For those who remember the way County Courts operated before 1999, a CPR Part 18 Request is a "request for further and better particulars of the ..." whatever pleading was filed and served.

I will quote from the Civil Procedure Rules:

18.1(1) The may may at any time order a party to

(a) clarify any matter which is in dispute in the proceedings; or

(b) give additional informatoin in relatino to any such matter,

whether or not the matter is contained or referred to in a statement of case.

18.1(2) Paragraph (1) is subject to any rule of law to the contrary.

18.1(3) Where the Court makes an order under paragraph (1), the party against whom it is made must

(a) file his reponse; and

(b) serve it on the parties

within the time specified by the Court.

The word "order" is important. Only a Court can "order" you to provide clarification or further information.

However, click this to read the practice direction to Part 18:

PRACTICE DIRECTION – FURTHER INFORMATION - This Practice Direction supplements CPR Part 18

People seem to be under some sort of illusion that they do not have to respond to Part 18 Requests when the Defendant has served them at the same time as the Defence.

Until and unless allocation questionnaires have been filed at the Court and the District Judge has made an order allocating the claim to a track, be it the small claims track, the fast track or the multi track - all such claims are "trackless" and both parties are at risk as to costs (especially if the Defendant makes an Application to strike out the claim as have no reasonable prospects of success).

If the Defendant is successful in any application to strike claims out of Court for whatever reason, and the claim has not been allocated to a track, the Claimant is liable to pay the Defendant's costs.

Cobbetts Solicitors are based in Manchester City Centre. As such there are four grades of fee earner. On summary assessment of costs a Court will generally not allow costs to be claimed above these hourly rates:

Grade 1: solicitors with more than 8 years post-qualification experience with at least 8 years litigation experience

Grade 2: solicitors and legal executives (Fellows of the Institute of Legal Executives) with more than 4 years post-qualification experience with at least 4 years litigation experience

Grade 3: Other solicitors, legal executives and fee earners of equivalent experience

Grade 4: Trainee solicitors, para legals and other fee earners

In Manchester, since January 2005, the rates allowed for these grades are:

Grade 1: £184 per hour

Grade 2: £163 per hour

Grade 3: £137 per hour

Grade 4: £100 per hour

Be under no illusion here. In particular, with Cobbetts and RBS claims - if you do not reply to the Defendant's Part 18 Request, Cobbetts could more than likely advise their client that the best course of action to take would be to make an application to the Court to strike out your claim on the basis that you have failed to comply with a request - at the very least, the Court would order you to provide this information and pay the Defendant's costs of and occasioned by the application - at the very worst, the Court would strike your claim out and order you to pay the entirety of the Defendant's costs of the action from start to finish (only the solicitor's costs) at the rates quoted above. It is likely that Miss Burgoyne of Cobbetts would be able to charge £137 per hour for her work. It is likely that Richard Webb would be able to charge £184 per hour for his work. It is also likely that Cobbetts have some private client arrangement with RBS to charge more or less than these rates.

I work for a firm of commercial solicitors in Manchester City Centre. I am a para legal. I am not a solicitor. I am not a legal executive. I have nearly 15 years of experience in litigation matters. I am only passing on some of my experience and I apologise if anything I have said is incorrect - if you wish to obtain legal advice, you should do so independently and not rely on what you read on these forums.

On a personal note I thank you for your advice, however I would say that although a lot of people do not agree that a CPR 18 should necessarily be complied with, most are sending particulars regardless, just to be on the safe side. Also, surely cobbetts who are acting on behalf of RBS would have obtained 'particulars' from their clients in order to be fully 'armed' to take on each case?

On another personal note... think of those of us who only earn £5.00 an hour as opposed to £100 - £184 an hour and cannot afford to get proper legal advice. You yourself are sailing close to the wind I notice from your other thread! All we have is the support of others on this forum. All we can do is go by other people's experiences and learn from them. Its a leap of faith for most, a lot of whom (myself included) are living on the edge, just trying to do the right thing and get their lives on track. These people earn more in a few hours than many do in a week or even a month. We only have each other and we are doing the best we can. You do have an advantage of having knowledge of the system, and I thank you for sharing this.

Please don't take this as a personal attack, it is certainly not meant as such. it just gets my goat when big institutions, aided by money grabbing firms like Cobbetts, are playing so hard to get when refunding our money. Most people's claims are a tiny drop in the ocean compared to the earnings and profits of RBS and Cobbetts , but this country seems intent on empowering the rich and disempowering the poor. You have caught me on a very bad day I'm afraid.

I wish I did earn £100+ per hour - those rates are what solicitors charge their clients.

It does seem to me from reading a lot of these threads that Cobbetts are sending out very similarly worded Defences to our claims - in my particular case, however, I have not received anything that says they are making a request for further information pursuant to CPR Part 18.

My intention in my post above was not to shock people - but to warn of the potential risks.

My intention in my post above was not to shock people - but to warn of the potential risks.

I appreciate that, really i do. Like I said, I was having a rant about 'Them' not you at all, and I sincerely wish you all the best with your claim. I'm aware of the extortionate rates charged by solicitors, and even though they may not earn £100 an hour, I'm pretty sure its a lot more than £5 an hour!

I'm having a bad day is all, and it riles me when the rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor getting poorer. Personally, all I want is to be stable and not have to lose sleep with worry about money all the time. I want a good life for my daughter and my family without having to fight all the way to get it. Its the big firms like RBS, and their solicitors, that are standing in my way.

thanks for that I have subscribed to the thread in case this becomes an issue later with one of my claims. I have been following the CPR rules from the legal practice guide, I'm doing my ILEX next year just the legal practice sections as I'm exempt from the law papers. How is para legal work different from legal executive work?

How is para legal work different from legal executive work?

Not a lot really where I work, we only have one legal executive and she exclusively deals with industrial disease claims.

I think in general paralegals do the more "dogsbody" work on cases and the qualified bods get the glory!

I don' think I will end up like that I was a PA secretary when I was younger and will always appreciate the office staff. lol

I'm doing the CLC conveyancing course as well, should get this finished next year to, then I will be a trainee conveyacer and be given all the dogsbody work myself!

Aren't we missing the fact that it's up to the judge wether or not the cpr pt 18 request is warranted before or after AQ stage? As it is up to the Judge what track the case should be on. Cobbetts relentlessly threaten people with this but at the end of the day, they cannot provide correspondance from the Court that the Judge has allowed them to do so. If it were the case that Cobbetts could ask the Court to strike out cases on this basis, then why aren't they doing that with all of us and much earlier?

I have supplied Cobblers with information at every stage of communication and have also sent copies to the Court. When the judge decides that I need to comply with their full cpr part 18 request then I will do so (and I'm ready!) but until then, why let Cobbetts intimidate us with it? It's up to the Judge to decide wether both cases have an 'equal footing' not Cobbetts.

Wxx

there that's better! lol:rolleyes:

I'm having a bad day is all, and it riles me when the rich are getting richer at the expense of the poor getting poorer. Personally, all I want is to be stable and not have to lose sleep with worry about money all the time. I want a good life for my daughter and my family without having to fight all the way to get it. Its the big firms like RBS, and their solicitors, that are standing in my way.

You go girl! I'm TOTALLY with you there!

Wxx

Oh yes, for sure....sorry if it sounded otherwise! It's always best to make the effort and respond as best you can then the Judge will view your case more favourably......but as for paniking over such tactics, then don't....deep breath and think w****rs you don't scare me!!!

Wxx

You should make at least some response to a Part 18 Request whether or not you think the Request is warranted or not. If you make no response at all, you are leaving yourself open to an application forcing you to reply to the Request.

It is at a Judge's discretion what sanction to impose - generally, the Court favours a litigant-in-person and every opportunity to assist is given by the Court (except staff at Court who cannot give legal advice) - but if there is evidence before a Court that a Claimant has not responded at all to a Defendant's Part 18 Request, and the Defendant has made an application for costs, the Court has in its power to award costs be paid by the Claimant to the Defendant for the costs incurred by the Defendant to make its Application.

Bear in mind that if you make no response to a Part 18 Request by the Defendant, the Defendant does not have to make you aware that they have made an application - they can apply ex-parte and have the application decided by a Judge without a hearing.

The practice direction says "If the second party objects to complying with the Request or part of it or is unable to do so at all or within the time stated in the Request he must inform the first party promptly and in any event within that time." I would advise people to do that to mitigate any potential future loss. Be seen to have responded in some way rather than not at all.

It's up to the Judge to decide wether both cases have an 'equal footing' not Cobbetts.

The Civil Procedure Rules govern all these claims we have started. It is up to all parties to further the overriding objective - the "equal footing" bit:

"The Rules are a new procedural code with the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly. Dealing with a case justly includes, so far as is practicable ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing. The parties are required to help the court to further the overriding objective." (Part 1 Civil Procedure Rules)

I am in the same boat as everyone else who has started claims against the banking institution. I am not intending to have a dig at anybody. I just wanted to lend a bit of my experience to others. I will say that in nearly 15 years of experience that I have never once seen a letter being sent by any firm I have worked for that a Part 18 Request (or its predecessor) will not be replied to because it is not appropriate to do so given the track allocated to the claim.

I've posted your thread in 'legalities' I hope you don't mind, but i just wanted to bring it to the 'general' attention of people.

Wxx

I didn't know there was a "legalities" area of the forum - but yep that's great, the more the merrier - it's all people power in the end

I'm posting to follow this thread

If I send a request for information under part 18 as a defendant to the claimant, and I get no response (and this is prior to allocation questionnaire being received) can I make an application to the court to order they comply with the request ?

Would I make an application of this type on the N244 form and send a copy of the part 18 request to the court for consideration ?

 

Also the original part 18 request woul this go to the claimants solicitors or directly to the claimants ?

First question: Yes, you can make an Application to the Court to order they comply with your Request. If they have not complied before the time that Allocation Questionnaires have been filed, you should make your Application at the same time the AQ is filed.

Second question: Yes, make your Application on form N244. Attach a copy of your original Part 18 Request to the Application. If you had no response at all to your original Part 18 Request, send your Application in duplicate to the Court with the fee of £35, marking on it that you do not wish the Court to consider your Application at a hearing. If you have had some response to your Part 18 Request, but your Request has not been fully complied with, then send your Application to the Court in triplicate with the fee of £65 and the Court will then set a date for the hearing of your Application.

Third question: Your Part 18 Request should be sent to the Claimant's Solicitors if the Claimant is represented, otherwise directly to the Claimant.

And at no stage, the claimant is informed of any of this? There is no instruction from the Court, no copies of the application (N244) forwarded to the claimant?

Wxx

Morning Willow

Unfortunately, you are right.

The best thing to do is make some response to the Request, either by saying you object, or you've given all the information you can, or sending what you've already sent, or asking for more time to reply. Then they will not be able to file an Application asking for an Order without a hearing.

Morning to you too :>)

All of us, as far as I know have responded to them objecting to the request and by sending information (sent many many times before!) which is relevant. Most of us have duplicated all correspondance and sent this on to the Court, Cobbetts know this but at no point do they say that they have applied to the Court for a full response to their request. Infact, our objections are usually met with increasing offers to settle......it just doesn't fit!

Wxx

Its a delaying tactic & intended to put the claimant off making them feel they are out of their depth & thereby accepting a lower offer.

Perhaps we should be turning the tables & making part 18 requests of them.

Can anyone post the Cobbets complete defence on here.

Just typed out the whole bloody thing and then when I posted it transferred me to 'log in' and the whole lot was lost!

All of us, as far as I know have responded to them objecting to the request and by sending information (sent many many times before!) which is relevant.

Which was my point originally, before I went off on a bit of a rant (sorry, I have calmed down now I promise!). People are responding, even though it's not necessarily compulsory to do so, just to make sure all bases are covered.

Just typed out the whole bloody thing and then when I posted it transferred me to 'log in' and the whole lot was lost!

Willowb, I usually type things up in Word first, then copy them onto posts.. you can make sure it's saved then!

good point.....will do! :>)

Wxx

Request is as follows

1. In your claim you state "the claimant is claiming the return of money taken by the defendant in charges"

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 © 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? © 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 claimant's case.

3. in your claim you state that " the bank's charges are a disproportionate penalty and therefore unenforceable as they are contrary to common law".

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

4.1 please specify the clause(s) pursuant to which the charges were applied:

4.2 Please specify whether the charges applied were due to a breach of contract by the claimant;

4.3 please identify in each case the particular breach of contract (by ref to appropriate term(s) of the contract that the charge related to.

5. In your claim you state that the charges are "invalid under the unfair (contracts) terms Act 1977s.4 and unfair terms in consumer contracts regs 1999 para 8 and sch.2(1)(e)" and "unreasonable within the meaning of the supply of goods and services act 1982 s.15"

6. Please specify all of the facts relied on by the claimant in support of the contentions in para 5 above, and in particular please identify the contactual provision(s) that the claimant alleges are invalid by ref to UCTA/the Regs

Defence is as follows

1. This defence is files 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 claimants do not properly perticularise their 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 claimants bank account.

3. The claimants are put to strict proof of each and every charge the subject of claim and must identify in respect of each (a) the date of the same was debited, (b) the amount of the same and © the description applied to the charge.

4. In relation to the allegation that the bank charges amount to an unenforcable penalty the defendant pleads as follows:

4.1 In order for the claimants to sustain a claim that the charges debited by the defendant are in the nature of a penalty they will plead and (There is a whole page of their defence missing here......what are RBS paying you Cobbetts? The next two pages were in the wrong sequence also!!!)

5.2 In relation to the case of the claimants that the contractual provisions are invalid pursuant to section 4 UCTA 1977 then it is the case of the defendant that the section is not applicable as any contractual provisions relating to charges do not relate to the defendant's liability for negligence or breach of contract.

5.3 In relation to the case of the claimants that the contractual provisions are invalid pursuant to the regualtions the defendant pleads as follows:

5.3.1 Schedule 2 to the regulations is an indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair" (emphasis supplied)

5.3.2 If the claimants are to rely upon paragraph 1(e) of schedule 2 to the regulations then they are required to plead and prove in relation to each bank charge that they seek to recover the matters referred to in paragraph 5.1 above and all facts and matters relied upon in alleging that the sums paid are disproportionately high.

5.3.3 In the circumstances no grounds are disclosed for a claim that the contractual provisions (whatever they are alleged to be - see paragraph 5.1 above) falls foul of the regulations and in particular paragraph 1 (e) of schedule 2.

5.3.4 the defendant is therefore unable (save as appears below) to plead to this allegation beyond denying that any bank charges have been applied pursuant to terms which contravene the regulations. the defendant reserves its right to plead further to this allegation once (and if) the particulars referred to in paragraph 5.3.2 above are provided.

5.3.5 Without prejudice to paragraph 5.3.4 in the case of the defendant that the regulations have no application because the charges amount to payment for services provided by the defendant and the adequacy (or otherwise) of consideration paid under a contract for services is not an issue to be judged by reference to principles of fairness under the regulations.

5.4 In relation to the case of the claimants that the charges are unreasonable within the meaning of SGSA section 15 the defendant pleads as follows:

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

5.4.2 Further, the claimants are 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 claimants in support of this case and © what charges would have been reasonable.

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

5.4.4 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 (think something's missing here also???) para.8 and sch.2(1)(e)"and"unreasonable within the meaning of the supply of goods and services act 1982 s.15"

6. Please specify all of the facts relied on by the claimant in support of the contentions in paragraph 5 above, and in particular please identify the contractual provison(s) that the claimant alleges are invalid by reference to UCTA/the regulations.

Sorry if there are any mistakes......brain's a bit crap today!!!!

Wxx

The defence with my responses are in bold & you may wish to ammend or await other comments

Cobbets

In your claim you state "the claimant is claiming the return of money taken by the defendant in charges"

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 © 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? NO it is the amount that’s in dispute (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 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 claimant's case. The claimant case has already been stated, but for the avoidance of doubt the claimant attaches further copies of the original claim & supporting documents. As the claimant is requested in defence para 2.2 (d) to identify what amounts to a lawful charge the claimant requires that the defendant disclose their accurate costs as based upon the method of calculation as recommended by the OFT

3. in your claim you state that " the bank's charges are a disproportionate penalty and therefore unenforceable as they are contrary to common law". As set out in the claimants claim and statute as specified in said claim

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

4.1 please specify the clause(s) pursuant to which the charges were applied: As the defendant is the issuer of the contract terms this is a matter for the defendants to address but for the avoidance of doubt the claimant contends that the imposition of the said charges (quote their clause/contract terms here) and as set out in the attached schedule causes the levying of the defendants unlawful charges as being self evident.

4.2 Please specify whether the charges applied were due to a breach of contract by the claimant; This is a matter for the defendants to address but for the avoidance of doubt the unlawful charges were imposed by the defendant for the following reasons (then highlight each charge in your schedule & the reason for it)

4.3 please identify in each case the particular breach of contract (by ref to appropriate term(s) of the contract that the charge related to. Each case of unlawful charges reclaimed is identified by the claimant in the schedule submitted as part of the claim. It is the claimants submission that all such charges are unlawful irrespective of the defendants terms of contract

5. In your claim you state that the charges are "invalid under the unfair (contracts) terms Act 1977s.4 and unfair terms in consumer contracts regs 1999 para 8 and sch.2(1)(e)" and "unreasonable within the meaning of the supply of goods and services act 1982 s.15"

6. Please specify all of the facts relied on by the claimant in support of the contentions in para 5 above, and in particular please identify the contactual provision(s) that the claimant alleges are invalid by ref to UCTA/the Regs Specify the case law & the regulation together with the views of the OFT& that it is your contention that your claim is not just a matter of law but of fact as found in the above mentioned case law & statute

• 
   
  Defence is as follows
   
  1. This defence is files 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 claimants do not properly perticularise their claim then the defendant will apply to strike out the claim and/or for summary judgement in respect of the same. (You have now in your response)
   
   
  
  
• 2. No admissions are made as to what charges have been debited to the claimants bank account

The defendants make no admission of charges having been applied to the claimants account. The claimant requires that the defendant be put to strict proof of same

3. The claimants are put to strict proof of each and every charge the subject of claim and must identify in respect of each (a) the date of the same was debited, (b) the amount of the same and © the description applied to the charge. The response as set out in the proceeding clause 4.2 clarifies this request

4. In relation to the allegation that the bank charges amount to an unenforcable penalty the defendant pleads as follows:

4.1 In order for the claimants to sustain a claim that the charges debited by the defendant are in the nature of a penalty they will plead and (There is a whole page of their defence missing here......what are RBS paying you Cobbetts? The next two pages were in the wrong sequence also!!!) The claimant is unable to respond to 4.1 as the defendant has failed to supply pages (whatever)

5.2 In relation to the case of the claimants that the contractual provisions are invalid pursuant to section 4 UCTA 1977 then it is the case of the defendant that the section is not applicable as any contractual provisions relating to charges do not relate to the defendant's liability for negligence or breach of contract. In 5.2 the defendant claims that they are not subject to the statute. However it is the claimants contention that the defendant cannot include in their terms of contract any term which negates any claim for negligence or unlawful conduct

5.3 In relation to the case of the claimants that the contractual provisions are invalid pursuant to the regualtions the defendant pleads as follows:

5.3.1 Schedule 2 to the regulations is an indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair" (emphasis supplied)

5.3.2 If the claimants are to rely upon paragraph 1(e) of schedule 2 to the regulations then they are required to plead and prove in relation to each bank charge that they seek to recover the matters referred to in paragraph 5.1 above and all facts and matters relied upon in alleging that the sums paid are disproportionately high. Again & with a mind to costs the claimant relies on (quote the case law & statute) insofar that all the said penalty charges are recoverable, as clearly identified in the claimants schedule supplied,

are unlawful & recoverable with interest & costs from the defendant

5.3.3 In the circumstances no grounds are disclosed for a claim that the contractual provisions (whatever they are alleged to be - see paragraph 5.1 above) falls foul of the regulations and in particular paragraph 1 (e) of schedule 2. The claimant disagrees with the defendants submission & considers this a matter for trial

5.3.4 the defendant is therefore unable (save as appears below) to plead to this allegation beyond denying that any bank charges have been applied pursuant to terms which contravene the regulations. the defendant reserves its right to plead further to this allegation once (and if) the particulars referred to in paragraph 5.3.2 above are provided. The claimant considers this a matter for trial

5.3.5 Without prejudice to paragraph 5.3.4 in the case of the defendant that the regulations have no application because the charges amount to payment for services provided by the defendant and the adequacy (or otherwise) of consideration paid under a contract for services is not an issue to be judged by reference to principles of fairness under the regulations. The claimant disagrees but if the defendant claims the unlawful charges to be a service charge the claimant requires that the defendant be put to strict proof as to same

5.4 In relation to the case of the claimants that the charges are unreasonable within the meaning of SGSA section 15 the defendant pleads as follows:

5.4.1 the claimants are required to plead and prove the necessary factors (referred to in section 15 SGSA) concerning the contract between the claimants and the defendant which mean that pursuant to SGSA section 15 there is an implied term that the claimants pay a reasonable charge for the service under the contract. The claimant requires the defendant in the context of this matter to be put to strict proof to substantiate the term (quote) reasonable charge for service (unquote)

5.4.2 Further, the claimants are 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 claimants in support of this case and © what charges would have been reasonable. The claimant submits the charges are unlawful as a matter of law & fact. Until the defendant is ordered to disclose their actual costs the claimant is unable to determine what is a reasonable charge. Therefore to clarify matters it shall be requested of the Court that the defendant be required to make full disclosure in order to determine a non-indemnity fair & reasonable charge

5.4.3 In circumstances no grounds are disclosed for a claim that the defendant has acted in breach of SGSA section 15. It is the submission of the claimant that the defendants have acted in breach of both common law & the UCCR reg (quote it)

5.4.4 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 (think something's missing here also???) para.8 and sch.2(1)(e)"and"unreasonable within the meaning of the supply of goods and services act 1982 s.15" The claimant is unable to respond to 5.4.4 because of the defendants part missing statement

6. Please specify all of the facts relied on by the claimant in support of the contentions in paragraph 5 above, and in particular please identify the contractual provison(s) that the claimant alleges are invalid by reference to UCTA/the regulations. The claimant has supplied all the relevant details & now considers that all further matters are for consideration at trial