Hi All

Its a while since I posted but I have taken on RBS to get the unfair and unlawful charges against me refunded.I am at the court stage and the solicitors acting on behalf of RBS have just submitted a defence, they have sent me a copy.

Along with this they have sent a 'request for further information and clarification' in which they ask for information for each individual charge made over a period of six years. They ask me to identify a) the date when the charge was made.

b) the amount of the same.

c)The reasons given for charging the same.

I am absolutely sure I sent this information in my initial letter to RBS requesting repayment. I still have the list on file.

Then they go on to request and I quote;

In relation to each charge, please clarify the following;

a) Is it the case the claimant 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.

Does any body understand that?

They then go on to say;

Please specify all 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 Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA 1977); (b) the regulations of 'Unfair Contract Terms in the Consumer Regulations 1999 ('the regulations); and © the principles of common law relied upon by the claimant in alleging that the contractual provisions(s) referred to are unenforceable. Please also identify the contractual provisions(s) that the Claimant alleges are unenforceable by reference to UCTA/ the Regulations.

What is that all about? I would be grateful if anyone out there could enlighten me even a little.

How do you resond to a letter you cannot understand? Or is that its purpose?

They go on to say if I do not provide the above information in two weeks they will apply 'to the court for(among other things) an order striking out the claim.

Has anyone any experience of this type of request?

One part of me says its a load of nonsense meant to scare me, the other is scared.

Also stated in the letter is ' This request is persuant to CPR Part 18 alternatively with regard to CPR Rule 27.2(3)

Last edited by Royco : Today at 09:32. Reason: missed information

Hi Royco,

I'm pretty new to this so not going to take on the bulk of this.

If you pop 'cpr part 18' in to google you can select the following link which explains what this part of their letter relates to.

www.dca.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/practice_directions/pd_part18.htm

If you select this link and scroll down, section 1 relates to the rules RBS must have followed in constructing their response. Part 2 states the rules which you must follow in responding to them. It's not very interesting reading but I think by trying to confuse you RBS have actually given you a bit of a pointer on what is required of you in your response.

Rather than adding a huge long post I'll give you my opinion on what's in bold on your post in a minute.

Good luck!

In relation to each charge, please clarify the following;

a) Is it the case the claimant 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.

This is my thoughts on each of these points - I expect others may feel differently about these, especially someone with a background in law, but I hope for now some sense of these can be made.

a) Is your claim that you should not have been charged?

b) If yes to a; explain why you should not have been charged.

c) If no to a; is it the case that you should not have been charged this amount?

d) If yes to c; explain why you contest the amount you have been charged and identify the sum you should have been charged.

e) if no to c; please state your case.

I think this is a bit tricky as to how to approach this. On the basis that the charges are unlawful you must answer yes to a) in which case you must explain (as per part b) that you shouldn't have been charged these amounts as they are unlawfull.

On the othe hand you could answer yes to part c, but if you were to do this you would then have to 'identify the sum' you should have been charged. This is obvioulsy not too easy as these charges have been taken off of you unlawfully therefore you should be entitled to all of it back not just the difference between what you've been charged and what you should have been - whatever that would be anyway. I get the impression that they would follow the basis of the OFT ruling if you were to go down this route and refund the difference between what you've been charged and the £12 charge recommended (temporarily) by the OFT. Obviously this is not what you want.

I hope this helps for now.

Cheers

Thanks for your help.It is confusing. I have been picking it up and looking at repeatedly for the last 2 days. I am of the opinion that the RBoS solicitors do not have the right to demand this kind of information, only the small claims court does. I think its purpose is mainly to intimidate hence the overuse of legal jargon which goes against the ethos of the Small Claims court which is accessability and simplicity.

One point that strikes me in paragraph 2.2 section (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.

I believethey are asking me here to volunteer what I think I should have been charged if I accept the premise that there should be a charge if only for a stamp.

The irony is that to give an accurate and honest answer to this question I would have to be in possession of a breakdown of the costs incurred by RBoS and that is the last thing that any bank wishes to divulge, its why they do not want to go to court because if a judge asks them they will be forced to reveal that perhaps there is no cost.

If I get involved in hand to hand combat with the legal might of a major bank they will wipe the floor with me, I will end up prejudicing my own case Unless I seek the help of a solicitor and that involves costs and I am in no position to pay at the present.

I would be grateful for any experience others have had in this regard and how they dealt with it Thanks Royco

Hello again Royco,

Hope you'll forgive me for posting another message.

I think you've hit the nail on the head regarding RBS trying to confuse you, and a massive number of other people, with legal jargon.

One thing you could do is simply respond to part a of their request as 'Yes' and to part b 'Because I believe these penalties to be unlawful based on the recent ruling by the OFT'. You might want to start the second reponse with a word other than 'Because' - I can hear my English teacher right now tutting at the use of the word;) and in relation to the OFT ruling be a bit more specific as I've been pretty vague by merely mention the 'recent ruling'.

Anyway, I hope some other users start offering their advice and help you in your fight.

Good luck.

If you read this thread I think a lot of your questions are covered

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/royal-bank-scotland-bank/32948-cpr-18-requests-costs.html

Also toward the end of the thread it is suggested that if they have sent you cpr18 then you should send them one back! See the template in the thread.

There seems to be some confusion as to whether you are required to comply with cpr18 requests before the judge asks, but the consensus is, I think, that you should just fill it out anyway, it can't harm your claim and can possibly even be used against the bank....and there is a template of stock replies to cpr18