i had reply from info commisioner last week saying Baclaycard have 28 days now to resond, well about 21 days now! if they dont then i will feel comfortable giving 7 days then go to court.

I think you have to threaten court - 7 day letter - was it a blank refusal?

makes me feel a lot better about my case given natwest said they'd settle less costs less (statutory) interest. if they're settling contractual interest cases too makes me wish i'd charged that. guess its too late but still makes me feel more secure in my own case.

cheers, i feel better today thanks to others on this site and the fact that i found all the info on court bundles etc so feel more confident of winning my case should it come to court! this site is great!

Thanks i feel a bit better. i should know better than to go wobbly as i am reasonably familiar with law, court procedure etc and i have been before a district judge before ( over water company charges many years ago) and that went the right way for me, so its not totally alien. I'm feeling more buoyed up this morning having read the stuff on this site about court bundles, preparing for the case, etc, people are correct, there is loads of really good information on this site when you start looking properly, and now i'm calmly awaiting my court date! J

well i've sent the rejection letter off now. sad really but i have incurred costs and charged the interest which they could have avoided by responding before we'd got to having submitted the AQ stage! i'm just ****ing myself that i've blown it now. i guess the next stage is i hear from the court concerning a date, anyone know how long after the AQ deadline i may hear?

i just received letter from Natwest saying as good will they would refund charges (over £2k). this is way down the line after i've got to the stage of filing AQ and paying more costs! just called them to say any chance of interest and costs, i did give you the chance to do this ages ago but have had to go to court and incurred costs and i believe fairly charging interest? answer, no we wont offer will be withdrawn basically. so i have sent a "rejection letter". i'm really scared now that i have blown it and court will see me as trying to make money but really i only want my costs and interest due . am i being too militant? arrrrgghhhh i hate this.

ok guys - i have written to NatWest rejecting their offer which was for all my charges but less costs and interest. I'm going for it all as they did have chance to settle earlier, chose not to, and i have since incurred costs and had a lot of hassle and aggravation. here we go.

i'm a bit cynical about all this "they didnt know" business. funny how both you and me got our letters from Mr Higley "magically" responding to our original, pre-claim letter from months ago, JUST as we had both submitted our AQ's to the court and our snotty letters to Cobbetts showing we are serious. i'm sorry, i don't think this is a coincidence.

Hmmm. I think you dont need to say that "he may not have been aware" as presumably there are well aware - after all they have instructed Cobbetts and Cobbetts wont be instructed without Natwest instructing them in your case. I am still thinking about whether i reject or not. i just dont know if i can be bothered with another couple of months of wrangling. if i could be sure they would capitulate soon, then i might just send the rejection letter straight off but i am unclear how far they will take this.

i understand - i'm in same boat as have nearly 500 quid interest and 220 quid costs to date. and if they'd responded as such before i wouldnt have had to go to court or incur the costs. the annoying thing is the offer letter purported to be in response to the very first letter i sent to natwest on the matter months ago - yet you know its just a case of cobbetts giving the nod to natwest saying "think you need to send an offer letter out now, lads, this one's serious about pursuing this claim".

i got a letter like that today as well, still considering whether i accept or not as it is full settlement (less court costs and interest) i';m not sure how well a rebuff like the one above would work, given that they accept no liability for the charges. is anyone able to give some guidance on likley hood of getting interest and costs back. do natwest up their offers?

OK time for my update . in response to my 7 day letter i had a grovelling letter from Mr Whalley explaining in detail the reason for the delay but still giving no specific date. the letter was sufficiently explanatory for me to allow them extra time. i have now received a letter from the office of the info commissioner about my complaint, and they say they have asked barclays to comply within 28 days. so clock is ticking again . after 28 days are out (another 3 weeks) i will give another 7 day letter and then proceed to court, with more justification , i feel , having given them every chance.

thanks - i hope soon it will end, it is tempting to settle as i am worried if i reject it now the court may take a dim view of my claim for costs and interest. but i also know that running up court costs and issuing papers etc should not be a negotiating tactic - they should have just settled the charges when i first asked, rather than let me do all this work - i did tell them that if they didnt , this is what i would do yet they chose to say "see you in court then" and then pay up at the last minute. tres annoying. would be v interested to hear what people have done re: situations like this. it is very tempting to take the money, take the hit on court costs and forget the interest................however i have several weeks to reply so maybe the court will issue further direction in the meantime and they will crumble further if i hold out? i have also had a copy letter which cobbetts sent to the court, which came at the same time as the Natwest offer letter. cobbetts are refuting my argument that they are abusing process and saying they cant be and they are just defending the claim. so they are trying to anticipate a "striking out" order of the type made in other cases .

I have today received a letter from Natwest saying they know i'm wrong etc but will refund all my charges (over £2000). Trouble is, to get to this stage with them i've had to shell out £220 in court costs and would also miss out on the £400+ interest in my claim. Should i settle now?

I was speaking to a source in the courts at the weekend and the judges are so sick of Cobbetts predictable standard excessive defence which invokes practically the whole law of contract and makes a CPR 18 request ( which annoys them greatly ) for small claims cases, that the courts have issued guidelines internally to the effect that judges can choose to strike out the action as abuse of process, or request that a proper defence with full disclosure is put in within 14 days.every time the action is withdrawn as the banks cough up. the courts aren't usually made aware of what settlement is reached, they just know that the action suddenly dies a death after their direction to Cobbetts. And apart from an ocassional pained letters threatening to get a judgement set aside, or appeal judges decision to strike out, which have never materialised, the defendents never wish to escalate and leave the courts decision as final. actually they would like a ruling. However , another source says that the banks are nowddefending some claims and settlements/ judgements in the order of £12 (as with credit card charges) as a reasonable charge are being considered. I naturally informed my source of this site so the judges can get fully up to speed.

I have now submitted my AQ to the court with the enclosures and the £100 fee as my claim is over £1500, and await to hear. Anyone any idea how long i will have to wait for a response from Court with a court date, or further communication from Cobbetts? What have other people had?

We shall see what comes out.......... Will update with my AQ thoughts questions etc later......

My letter to the court to go with the AQ : Mr xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx London xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx SPECIAL DELIVERY xxxxxxxx County Court Court House xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx England xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx February 2007 Dear Sir/Madam Claim No: xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx V NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PLc - Claimant’s response to the request for further information I have received a request from the defendants for further information, which they say is made pursuant to CPR Part 18. However it is highly likely that this claim will be allocated to the small claims track and I know that part 18 should not apply in a small claims case, and only the court can specifically oblige me to respond as such under its own initiative. The Defendant’s part 18 request suggests very strongly that I have not supplied them with enough information to mount a defence. Despite this they have submitted a very full and complicated defence. I am very anxious to be seen to be co-operating as much as I can and therefore I am providing the following information and sending a copy to the defendants. In section 2 of their request, the defendants ask for a detailed breakdown of the charges that have been applied to our account and our account details. I do not understand why they require this information as i sent their client a copy of this on xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx by recorded delivery. Their client of course already has the full details and access to records of all charges levied on my account, as indeed they made the charges and it was myself who had to request that they supply me with the information of all charges levied in the last 6 years, in the first instance, under the 1988 Data Protection Act ( Subject Access Request). In section 2.3 the defendant asks why the charges should not have been levied against us, but it has already been explained in the claim, the charges are disproportionate penalties. In fact section 3 of the defendants request makes it fully clear they are aware to the answers to their section 2.3 as they specifically refer to the reasons for my claim. Section 4 of the defendants request; ask for details of my account contract with the defendant. However the defendants are clearly fully aware of the details of the contract, the contract is their own terms and conditions imposed by them with no basis for negotiation. Further more the defendant has purported to rely on upon the terms and conditions in order to implement charges against me. The defendants must understand very well, which are the contractual terms in issue. I am sure the court is already aware there is currently much litigation being brought against all of the major banks on the issue of penalty charges. We can tell the court that hundreds of such claims have been issued at courts around the country, many having been allocated to the fast track and there are at least 10 cases transferred to the mercantile court in London to be heard as a test case. However to date every case has been settled by the banks before going to a hearing, even Barclays bank which is the defendant at the Mercantile court cases has started contacting the claimants and making an offer of full settlement in order to avoid the case being fully heard. NatWest, the defendants in my own case, has settled over 180 cases, many of them for much larger amounts than my own claim. The banks are fully aware of the bank charges issue. The Office of Fair Trading conducted a 2 year investigation into Credit Card penalty charge cases and found they were unfair and unenforceable at law. The OFT also said there was a read-across to banks of their penalty charges. The OFT has urged the banks to comply with their findings. The banks have refused and the OFT in entering into further discussions with them. In the meantime the banks oblige thousands of their customers – very ordinary citizens, to bring court claims which their banks or their solicitors then go on to complicate the process with procedural devices such as the present part 18 request. Only those claimants of sufficient heart and tenacity are eventually paid out in full. I feel sure the great majority give up altogether or accept reduced payments. This is the deliberate intention of the banks style of litigation. The banks style of litigation is intimidatory and it is sham. The banks style of litigation would be vexatious if it were not for the fact they are the defendants. The Master of Rolls in 2004 addressed an international conference on vexatious litigation. He told the conference the evil of vexatious litigation was that it undermined justice and was a burden to the public resource. I cannot imagine any better description of the result of the banks style of litigation. It really should not be for an ordinary citizen to bear the burden of bringing the banks back within the rule of law. The OFT has the power to deal with this matter and is tasked and resourced to do the job. If the OFT were to seek an injunction then this burden upon the private individual could probably be brought to an end within a week. In respect of my claim, I would just like to bring to the attention of the Court, details of Judgement recently made at Lincoln County Court which orders the following: ”The Court of its own motion is considering striking the Defence out as an abuse of process on the basis that it has settled all previous claims of this nature. If the Defendant objects to this course of action it is to file at Court within 14 days, a Schedule setting out a list of all claims it has pursued to trial and all claims it has settled." (dated 28th December 2006) There is now a wealth of evidence that the Banks are reluctant to pursue any defence of the claims of their clients against unfair bank charges, thus wasting valuable court time. Until they are in a position to reveal everything to the courts, I would hope that the Honourable Judges at this Court would take note of this information in bringing a speedy conclusion to this, my claim, that they are dealing with. Yours Faithfully Mr xxxxxxxxxxxx

My acknowledgement letter SPECIAL DELIVERY & BY FAX Cobbetts LLP Ship Canal House King Street Manchester M2 4WB x February 2007 Dear Sir/Madam CLAIM NO xxxxxxx -xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx AND NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PLC I acknowledge receipt of the defence posted on behalf of National Westminster Bank plc and your covering letter and request for further information and clarification dated x xxxxxxx2007. I am not prepared at this stage to answer the CPR Part 18 Request. I anticipate that this claim will be allocated to the small claims fast track, as it substantially less than the £5000 limit for such cases. I have proceeded to claim using HM Court Service’s Moneyclaim Online service, giving as much information as permitted, and which is specifically designed for small claims cases. I would not then expect to have to deal with a CPR Part 18 Request since these are specifically excluded under Part 27 - unless the court specifically orders me to do this of its own initiative. The information regarding the account details and charges information for which I am claiming is already in the hands of your client and they are aware that I was proceeding to recover these charges having had full notice and details before I proceeded to claim . I consider the Part 18 Request is intimidatory, and I intend to bring the intimidation to the notice of the court when I receive the appropriate forms from them. I am considering making a complaint to the Law Society concerning this approach, which I believe to be cynical, and may possibly be conduct which runs contrary to the spirit of the civil procedure rules. I am advised by HM Court Service’s MoneyClaim Online website that the matter is being transferred to xxxx County Court, from xxxxxxxx and wait to hear from them with regard to the appropriate Allocation Questionnaire. For the sake of clarity, I confirm the charges I am claiming were applied to the following account. Account Name: xxxxxxxxxx Account Number: xxxxxxxxxxxx Account Sort Code: xxxxxxxxxxxx Please also find enclosed a breakdown of all the charges I am claiming. Your client has previously acknowledged my correspondence concerning this matter. I also enclose a Request for Further Information and Clarification for yourselves & the defendant. I have sent a copy of this letter and its enclosures to the Court to be added to the file on this case. Yours Faithfully Mr xxxxxxxxxxx Cc xxxxxxx County Court Encs : charges information schedule

ok , i have now sent off the 1) "acknowlegdment of receipt of defence" letter to cobbetts 2) my own request for further info (details of how their bank charges are calculated). 3) another list of the bank charges (previously sent) and account details so they're in no doubt as to what the claim is madeup of . 4) copy letter which i intend to send to court concerning intimidatory tactics. I copied in my branch and the court on all correspondence and sent everything special delivery. I also mentioned the possibility of reporting Cobbets to the law society for their tactics re: CPR 18 - tactics which are clearly designed to confuse and frighten people less well educated into submisison. I think my AQ has arrived at home so i will be filling it this weekend. Thanks to help from people on this site i feel a lot more confident about my case.

Reesdance DO NOT give up. Everyone on here will help you and you are close to winning. I also got my defence through yesterday, it is the same as yours practically with 9 points, and yes it is scary, but you have to have the confidence to see it through . The whole point of this is to intimidate you - don't be intimidated. You are the claimant, you have been wronged & there's nothing to feel guilty about. The office of fair trading is investigating these outrageous charges too, there are a lot of people behind you.

I got this through today from Barclaycard, following my 7 day letter (now just expired). What do folks think? Dear XXXXXXXXX Re: YOUR DATA SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST I write in response to your 7 day letter. Clearly you are not happy about the fact that you have not received your past 6 years card statements within 40 days specified in the DPA1988. May i put the situation into context. The volume of requests identical to yours that we have had since the beginning of December is in the region of 2000. Card statements pree May 04 are stored on microfilm at Barclays record mangement centre in the North West. post May 04 statements are held on computer . It is a labour intensive manual intensive process to retrieve the relevant microfilm of which there are many thousands, from storage, this then has to be inserted into a reader for the relevant statements to be located. it therefore takes a fair time to locate each statement a cusotmer has requested, we are going back to January 2001 in each case. . This will be 28 statements to satisfy each request. statements on microfilm are not always in sequence as this is determined by the billing date which isnt always the same each month. Barclays has had to recruit additional staff and has aquired anumber of additional mircofilm readers to seek to speed the response process. I have made the info commissioners offic (at assistant commisioners level) fully aware of the situation i describe and am updating on a regular basis. I can only apologise for our not being able to let you have the statements you have requested within the timescale set. However i want to seek to reassure you that we will let you have your statements as soon as we can yours sincerely A Whalley etc etc

I just received my defence too 9 points raised also. Will be posting it on my thread later on. Don't lose heart!

i think its a case of just go to the court with the N1 form, though i have been slightly put off by others saying that court action shouldnt be taken until you have exhausted info commisioner route, ( who can take months to respond now they are being deluged with cases) but others ( and guidance on this site) disagrees and says you can jsut go for it. i am about to send off the N1 but have hesitated , despite barclays being beyond 40 days and having sent my letters. i just want the info too. grateful. i have taken on board claims of others and will also be charging £9p/h rather than £350 i originally thought, if i go with the N1. Would appreciate like you martin some guidance from experts on this site.