Saw this today.

From a case they are defending........this is what they are asking.

Information requested by banks solicitors:

1. Account details (No., name, sort code)

2. Breakdown of charges

3. In relation to claim that the charges are a disprpportionate penalty and therefore unenforceable: a. Specify the clause(s) persuant to which the charges were applied -b. Specify whether the charges were due to a breach of contract - c. Identify in each case the particular breach by reference to terms of contract.

4. Please specify all the facts relied on in claim that charges were invalid under the Unfair (Contracts) Terms Act 1977 and Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regs 1999 Goods & Services.

5. In relation to each charge please clarify: a. is it the case of the claimant the same should not have been charged? b. If yes, pl;ease explain why. c. If no, is it the case that you should not have been charged in this amount? d. If yes, please explain why. e. If no, please state the case.

Sounds to me its another stalling tactic, they should by this stage (Solicitors) have been told what the Claiment is claiming for, Why and under what statues etc

Without prior correspondence that the Claiment has posted, and the replies, It would be unwise to reply back to the solicitor at this stage

Or am I not getting something here ??

Yes its a challenge but a poor one.

This is why its so important to be thorough and make sure they have been given all this info.

I read recently of a Barclays case whereby the claimant was being asked to complete the allocation questionaire.

Barclays claimed he had not given them an account number/list of charges etc.

This despite him sending letters/schedules from the beginning.

Then there was Abbey.........they complained to the Judge that the defendant had not sent a copy of their terms and conditions in with the claim ??

:o

Another one here

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/6505-bandit-natwest-story.html

This time Nat West.

Actually no I think this was quickly drafted as a short but swweet response for Toilet Bandit to send in.

hey, sounds like i got exactly the same defence letter!...Cobbetts must just have it on their computers ready to be sent out....

i replied.....

I acknowledge the receipt of the defence posted by Cobbetts on behalf of Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS).

In Cobbetts defence response, they requested further information under CPR Part 18. The guidance that I have received indicates that CPR Part 18 does not apply to the small claims track and is therefore irrelevant in this case. I am sure that Cobbetts are already aware of this and I can therefore only conclude that the inquiry was intended to intimidate. However I am aware that Part 27.2(f) applies subject to paragraph 3 of part 27.2 which states that the Court of its own initiative may order a party to provide further information if it considers that is appropriate to do so. In acknowledgment of this and in good faith as well as respect for the court I will provide the following information.

breakdown of charges, account details etc...also put RBS details of charges etc...(know didnt really need to but didnt get reply in my post about what to say back so thought better safe than sorry, and anything to possibly speed it up!)

However as stated in my original claim and letters the charges laid out in the original contract are unlawful penalty charges and cannot be legally enforced. i.e. charges in relation to unauthorised Overdraft, Referral, Chq/DD/SO Unpaid and Default Notice etc are a disproportionate penalty and therefore unenforceable as they are contrary to common law. Further, as a disproportionate penalty they are invalid under 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). In the event that the charges are not a penalty then they are unreasonable within the meaning of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 s.15.

I hope this clarifies the situation for you.

...............

sent this off to cobbetts and the court couple of weeks ago now, does anyone know what the next stage is, and when? cheers

Simplt really...........they have to go on and defend..........or pay up !!

(and we all know which one it will be )

Have just had the smae letter - I didn't catch this thread before updating my own, but info here is proving helpful - many thanks.

Ajs - rbos

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/royal-bank-scotland-bank/6974-ajs-rbos.html

yeah I had exactly the same as well, just re sent the spreadsheet and account number and told them no to other CPR part 18 requests.