refused to do so, therefore, the claimant believes the amount of each charge applied to the claimants account is a disproportionate penalty.

5Mortgage Condition 3 (3.6) also states that written notice of any charges or fees that may be payable will be issued, no written notice was given to the claimants before any charge, or interest on those charges, were added to the claimants mortgage account. The claimant believes that the defendant cannot reply on the change of amount under the direct debit mandate, as written notice (as stated in Mortgage Condition 3).


6In response to Para 19, see attached Schedule Document A.
7In response to the further questions made by the defendant the claimant will not be able to responded to these until the claimant has full disclosure of the costs involved in administering the charges levied against the claimants account for breaches of their Mortgage Conditions.

8If the defendant requires any further information, the claimant will be happy to provide this once the discloser of documents/information has been dealt with by the court.

9In response to the defendants counterclaim for all costs, fee’s, expenses and interest on those cost’s, in accordance to Mortgage Condition 7 & 17. The claimant respectfully asks the court to strike out their counterclaim. The claimant believes that the mortgage conditions relied upon for the counterclaim are an unreasonable indemnity clause and causes a great imbalance towards the defendant and prejudices the claimants statutory right to make a claim against the defendants and by reference, an unfair contract term pursuant to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

10I respectfully ask the courts to put to the defendant, to provide proof of their actual liquidated losses involved in administering the claimants account in relation to the charges in question.

11I would also respectfully request that the court considers striking out the defense in this action as an abuse of process. The basis for this is the fact that the defendants are settling claims of this nature before any contested hearing. The court may wish to consider the authority of Mullen –v- Hackney London Borough Council [1997] 2 A11ER 906 in making its decision.

[thephoenix]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

N244

1 C) Tick without hearing
5) District Judge
6) Platform Homeloans (defendant)
We Mr & Mrs phoenix intend to apply for an order, that the defence be struck out pursuant to CPR Rule 3.4(2)(a & c) and without prejudice to the previous, CPR 3.8 (3)(b). The claimant respectfully requests the above orders are issued without relief from the sanctions.

tick evidence in part c box.

Part c:

1)The claimants have noted that the defendants responce to the claimants claim and the defendants defence seem to be nothing more than a styled generic template response to claims of this nature. Claims of this nature should be dealt with on an individual basis and on their own merits. Therefore the claimant contends that the defence submitted has no reasonable grounds for success pursuant to CPR Part 3.4(2)(a) and is an abuse of the court process.


2)The claimant would also like to mention the court order of 28th June 2007, whereby District Judge Atkinson requested further clarification and disclosure of cost's to the defendant and ordered that it be complied with or the defence will be struck out WITHOUT FURTHER ORDER. The information submitted by the defendant was, again, nothing more than a generic template for these types of claims, with no clarification or proof of cost's involved, what-so-ever. The claimant respectfully requests the defence be struck out pursuant to CPR Part 3.4(2)(c)

3)Without prejudice to the above, the claimant requests the sanctions imposed within the order of 28th June 2007 be acted upon without any relief of sanctions pursuant to CPR Part 3.8(3)(b). The reason for the request of no relief of sanctions are outlined in (1) above.



OKay...How does that sound???? please help.....:kiss::kiss:

[Amy]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

1 C) Tick without hearing
5) District Judge
6) Platform Homeloans (defendant)
We Mr & Mrs phoenix intend to apply for an order, that the defence be struck out pursuant to CPR Rule 3.4(2)(a & c) and without prejudice to the previous, CPR 3.8 (3)(b). The claimant respectfully requests the above orders are issued without relief from the sanctions.

tick evidence in part c box.

Part c:

1)The claimants have noted that the defendants response to the claimants claim and the defendants defence seem to be nothing more than a styled generic template response to claims of this nature. Claims of this nature should be dealt with on an individual basis and on their own merits. Therefore the claimant contends that the defence submitted has no reasonable grounds for success pursuant to CPR Part 3.4(2)(a) and is an abuse of the court process.


2)The claimant would also like to mention the court order of 28th June 2007, whereby District Judge Atkinson requested further clarification and disclosure of cost's (there is no apostrophe in costs) to the defendant and ordered that it be complied with or the defence will be struck out WITHOUT FURTHER ORDER. The information submitted by the defendant was, again, nothing more than a generic template for these types of claims, with no clarification or proof of cost's (!!) involved, what-so-ever. The claimant respectfully requests the defence be struck out pursuant to CPR Part 3.4(2)(c)

3)Without prejudice to the above, the claimant requests the sanctions imposed within the order of 28th June 2007 be acted upon without any relief of sanctions pursuant to CPR Part 3.8(3)(b). The reason for the request of no relief of sanctions are outlined in (1) above.

[thephoenix]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

1 C) Tick without hearing
5) District Judge
6) Platform Homeloans (defendant)
We Mr & Mrs phoenix intend to apply for an order, that the defence be struck out pursuant to CPR Rule 3.4(2)(a & c) and without prejudice to the previous, CPR 3.8 (3)(b) be issued. The claimant respectfully requests the above orders are issued without relief from the sanctions.

tick evidence in part c box.

Part c:

1)The claimants have noted that the defendants responce to the claimants claim and the defendants defence seem to be nothing more than a styled generic template response to claims of this nature. Claims of this nature should be dealt with on an individual basis and on their own merits. Therefore the claimant contends that the defence submitted has no reasonable grounds for success pursuant to CPR Part 3.4(2)(a) and is an abuse of the court process.


2)The claimant would also like to mention the court order of 28th June 2007, whereby District Judge Atkinson requested further clarification and disclosure of cost's to the defendant and ordered that it be complied with or the defence will be struck out WITHOUT FURTHER ORDER. The information submitted by the defendant was, again, nothing more than a generic template for these types of claims, with no clarification or proof of cost's involved, what-so-ever. The claimant respectfully requests the defence be struck out pursuant to CPR Part 3.4(2)(c)

3)Without prejudice to the above, the claimant requests the sanctions imposed within the order of 28th June 2007 be actioned, without any relief of sanctions pursuant to CPR Part 3.8(3)(b). The reason for the request of no relief of sanctions are outlined in (1) above.



OKay...How does that sound???? please help.....:kiss::kiss:

[thephoenix]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

Ooooppps, don't know how i posted that again.

anyhooo, I assume then that it sounds ok and I'm not leaving the door open to attack in any way.

apart from my excessive use of apostrophe's (is that with or without):o

so... all good ?

[thephoenix]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

ohhh cud i have just a little more guidance on this one please please please.
although on previous post I put ' tick evidence box in part c '.
It ain't right is it, should it be 'statement of case' (does this mean claim case or case for having the application heard) ????????????????

help!!!!!!:roll::roll:


JUST ONE OTHER POINT IF I MAY, WOULD WE NEED TO SEND A COPY TO THE DEFENDANT?????

[Amethyst]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

Hi Phoenix sorry sugar had a couple days less brain useage

Will have a good read through everything this evening :okay:

Get back to you later xxx

Ame
xx

[Amethyst]

Re: Phoenix -v- Platform

1 C) Tick without hearing

5) District Judge

6) Platform Homeloans (defendant)

We Mr & Mrs phoenix (WAS THE CLAIM MADE IN BOTH NAMES ORIGINALLY?) intend to apply for an order, that the defence be struck out pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 3.4(2)(a) and 3.4(2)(c) and without prejudice to the previous, CPR 3.8 (3)(b) be issued. sorry can you explain that bit - I know what u mean but it doesnt make much sense in this paragraph??

The claimant respectfully requests the above orders are issued without relief from the sanctions.

tick evidence in part c box.

Part c:

1)The claimants note that the defendants' response to the claim and the defendants' defence seem to be nothing more than a stylised generic template response to claims of this nature. Claims of this nature should be dealt with on an individual basis and on their own merits. Therefore the claimant contends that the defence submitted has no reasonable grounds for success pursuant to CPR Part 3.4(2)(a) and is as such an abuse of the court process.


2)The claimant would also like to bring the the courts attention, the order of 28th June 2007, attached. The court ordered 'the defendants shall by 14th sept 07 file and serve a response to the claimants schedule stating in respect of each item claimed 'The information submitted by the defendant does not comply in full with this order, specifically 3(c) if such charge is alleged to be a pre-estimate of the defendants loss incurred by the claimants actions (WHETHER OR NOT SUCH ACTION IS TO BE TREATED AS A BREACH OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES), all facts and matters intended to be relied upon as showing that such is a proper estimate of such loss, and all evidence to be adducted at trial as to what the true cost of dealing with the matter was.

District Judge Atkinson ordered If the defendant fails to comply with this order, the defence will be struck out without further order. Therefore the claimant respectfully requests the defence be struck out pursuant to CPR Part 3.4(2)(c)

3)Without prejudice to the above, the claimant requests the sanctions imposed within the order of 28th June 2007 be actioned, without any relief of sanctions pursuant to CPR Part 3.8(3)(b). The reason for the request of no relief of sanctions are outlined in (1) above.