I've been asked to provide more information. I've searched it on the forums but couldn't find anyone with CPR 18 in this section. It says I haven't sent a list but I included a list in both my first letter and LBA. They want to know what I think is reasonable and give me the reason why and the principles behind the regulations I am relying on? Is there a standard response to this, so boring how they try to put ppl off and yet the all end up paying!!

Look at the stickies in the Natwest forum, I can see at least 2 there. (Can't tell you if they're relevant to you, though, have never had to deal with one of 'em). ;-)

Excellent, I'll check through it tomorrow

OK the problem is I haven't so far received an AQ only submitted a claim a short time ago. I received a note to say the claim has been accepted and will be defenceded then this huge defence came through demanding copies of charges which were already sent twice so far!

The letter refers to the AQ a few times... do I need to wait until I get the AQ through before sending off ?

just came through the post seconds in lol the AQ which is being dispersed with. I'll send off the draft

The Request

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

2.1 In relation to each charge please identify (a) the date when the charges was charged; (b) the amount of the same; and © the reason(s) given for the charging of the same.

I refer the Defendant to the attached spreadsheet/document I have prepared in which I have listed the following:

(a) the date when each charge was charged;

(b) the amount of the same; and

© the reason given by the Defendant for the charging of the same.

2.2 In relation to 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 signed by the Claimant 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 it the case of the Claimant that the same should 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 charge in this amount and identify the sum the claimant 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.

(e) If no; please state the claimant case.

The Claimant has already stated a case in the Particulars of Claim (or as amended) and repeats the same claims as if they were repeated in this reply. The Claimant also refers the Defendant to the answer at 2.2© above.

3. In your claim you state that the charges are "unenforceable under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, the unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and at Common law" and 2they must be reasonable under s15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982

4. Please specify all of the facts relied on by the Claimant in support of the contentions in paragraph 3 above, and in particular please identify (a) the section(s) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 ("UCTA 1977"); (b) the regulations of the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999 ("the regulations"); and © the principles of common law replied upon by the Claimant in alleging that the contractual provision(s) referred to are unenforceable. Please also identify the contractual provision(s) that the claimant alleges are unenforceable by reference to UCTA/ 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.

We've received a letter offering £229.53 which apparently covers charges, well it doesn't lol before claim it totaled £256.01 and since one of two more mistakes (but won't happen again) now £303.20.

The court has also written asking for a reason as to why they shouldn't wait until the OFT case concludes... ?? Any Ideas?