Cobbetts Cpr part 18 request/CPR part 16.4.1

[tjb72]

Hello

 

I too have had one these letters that just seem to be trying to confuse you and hope you won't respond! typical

 

in The Request for further informaiton part, paragraph 3 states

• In your claim you state that the charges are "an unfair penalty under the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations 1999"
  
• Please specify all of the facts relied on by the claimant in support of the contentions in paragraph 3 and in particular please identify the regulation under the unfair terms in consumer contract regulations 1999 ("the regulations") relied upon by the claimant in alleging that the contractual provision(s) referred to are unenforceable.

do i actually need to answer that! or do i just put what you have suggested.

 

Thanks for your help

[dollie]

Hi everyone, my first post so please bear with me.

 

Received today Notice of Transfer to local court. AQ has been dispensed with and awaiting court date. Have aleady sent my response to CPR Part 18 request. Have a feeling its just my luck for this to go all the way so am in the preparation stage now. Been reading the defence and will be sending a full Particulars of Claim tomorrow as my original was reduced because of MCOL. Have been advised to fax this - will that be ok as although I will be signing the original, the fax they receive will not have an original signature on it - are faxes legal documents now? Also, when sending or faxing it, can I ask Cobbetts to issue me with a full breakdown of how Nat Wests charges are calculated. Surely if I'm being asked to provide info, Nat West can provide me with info too - am I right?

Last point, I have already written to Cobbetts asking them provide me from Nat West, details of the terms and conditions relevant to 2001 to 2007 and am assuming this will be ignored, , so does anyone out there have a downloadable copy of he relevant T&C's. I want to make sure I have everything - just in case!

[dollie]

ooh, sorry, thought it was my first post, but actually my second !

[stevepm]

Dollie

 

 

You can ask all you want of our friends at Cobbetts but that will do you know good at all. A polite letter to them is about as much good as putting water in my LPG range rover it wont work.. However what you can do is return them the favour of a CPR 18 which is the court way of sending the request for information.

AS for T&C of the past we cannot seem to get hold of any. We only have 2006 November.

 

AS for FAX not sure I generally send my to cobs by recorded next day.

 

 

If you want to consider putting the CPR on cobbies then I have a copy of what a few of us have come up with.

 

 

[dollie]

Thanks stevepm - are we allowed to put a CPR on them - I would certainly liketo have a read at least.

 

Surely, if you've asked them to respond and they haven't - won't that look bad for them if it goes to court. They would be the first to say that we haven't provided them with what they want. Thats one of the reasons why I asked for T&C's. At least the court will know I am trying to provide as much info related to my case as possible. I mean, who keeps their T&Cs. I've been with Nat West for years and to be honest I don't remember being given any, I only went with them to get a mortgage.

[stevepm]

Claimant

 

 

 

 

Page 2 id the actual request.

 

 

In this second section you must ask your questions clearly and realise what the sort of answer you should expect.

 

 

e.g.

 

 

1. Please supply a breakdown of how the defendant calculates the penalty charges

 

 

2. Is there any manual intervention in this process

 

 

2.1 if yes please explain how this is manage and time taken

 

 

2.2 if No then please explain the process that is automatic with the length of time taken in each case.

 

 

3. Please specify actual cost that this process costs

 

 

etc

 

 

Unfortunately I have left my Memory stick in my office so at this point cannot send you a draft of my CPR 18 on Cobbies.

 

 

If you can wait till tomorrow I will post one on the site.

 

 

StevePM

 

 

If you find this useful please tip my scales

[dollie]

Thanks stevepm, would like to see the full details as and when you can post. I can see your pretty clued up on this stuff, so its good to know you're there to help. Makes me feel a little less nervous about the whole thing.

[BULLDOG132]

Hi All,

Please excuse me if this ha been covered already,

 

I have received a "REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFOMATION AND CLARIFICATION" pursuant to CPR Part 18, in it they ask me to

"In relation to each charge,please clarify the following:

(a) is it the case of the claimant the same should not of been charged? (b) If yes; please explain why the claimant contends that the same should not have been charged?

© If no; is it the case of the claimant that the same should not of been charged in this amount?

(d) If yes ; please explain why the claimant contends that the same should not have been charged in this amount and identify the sum that the claimant contends should have been charged.

(e) If no please state the claimants case.

 

Now should I answer this? or should i just respond with the template letter in the beging of this thread??

 

Kindest Regards

 

Bulldog

[stevepm]

Hi Bulldog and welcome to CAG this is where your life starts to become interesting.

 

 

You CPR 18 is the standard response from Cobbies, well that what I call them.

 

 

There are two ways to look at this either:

 

 

1. You can send the response according to others which in essence rejects their request for information. The down side to this is, which I know personally, is that the judge can order you to respond to it he did in my case.

 

 

2. You can use the response and answer their questions with the replies that a number of us have come up with over time. This in essence will not give them a leg to stand on.

 

 

3. You can do number 2, then in a separate letter slap a CPR 18 on NatWest. again after a lot of thought a few of us have come up with a series of question which NatWest, we know, will not want to answer.

 

 

the choice is yours.

 

 

For points 2 and 3 I have copies of the answers and questions if you do not want to trawl the site looking for them.

 

 

StevePm

If you find this useful please tip my scales.

[stevepm]

Dollie

 

please see below. As for being clued up it is what I have learnt from other and research trust me you will become the same it time.

 

case/claim No:

In the XXXXXXX County Court

claimant

-AND-

NatWest Bank

defendant

 

Response toCourt Directions

re

Cobbetts Cpr 18

request for further information

25 May 2007

 

Q1.1 In relation to each charge please identify:

A1.1: The information within this direction was supplied within document pack supplied to the Court. However since this has been directed the response to the requested CPR18 can be found below and within the attached spreadsheet Paragraph 12 page .

(a) The dates when the charge was charged

A1.1 Date if each occasion when a penalty was charged to the account. It is noted that since the original list was compiled the defendant has seen fit to supply the missing information as requested within the original Data Information Request submitted in December 2006 and re-submitted in February 2007. The information has been gathered from this therefore has necessitated an amendment. This amendment has been highlighted within the spreadsheet.

It is also of note to the court that the original list of charges has been supplied to the defendant on two occasions the last within the Allocation Questionnaire.

(b) The amount of the same

A1.2. The amount of the same, penalty charged to the account, is given within the attached spreadsheet, it is noted that this information has been gathered via information supplied by the defendant (Bank Statements) and readily available to the defendant without this request. It is noted that sine the original submission Claim was submitted the Defendant has seen fit to supply missing information. This information has resulted in an increase of the Claimed to £6,094.86 and interest of £1,793.14 totalling sum £7,888.00.

I would therefore request that the court now accepts that the above be the amount to be repaid by the defendant.

It is also of note to the court that the original list of charges has been supplied to the defendant on two occasions the last within the Allocation Questionnaire.

© the reason(s) given for the charging of the same

The reason(s) for the charges of the same are included individually within the attached spreadsheet. This information was made available to the defendant prior to the Hearing. It is noted that this information has been available to the defendants through their own supplied information (Bank Statements).

It is also of note to the court that the original list of charges has been supplied to the defendant on two occasions the last within the Allocation Questionnaire.

1.2 In respect of each charge, please clarify the following:

(a) is it the case of the claimant the same should not have been charged.

The Claimant is aware that each charge has been debited by the Defendant from the Claimant’s account pursuant to the terms and conditions when the account was opened. However, please see my replies below.

(b) if yes; please explain why the claimant contends that the same should not have been charged:

The Claimant does not contend that the same should not have been charged; merely that the charge made should have represented the Defendant’s liquidated losses and not the fixed charges applied by the Defendant according to the terms and conditions in force at the time the charge was made.

© if no; is tit the case of the claimant that the same should not have been charged in this amount

This is exactly the Claimant’s case. Each charge debited by the Defendant from the Claimant’s bank account should not have been charged in the amount that was charged. It is the Claimant’s case that each charge is a disproportionate penalty in that each charge does not truly represent the actual cost to the Defendant. The Claimant reminds the Defendant that it has been put to strict proof in previous correspondence and/or the Particulars of Claim that the amount charged for each charge debited does truly reflect the Defendant’s costs and that they are not making a profit from such charges – in the absence of any documentation to support the Defendant’s contention that each charge debited represents the Defendant’s liquidated losses, the Claimant contends that the Defendant has no defence to the claim that each charge is disproportionate and therefore unenforceable in common law, or by the previously claimed Acts, Statutes and Regulations pleaded.

(d) if yes; please explain why the claimant contends that the same should not have been charged in this amount and identify the sum the claimants contends should have been charged

The Claimant cannot specifically reply to this request in that the amount that should have been charged cannot be specified because the Defendant has failed to reply to the Claimant’s request for a breakdown of costs incurred by the Defendant in applying charges to the Claimant’s account. The Defendant’s contentions that the charges are fair, reasonable and transparent are denied because of this material failure to disclose this information. Had the Claimant been made aware of the breakdown of each and every charge debited, the Claimant would have been able to reply to this particular request.

It is also stated that the claimant requested the court to issue directions in direct relation to the above response on the 20 March 2007.

It is also stated that the claimant requested the defendant pursuant to CPR Pt18 on the 31 May 2006 to supply information as to the same.

(e) if no please state the claimants case

The Claimant has already stated a case in the Particulars of Claim and repeats the same claims as if they were repeated in this reply. The Claimant also refers the Defendant to the answers.

2 In your claim you state "the charges are an unlawful extravagant penalty".

 

2.1 Please specify whether these charges applied were due to a breach of contract by the claimant.

The Claimant avers that the circumstances giving rise to the levying of charges by the Defendant are all breaches of the provision relating to Operations on the Account and which sets out a mandatory requirement in respect of the maintaining by the Claimant of cleared balances on the accounts. As such failure to adhere to that contractual requirement is a breach of the agreement between the Claimant and the Defendant.

The Claimant further contends that the Defendant is only entitled to be compensated by the amount it would be able to secure in a claim at common law in the event that the Claimant was individually sued for breach of contract by the Defendant. Accordingly the charges that result from the breaches are by their nature are therefore unreasonable and/or unenforceable and/or in terrorum in respect of each and every occasion that they have been debited to all of the Claimant’s accounts.

 

It is noted that the Defendant’s, NatWestPLC, own Barrister, Mr. Pilling, declared during an interview with the press following the Crown Case 22 May 2006

Mr Brennan (Barrister) Vs NatWest PLC

that “the only sustainable claim is for breach of contract”

I would put it that the Defendant now admits that there is a case for Breach of Contract.

2.2 Please identify in each case the particular breach of contract (by reference to appropriate terms of the contract and the charge relates to:

It is noted that this request is beyond that which is reasonable to request on an “as per item basis”. By agreement of the Court the claimant intends to list by generic terms those section of the Terms and Conditions as laid down.

It is of further note that the response to the above request is based on the current Terms and Conditions of the Defendant dated November 2006, however, it is noted that, when the account was first opened these T&Cs where considerably different in appearance and meaning.

It is also if note that despite request the defendant has not supplied a signed copy of the original Account Opening forms or Terms and Conditions of that era.

Operations on the account

 

If at any time we receive instructions to withdraw funds from the account where

- there are insufficient funds available to cover the withdrawal, or

- the requested withdrawal would cause an agreed overdraft limit to be exceeded

we may exercise our sole discretion and, without contacting you, either (1) refuse to pay some or all of the item and/or (2) allow an overdraft to be created or allow the borrowing limit to be exceeded (in which case, the new or excess overdraft is an unarranged overdraft).

For the purposes of assessing whether you have sufficient funds available to cover the withdrawal, or whether the withdrawal would cause an agreed overdraft limit to be exceeded, we will look at the cleared balance (plus, where applicable, any unused agreed overdraft facility) on your account at 3.30 pm on the working weekday before we receive the instruction to withdraw funds.

AND

 

Fees, Interest and Other Charges

 

Fees for operating the account and interest rates and charges payable are charged as detailed in the leaflet 'A guide to Personal Current Account Fees' relating to the account and are subject to review from time to time. If any changes are made, details of the revised charges will be sent to you at least 30 days before the implementation date for the charges.

 

In the leaflet referenced must be considered to form an integral part of the Terms and Conditions. In relation to these charges, it says

 

Unarranged borrowing - interest and fees

Interest

 

We would encourage you to agree an overdraft limit with us so you can avoid any unnecessary charges. If there is not enough money in your account and you have not contacted us to arrange an overdraft limit in advance, we may not allow you to withdraw money. Also we may not be able to pay your cheques, Standing Orders or Direct Debits... We will charge a fixed fee for each item we do not pay.

The Claimant contends that these Terms imply a term requiring that, in the proper running of the Account, sufficient funds (including any agreed overdraft facility) must be maintained in the account to cover withdrawals or the result will be a charge. (It should be noted that this Condition applies even in cases over which the customer has no control, e.g. the paying of a Direct Debit where the payment date and amount are controlled by the payee.)

 

- Further, the Claimant contends that, although these charges are referred to as “Fees for operating the account”, the Term is a clear statement that a charge will be imposed if the customer breaks the requirement that sufficient funds be in the account at the time of any withdrawal. The term itself sets out that the charge arises purely on the occurrence of the event and, as such, is a penalty or default charge rather than a fee for operating the account.

 

Further, the Claimant contends that there is a very strong argument that these charges constitute “disguised penalties” – the OFT report “Calculating fair default charges in credit card contracts - A statement of the OFT's position”, April 2006, says,

“4.21 Attempts to restructure accounts in order to present events of default spuriously as additional services for which a charge may be made should be viewed as disguised penalties and equally open to challenge where grounds of unfairness exist. (For example, a charge for 'agreeing to' or 'allowing' a customer to exceed his credit limit is no different from a charge for the customer's 'default' in exceeding his credit limit.) The UTCCRs are concerned with the intention and effects of terms, not just their mechanism. “

- On overdrafts the current Terms and Conditions say:

 

Overdrafts

 

Overdrafts are available on request ..... We may refuse to pay a cheque (or allow any other payment or withdrawal), which could have the effect of exceeding the overdraft limit. 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, or that we will pay any other cheque (or allow any other payment or withdrawal) which would have the same effect. You agree that if you or any appropriately authorised signatory on the account:

a) formally requests an overdraft limit or an increased overdraft limit and we agree to the request;

or

b) informally requests an overdraft by issuing a payment instruction in any form (e.g. issuing a cheque or making 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. If they arise through exercise of our discretion to pay items presented for payment or through payment being guaranteed to third parties, they will be an unarranged overdraft.

 

 

The Claimant contends that the word ‘variation’ is another example of the Defendant attempting to disguise penalties and that charges arising because of these contract ‘variations’ are just another form of ‘disguised penalty’.

 

The Claimant refers to the fact that normally contract variations arise because some event or circumstance has arisen during the course of the operation of the contract that was not envisaged at the time the contract was executed. In this case, the Defendant has effectively written a contract variation into the contract. The Claimant contends that this has the effect of making the subject of the variation, namely the ‘informal request for an overdraft’ a breach of the implied contract term that the customer must maintain sufficient funds in the account to cover all withdrawals.

3. In your claim you state that the charges" applied constitutes an unfair penalty under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999"

 

3.1 Please supply all of the facts relied on by the claimant in support of the contentions in Paragraph 2 above and in particular please identify the contractual provisions that the claimant alleges are invalid by reference to the Regulations.

 

The Claimant specifically pleads that the charges debited to the Claimant’s account by the Defendant are automatically unfair because, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract (which the Claimant pleads is invalid in any event) to the detriment of the Claimant. “Good faith” (as defined by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999) means that that the Defendant must deal fairly and openly with the Claimant. The Defendant has not dealt fairly and openly with the Claimant. Further, as the contractual term (i.e. each and every charge debited from the Claimant’s account according to the “contract” entered into by the parties pursuant to the Defendant’s terms and conditions, as well as the terms and conditions themselves) was not individually negotiated and was drafted in advance, the Claimant was unable to influence the substance of the term, making it unfair. In the absence of a breakdown of the Defendant's liquidated losses and/or actual costs of each and every charge applied to the Claimant's account, the contractual term in force at the time of the charge forced the Claimant to pay a disproportionately high sum to the Defendant in compensation for the Claimant’s alleged failure to fulfil his obligation.

 

If the defendant contests this does not amount to a breach of contract the claimant will contest that charges appear to represent an unfair term of contract which is contrary to the Unfair (Contracts) Terms Act 1977 s.4 and under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Para.8 and sch.2 (1) (e).The claimants account falls within the ambit of Regulation 5 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 as I am a consumer. These charges constitute an unfair penalty under reference to paragraph 1(e) of schedule 2 of the said regulations:

Indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair:

1. Terms which have the object of effect of - (e) requiring any consumer who fails his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.

 

IS this what you want or do you want the CPR on Cobbetts as well

[jabreeze]

Hi I am jabreeze

 

I am currently trying to claim my bank charges back from NatWest. I filed my first letter in February 07 and now they want to defend it in court. I am waiting for the courts to serve me with my court date.

 

The problem is that Cobbets sent me some papers yesterday, which is all baby talk to me. They are asking for further evidence from me. Can anyone advise me what other evidence do they need?

 

Thanks

 

jabreeze

[stevepm]

jabreeze do not worry this is standard from Cobbetts , I am assuming that this is a CPR18. If so just go up the page a bit and the response is there for you.

 

You may consider returning the favour on Cobbets by requesting further information again in a CPR 18 from you self requesting further information.

 

WHich for ease is copied below.

 

case/claim No:

In the County Court

 

claimant

-AND-

NatWest Bank

 

defendant

 

Request for further information and Clarification

 

NOTE – IMPORTANT

1. This request is served pursuant to CPR Part 18 alternatively to CPR Rule 27.2(3)

2. The reason(s) why this request has been served are set out in the claimants case which has been served on the plaintiff.

3. You are asked to provide a response to this request in accordance with CPR 19 by DATE 2007 (give them 14 days)

4. In the event that you do not provide an adequate response to this request by this date then the plaintiff can apply to the court for an order requiring you to provide the information requested an order to striking out the Defence.

The Request

The Defendant shall, by the 15 June 2007 thereafter file and serve a response to the Claimant's schedule, stating in respect of each item claimed;

The attached schedule lists the charges that the claimant is claiming form NatWest Bank PLC.

1 What is required by the defendant:

i. Pursuant to what contractual provision such charge was made, producing a copy of the contractual document relied upon;

ii. Whether such charge is accepted to be a penalty, and if not why not;

iii. If such charge is alleged to be a pre-estimate of the Defendant's loss incurred by the Claimant's actions (whether or not such action is treated as a breach of contract between the parties), all facts and matters intended to be relied upon as showing that such was a proper estimate of such loss;

iv. If such charges are not alleged to be a pre-estimate of the Defendant's loss incurred by the Claimant's actions then facts and matters showing the basis upon which the charge was calculated and all evidence to show that the charge was fair and reasonable.

 

2. Any witness statements.

3. Copies of decided cases and other legal materials to be relied upon.

This information to be supplied by the 15th of June 2007. If the Defendant fails to comply with this order, it is requested that the Defence be struck out without further order.

[jabreeze]

stevepm

 

Thanks for responding so quick. I have gained so much strength from this forum. I will draft my response and send it off to corbetts, and see what happens. Watch this space:)

 

Thanks

 

jabreeze

[Celicaman]

Hi all, Got a court claim in for mortgage arrears.

I have received a Part 18 request for further information from Northern rock, Not from the court.

To save filling this thread with all details, my own thread for this is

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgage-companies/96972-celicaman-northern-rock.html?highlight=celicaman+vs+northern+rock

 

any help appreciated

 

CM

[jimmymuscles]

Hi there,

 

Looks like i got the standard CPR18 response from NatWest. Keen to answer them. Do I copy the court in on the 2 example replies highlighted on the forum (ie my response and my own request for more info)?

 

Claiming £3500 by the way.

 

Regards

Jamie

[stevepm]

Hi you must copy the court on everything you do. Also remember that your CPR 18 is required to be sent seperate from the response to their CPR 18.

 

StevePM

If you find this helpfull please tip my scales

[jimmymuscles]

Cheers Steve,

 

I haven't sent the AQ yet should i ammend the sentence below or leave it in coz I will be probably be having to do it any way?

 

It is also of note to the court that the original list of charges has been supplied to the defendant on two occasions the last within the Allocation Questionnaire.

 

Also, should i change the sentence about ammendments? I made the initial request for statements back in Feb and sent letter in March. There are added charges since which i have added myself?

Cheers again

Jamie

[dollie]

Stevepm, thanks for the information, haven't been around on this site for a day or so, as been trying to sort other things out re claiming credit card charges. Gosh its all giving me a headache, but will read and digest your posts. Haven't heard anything from the court yet, but have sent a detailed description of the charges to both Cobbetts and my local county court. I suppose its just a waiting game now, but I certainly like the idea of responding in the way you have suggested. Thanks again.

[dollie]

Stevepm. Have had a good read of the response to the CPR 18, and its sooo good.It does make reference to the Particulars of claim and what was put in it. I however filed online with MCOL and was limited to what I could enter. I have prepared another longer version which I had every intention of sending but after reading lots of posts on here, didn't. Am I right in thinking if I want to send a new longer version I have to complete a form and send this off with a fee. Should I do that now or wait until whether the courts request a more detailed one? Also I didn't get an Allocation Questionnaire, that has been dispensed with!

[Celicaman]

Dolly,If you are wanting to change your POC you will have to send amendmant for N244 with fee of £35 (non reclaimable).

Have a read round the site for what to put in the amended POC. If your going to do it.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/41901-form-n244-application-notice.html

 

It will will help.

The cpr18 request is the court OR the defendant asking for more info, if there was not enough on the original MCOL or N1 POC. Quite often used as a scare & delaying tactic by the banks.

THey may or may not ask for it,

Im still working on a CPR18 now for a small claim and what to do about it. whilst a much larger one is going through to the end with very little going on (yet) both used MCOL only, so seems they are all different

Keep reading & learning before you make a decision as a lot of things at first seem relevant but after reading more, you find they dont all relate to your own claim.

If you have not done so yet, start your own thread and list on there what you have done so far, then peeps can keep up to date with your claim & offer advise

 

Good luck

 

CM

[wernhamhog]

If anyone can help will be much apreciated.. having sent initial threat of claiming i never recieved any response so went online to MCOL and filed a claim.. Through the post today i recieved a letter from Natwest solicitors stating

 

3. The defendant is embarrassed by the lack of particularity pleaded in the particulars of claim to the extent that the particulars of claim fail to disclose reasonablegrounds for bringing a claim against the Defendant. In particular the particulars of claim do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant.

 

4. the defendant invites the claimant to remedy the above. In the event that the claimant fails to do so within 14 days of the service of the defence then the defendant will apply to the court for an order striking out the particulars of claim.

 

Does anyone know how to procede with this and what i have to do. your help will be so apreciated .

[stevepm]

Hi

I would suggest the following. Send them the response that we use for the CPR 18 but take out the Questions for instance

 

Each charge debited by the Defendant from the Claimant’s bank account should not have been charged in the amount that was charged. It is the Claimant’s case that each charge is a disproportionate penalty in that each charge does not truly represent the actual cost to the Defendant. The Claimant reminds the Defendant that it has been put to strict proof in previous correspondence and/or the Particulars of Claim that the amount charged for each charge debited does truly reflect the Defendant’s costs and that they are not making a profit from such charges – in the absence of any documentation to support the Defendant’s contention that each charge debited represents the Defendant’s liquidated losses, the Claimant contends that the Defendant has no defence to the claim that each charge is disproportionate and therefore unenforceable in common law, or by the previously claimed Acts, Statutes and Regulations pleaded.

 

The Claimant avers that the circumstances giving rise to the levying of charges by the Defendant are all breaches of the provision relating to Operations on the Account and which sets out a mandatory requirement in respect of the maintaining by the Claimant of cleared balances on the accounts. As such failure to adhere to that contractual requirement is a breach of the agreement between the Claimant and the Defendant.

The Claimant further contends that the Defendant is only entitled to be compensated by the amount it would be able to secure in a claim at common law in the event that the Claimant was individually sued for breach of contract by the Defendant. Accordingly the charges that result from the breaches are by their nature are therefore unreasonable and/or unenforceable and/or in terrorum in respect of each and every occasion that they have been debited to all of the Claimant’s accounts.

 

 

The Claimant specifically pleads that the charges debited to the Claimant’s account by the Defendant are automatically unfair because, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract (which the Claimant pleads is invalid in any event) to the detriment of the Claimant. “Good faith” (as defined by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999) means that that the Defendant must deal fairly and openly with the Claimant. The Defendant has not dealt fairly and openly with the Claimant. Further, as the contractual term (i.e. each and every charge debited from the Claimant’s account according to the “contract” entered into by the parties pursuant to the Defendant’s terms and conditions, as well as the terms and conditions themselves) was not individually negotiated and was drafted in advance, the Claimant was unable to influence the substance of the term, making it unfair. In the absence of a breakdown of the Defendant's liquidated losses and/or actual costs of each and every charge applied to the Claimant's account, the contractual term in force at the time of the charge forced the Claimant to pay a disproportionately high sum to the Defendant in compensation for the Claimant’s alleged failure to fulfil his obligation.

 

If the defendant contests this does not amount to a breach of contract the claimant will contest that charges appear to represent an unfair term of contract which is contrary to the Unfair (Contracts) Terms Act 1977 s.4 and under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Para.8 and sch.2 (1) (e).The claimants account falls within the ambit of Regulation 5 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 as I am a consumer. These charges constitute an unfair penalty under reference to paragraph 1(e) of schedule 2 of the said regulations:

Indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair:

1. Terms which have the object of effect of - (e) requiring any consumer who fails his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation

HAve a look at this it is obviouse that Cobbetts are changing there attack and obviously the CPR 18 way is proving a bit of a problem for them.

But esentially do not worry.

You have submitted you spreadsheet of Charges this should include date reason e.g Charge then returned cheque Amount

Also do on to them what htey are trying to avoide Submit a CPR 18 on them but make sure that you send them in seperate evelopes with CPR 18 going first. This will mean that htey have to justify themselves.

If you need the questions for the CPR 18 then let me Know if you cannot find them on the site.

StevePM if this is helpful please tip my scales

[Celicaman]

If anyone can help will be much apreciated.. having sent initial threat of claiming i never recieved any response so went online to MCOL and filed a claim.. Through the post today i recieved a letter from NatWest solicitors stating

 

3. The defendant is embarrassed by the lack of particularity pleaded in the particulars of claim to the extent that the particulars of claim fail to disclose reasonablegrounds for bringing a claim against the Defendant. In particular the particulars of claim do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant.

 

4. the defendant invites the claimant to remedy the above. In the event that the claimant fails to do so within 14 days of the service of the defence then the defendant will apply to the court for an order striking out the particulars of claim.

 

Does anyone know how to procede with this and what i have to do. your help will be so apreciated .

 

Hi wernhamhog and welcome to CAG

First thing to do is start your own thread, go to

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/

 

When you click on start thread button a box will come up for you to name your thread and enter information in the box below.

In there type up what you have done so far ( leave out personal details) and copies of anything you think relevant to your claim, and any Questions you have ( dont forget to bookmark your new thread so you can go back to it.) This way all the CAG peeps can keep an eye on your thread as all your posts will be on one thread, and if anybody posts on it you get an email notice.

You can still post Questions on other threads as well as your own.

If you click on anybodys name, it brings up another page, on there you can click on ' threads started by......' or posts by,,,,,,,, and see what threads and posts they have been part of and how they are doing in their own claims.

(Once you have started your thread, maybe come back to this one & put your thread name / link into a post so people will have a look, but you get found in the Natwest forum anyway.)

In that part also you can send people such as moderators private questions / messages that you do not want made public, if you feel the need.

 

Ok now with ref to the above, it is typical bully tactics sent to most people, so dont worry. As i said above, this is where if you type up your thread, Put the details of your first 2 letters to the bank and then put the details of your POC ( particulars of claim ) that you put on the MCOL.( remember no personal details).

After you have done that peeps will be better able to advise on what to do, this is all standard stuff to try to get you to not bother with your claim. Stick with the template letters and help from peeps and you will get your money back..

 

Goodluck

 

Celicaman

[scrumpy1]

Thanks to Stevepm for all the really helpful posts. We received the CPR 18 request from Cobbetts together with their defence to our claim against Natwest and replied as suggested with our answers to their request for further info. together with a CPR 18 request of our own. We have given Cobbetts until 25th June to reply to our CPR 18, what do we do if as expected they ignore it? Still haven't received AQ from Court. Have our own thread at Leigh v Natwest.

[stevepm]

Scrumpy

Now there lies a question I will let you know this weekend as I ahave not picked up my post yet and The date for Snobbies to respond to my CPR was yesterday.

 

MY firsts feeeling is that I will write to the court and request that there whole defence is thrown out and that a wasted cost order is granted, But I need to have a think for a short time