Thread: First Post by Newcomer

Can you post it up please

Thanks for the reply, can you please allow me about 30mins to post it as i'm not the fastest typer in the world. Many Thanks again.

This is the defence I have received. I'm posting it in the hope that its not held as contempt of court in any way.
I will post the request form as soon as i've typed it out.

Btw. I gave all the correct info on the Moneyclaim form as suggested on this site.

DEFENCE

1. This defence is filed and served without prejudice to the Defendant's case that the Particulars of Claim do not disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim against the Claimant to recover the bank charges (and interest thereon) referred to in the Particulars of Claim or any other sum(s). In the event that the Claimant does not properly particularise his claim then the Defendant will apply to strike out the claim and/or for summary judgement in respect of the same.

2. No admissions are made as to what charges have been debited to the Claimant's bank account.

3. The Claimant refers under paragraph 3 of the Particulars of Claim to having provided the Defendant with a copy of his list of charges. The defendant has not yet received a copy of this list.
(in fact I have provided them with 2 copies)
The claimant is therefore put to to strict proof of each and every charge the subject of the claim and must identify in respect of each charge (a) the date the same was debited, (b) the amount of the same and (c) the description applied to the charge.

4. In relation to the allegation that the contractual provisions pursuant to which charges have been applied are unenforceable by virtue of the unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA 1977') and/or the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999 ('the Regulations') and/or the common law, the claimant is required to identify:

4.1 (a) the section(s) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
(b) the regulations of the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999 and (c) the principles of common law relied upon by the Claimant in alleging that the contractual provision(s) referred to are unenforceable and

4.2 the contractual provision(s) that the Claimant allege are invalid by referrence to UCTA 1977 and/or the Regulations.

Until such time as these sections/regulations/provisions are identified the Defendant cannot (save as appears below) plead to the allegation referred to in paragraph 4 above. The Defendant therefore reserves its right to plead further to the allegation once (and if) the Claimant identifies the relevant contractual information.

5. In relation to the case of the Claimant that the charges are unreasonable within the meaning of section 15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 ('SGCA') the Defendant pleads as follows:

5.1 The Claimant is required to plead and prove the necessary factors (referred to in section 15 SGSA) concerning the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant which mean that pursuant to SGSA section 15 there is an implied term that the Claimant pay a reasonable charge for the service under the contract.

5.2 Further, the Claimant is required to plead and prove (a) that the bank charges which have been debited are unreasonable; (b) all facts and matters relied upon by the Claimant in support of this case and (c) what charges would have been reasonable.

5.3 In the circumstances no grounds are disclosed for a claim that the Defendant has acted in breach of SGSA section 15.

5.4 In the circumstances (save as appears below) the Defendant is unable to plead to this allegation beyond denying that it has acted in breach of SGSA section 15 as alleged or at all. The Defendant reserves its right to plead further to this allegation once (and if) the defects in the pleaded case referred to in paragraphs 5.1-5.3 are addressed.

5.5 It is the case of the Defendant that the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant does not fall within SGSA section 15 because (a) the consideration for the servicewould be determined by the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant and (b) was not left to be determined in a manner agreed by the contract or determined by the course of dealings between the Claimant and the Defendant.

6. The Claimant's claim for costs not being suffiently particularised, the Defendant is unable to plead and reserves the right to plead upon further particulars.

7. To assist the Claimant with the proper particularisation of his claim(s), the Defendant serves with this defence a request made pursuant to CPR part 18. If the Claimant fails to provide the particulars requested in the time stipulated and/or the defects with the claim(s) (referred to in paragraph 1 above) remain then Defendant will apply to the Court for (among other things) an order striking out the claim.

8. Pending the proper particularisation of the claim(s) the Defendant is unable to plead to the Claimant's claim(s) beyond at this stage denying that the Defendant is liable to the Claimant as alleged in the Claim or at all. The Defendant reserves its right to ammend this Defence to plead further to the Claimant's claim(s) once or if the Claimant properly particularises the same.

9. Save as hereinbefore appears the Defendant joins issue with the Claimanton his claim(s) and denies that it is liable to the Claimant as alleged or at all.

Hi, here is the request form. Thanks again for taking the time to read it.

Basically the court says I have to respond in accordance with CPR part 18 by 30th of Jan. It is in accordance with CPR Rule 27.2(3)

The Request

1. In your claim you state 'Claimant claims (the) return of the amounts debited of £1207

2. Please provide the following particulars in support of your claim.

2.1 In relation to each charge, please identify (a) the date when the charge was charged; (b) the amount of the same; and (c) the reason(s) given 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? (b) If yes; please explain why the Claimant contends that the same should not have been charged? (c) If no is it the case of the Claimant that the same should not have 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 the Claimant contends should have been charged. (e) If no; please state the claimants case.

3. In your claim you state that the charges are 'unenforceable under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, the Unfair Contracts Terms Act 1977 and at Common Law' and 'they 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); (b) the regulations of the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999 (the Regulations); and (c) the principles of common law relied 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.

Phew. It seems like they are asking me to be the Claimant, Defendant and Judge as well.

Hope this can be made sense of. Best Regards

Hi, can anyone let me know how to cut and paste thread to RBS forum.
Thanks

Hi Ian

I will get it moved for you.

Uk

Originally Posted by Ian Kirkman

Hello to everyone.
Been viewing this site for a while and it seems loaded with good advice from some decent like-minded people.
I've started a case against RBS for £1200 as follows.
Initial letter sent 15th Oct. Reply was sod off with the lovely condescending footnote of 'Thank you for taking the time and trouble to write to us'
lba sent 14th Nov. Reply was offer of £672 providing I accept all future charges and that they were right to take my money etc, ect.
Claim filed online 14th Dec. Served 19th. Defence filed 16th Jan (last possible day)
The defence is the most wordy piece of legal gobbledygook I've seen, basically saying I have to furnish them with information as to 'How much their charges should be', why I think each section of law applies in each and every case and goodness knows what else.
Has anyone else had a defence like this?
I would really appreciate some advice
Good luck to everyone on this site

I have to file my POC in a few days time. I would really appreciate some advice as they are trying to get my claim struck out.