Claim No: XXXXXXXX

Dear Sir/Madam

Claimant’s response to the request for further information

We have received a request from the defendants for further information, which they say is made pursuant to CPR Part 18.

However it is highly likely that this claim will be allocated to the small claims track and we know part 18 does not apply.

The Defendant’s part 18 request suggests very strongly that we have not supplied them with enough information to mount a defence. Despite this they have submitted a very full and complicated defence.

We are anxious to be seen to be co-operating as much as we can and therefore we are providing the following information and sending a copy to the defendants.

In section 2 of their request, the defendants ask for a detailed breakdown of the charges that have been applied to our account and our account details. We do not understand why they require this information as we sent their clients copies on 7th August and 12th August 2006. We also filed a copy with my claim form which you will find in the court file and presumably the court must have served this on the defendants with the claim form.

In section 2.3 the defendant asks why the charges should not have been levied against us, but it has already been explained in the claim, the charges are disproportionate penalties. In fact section 3 of the defendants request makes it fully clear they are aware to the answers to their section 2.3 as they specifically refer to the reasons for my claim.

Section 4 of the defendants request; ask for details of our account contract with the defendant. However the defendants are clearly fully aware of the details of the contract, the contract is their own terms and conditions imposed by them with no basis for negotiation. Further more the defendant has purported to rely on upon the terms and conditions in order to implement charges against us. The defendants must understand very well, which are the contractual terms in issue.

We are sure the court is already aware of the current flood of litigation which is being brought against all of the major banks on the issue of penalty charges. We can tell the court that hundreds such of claims have been issued at courts around the country, many having been allocated to the fast track and there are at least 10 cases transferred to the mercantile court in London to be heard as a test case. However to date every case has been settled by the banks before going to a hearing, even Barclays bank which is the defendant at the Mercantile court cases has started contacting the claimants and making an offer of full settlement in order to avoid the case being fully heard.

The Natwest, the defendants in our own case has settled over 180 cases, many of them for much larger amounts than my own claim.

The banks are fully aware of the bank charges issue. The Office of Fair Trading conducted a 2 year investigation into Credit Card penalty charge cases and found they were unfair and unenforceable at law. The OFT also said there was a read-across to banks of their penalty charges. The OFT has urged the banks to comply with their findings. The banks have refused and the OFT in entering into further discussions with them.

In the meantime the banks oblige thousands of their customers – very ordinary citizens, to bring court claims which their banks or their solicitors then go on to complicate the process with procedural devices such as the present part 18 request.

Only those claimants of sufficient heart and tenacity are eventually paid out in full. We are sure the great majority give up altogether or accept reduced payments. This is the deliberate intention of the banks style of litigation.

The banks style of litigation is intimidatory and it is sham.

The banks style of litigation would be vexatious if it were not for the fact they are the defendants.

The Master of Rolls in 2004 addressed an international conference on vexatious litigation. He told the conference the evil of vexatious litigation was that it undermined justice and was a burden to the public resource.

We can not imagine any better description of the result of the banks style of litigation.

It really should not be for an ordinary citizen to bear the burden of bringing the banks back within the rule of law.

The OFT has the power to deal with this matter and is tasked and resourced to do the job. If the OFT were to seek an injunction then this burden upon the private individual could probably be brought to an end within a week.

Yours Faithfully

Mod note; thought this was needed.

cc Cobbets LLP

What a fabulous letter!

Question. Since I've just received my Allocations Questionaire along with the name of my local court, would I still send this letter to Northampton?

This site is an amazing resource!!!!

No Brainstorm, you send it to your local court.

Great letter!

After spending the day reading many threads i am now at the stage of doing the following as I recieved my AQ and CPR18 within days of each other;

1). Sending AQ back to local court which includes a 'Draft order for directions' (see below link) and will cover with a copy of the above letter on it, plus the £100 -are cheques ok?

2). Sending standard response to Cobbetts for their request of more information by CPR part 18(even though all info already supplied in schedule of charges and POC) plus a copy of the AQ, Draft Order for directions and letter sent to the court above.

Some people at this stage have sent Cobbetts their own CPR18 request asking for more info relating to the actual costs incurred in penalty charges however i think the "letter to Court re CPR18 request" should be enough to speed things up with the court. What are the thoughts on this?

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/53570-new-strategy-allocation-questionaires

Do we think this is all to much info? or duplication? :-?

thanks

Claire

Thanks for all the info on the site - Advise meon this one.

Just got of the phone re Natwest SAR - They sent statements only. They also charged £5.

Cobblers acknowledged the request in the defence 21/12/06 yet i still await settlement of the full amount of charges and costs + interest and part two of the claim for failing to provide information.

Natwest stated that they have sent all SAR information via statements.

I stated clearly in the request all information pertainin to the named person on the subject access request including notes transaction manual interventions electronic information telephone calls and faxs or emails.

They stated that they have not presented the £10 cheques and only charged £5 as they felt it was what i wantyed and they had complied, i was required to provide date and times of all the other information if i want it disclosed.

My head hurts now. Halifax understood the request 800 pages later. Is this one of there tactics and what should i say now.

PLEASE HELP

Ed, did you receive a CPR18 from Cobbetts and send your letter as above to the court instead of replying to Cobbetts?

Is it a must, to send a letter to the court about not doing the CPR 18?

Claire, Yes cheques ok, and The letter was all I sent, which put an end to the CPR18 matter.

Sbfido, It is thier choice not to cash the cheques. I would do nothing, and just let the claim take it's natural course. As they have failed to provide you with the information, they would be hard pushed to rely on any relevant information if it ever got to court. Just hang tight and waith for the Allocation questionairre.

Mupster, Yes I did and also sent a copy to Cobbetts. At the time they were asking for a strike out with most claims on the AQ but didn't on mine after the letter.

Peed orf, You must respond to it. Some of those that have failed to do so have been ordered to by the court.

Hope this helps folks

Already sent the allocation questionairre and spoke to the court manager as still not had information was informed Judge would look at my claim on Monday and schedle for directions as this is a double whammy - DPA and Charges.

Has an offer of £1000 as good will jesture - as if!

Kind regards

SBFIDO

Dear ED1237,

thanks for that. I'll send the letter and cheque with the AQ and wil include the draft for directions. Copy to Corbbetts and lets hope I get a cheque soon. Knowing my luck i'll be the first one to be made an example of in court!

Sorry if i missed part of your thread but am i right in thinking you settled after sending this letter or are you still waiting for a reply? Didn't quite understand what you wrote about them striking out (who Cobbetts or the court)? Sorry brain hurts from all of this!:-|

Will update on my progress soon.

Claire

Hi Edi1237,

I'm not too good with this 'legalease' so could you please show me the sections, in your defence (from Natwest), that paragragh 6 & 7 of your letter refer to?

I wouldn't want to be just quoting verbatim without knowing what I'm talking about!

Thanks

Hello, I'm a bit confused, do I send this in addition to the letter to Cobbetts about the cpr part 18 request, the one that's also in the "stickies"? And then copy this to Cobbetts as well?

Peed orf, You must respond to it. Some of those that have failed to do so have been ordered to by the court.

Sorry.. respond to the court, or the CPR 18? :-?

Hi Peed'orf,

From what i understand the best way is to send the letter by Ed above to the court explaining that you have been asked to fill in the Part 18 request but don't see why blar bla. Copy this letter to the defendants solicitors (in my case Cobbetts I am also sending them a copy of the AQ). That way you have actually told the court that you have supplied the information already (in all you prelim letters and LBA) and also Cobbetts are aware you have already supplied info and have aknoweldged their request but have told the court why you haven't responded in full.

hope this helps.:?

Claire

Oh no!!!!

I have just realised my POC is wrong!!!!

I added on my interest twice making a claim much higher than i should have- am i doomed!!! :shock: Have rung MOCOL who have advised me to contact the local court that it was transferred to and ask them if i can change it at this stage - i think i may have to pay another fee of £35.00. With the timing of it all ( just about to send the AQ) i think i will look very stupid and probably Natwest will be rubbing their hands together in glee. Has anyone else made any changes to the POC, if so please let me know how you got on?!!!!

I should prob send a letter explaining this to Cobbetts what does everyone think?

HELP!

Hi Edi1237,

I'm not too good with this 'legalease' so could you please show me the sections, in your defence (from NatWest), that paragragh 6 & 7 of your letter refer to?

 

I wouldn't want to be just quoting verbatim without knowing what I'm talking about!

 

Thanks

I 'officially' received my cpr part18 today ...everything makes sense now!

Thanks

Hi Claire...I also muffed up with the interest calculations on my POC, have you had any feedback or found anything out on how to rectify this? Please see my thread about it...The Cobbett Slayer is going to look at mine later on today so maybe his thoughts may apply to your case? Hope this helps!!

Hi Dobster,

haven't heard from any one on this but i rang the court who advised me to fill in an amendment form N244 they were going to post me one last week but i still haven't recieved it.

What i did, was respond to the Aq and included in my cover letter a note to say I am currently filling a N244 to amend as follows.... My uncle ( an ex solicitor) has said not to worry as claims are changed all the time.

So Aq sent last thursday and still nothing in the post. Most people in the natwest forum seem to have had an offer of some sort at the Aq stage

Hi claire,

click on the following link. This will take you straight to the court service and allow you to download an N244.

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/HMCSCourtFinder/GetForms.do;jsessionid=DC7758380F5344F1188011E2FC94B674

Thanks for your help Ed, i've just recieved the form N244 and a bit confused about what to put on it.

This is what i have planned to write (the bit in capitals) - does anyone have any opionons on this?

PART A

1. I, MY NAME

2. Intend to apply for an order, a draft of which is atached, THAT AMENDS MY PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

3. Because AN ERROR WAS MADE ON THE ORIGINAL CLAIM

PART B

1. I wish to rely on : tick one

a. the attached(withness statement)(affidavit)

b. my statement of case

c. evidence in part C in support of my application I HAVE TICKED THIS ONE

PART C

I wish to rely on the following evidence in support of this application:

1. A COPY OF THE SCHEDULE OF CHARGES INCLUDING THE STATUTORY 8% INTEREST ACCRUED FROM THE DAY THE MONEY WAS TAKEN FROM MY ACCOUNT UNTIL THE DATE OF THE CLAIM 27th NOVEMBER 2006

2. A REVISED COPY OF THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM (HERE I WILL JUST CHANGE THE BIT THAT WAS WRONG REGARDING THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE CLAIM)

I'm sure this is fairly straight forward but am so used to the help on this site i can't go it alone!

thanks

Claire

Claire, Yes cheques ok, and The letter was all I sent, which put an end to the CPR18 matter.

 

Sbfido, It is thier choice not to cash the cheques. I would do nothing, and just let the claim take it's natural course. As they have failed to provide you with the information, they would be hard pushed to rely on any relevant information if it ever got to court. Just hang tight and waith for the Allocation questionairre.

 

Mupster, Yes I did and also sent a copy to Cobbetts. At the time they were asking for a strike out with most claims on the AQ but didn't on mine after the letter.

 

Peed orf, You must respond to it. Some of those that have failed to do so have been ordered to by the court.

 

Hope this helps folks

I have also received a request for a 'strike out' - what does this mean and what if anything have i done wrong?

ty

S

slight issue with this letter that perhaps someone can clarify, has anyone else received the exact same letter, or can the letter to court reCPR18 be tailored to argue the below?

in my Request for Information, I dont have a Section 2.3, my request for information goes as follows:

The Request

1. In your claim you state "Claimant claims (the) return of the amounts debited of £11,135,04"

2. Please product the following particulars in your 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 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 that the charges are: "unenforcable under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the commow 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 contents 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 relied upon by the Claimant in alleging that the contractual provision(s) referred to are unenforceable. Please also identify contractural provision(s) that the Claimant alleges are unenforceable by reference to UCTA/the Regulations.

Hi alimehmet

I too received the exact same request for info as you yesterday, it reads as yours does above.

Have you worked out how you will be replying to this yet?

I may use the other template letter to reply directly to cobbetts re. CPR18 and then send a revised copy of the above letter direct to courts with copies to other party respectively.

Have you yet received your AQ?

Brownie24

Hi alimehmet

 

I too received the exact same request for info as you yesterday, it reads as yours does above.

 

Have you worked out how you will be replying to this yet?

 

I may use the other template letter to reply directly to cobbetts re. CPR18 and then send a revised copy of the above letter direct to courts with copies to other party respectively.

 

Have you yet received your AQ?

 

Brownie24

Hi Brownie24

I adjusted the Letter to CPR18 to state the following, i think it is ok, perhaps ED127 or someone with more legal knowledge then me could comment. I think it is ok otherwise

Claimant’s response to the request for further information

I have received a request from the defendants for further information, which they say is made pursuant to CPR Part 18.

However it is highly likely that this claim will be allocated to the fast claims track and I know part 18 does not apply.

The Defendant’s part 18 request suggests very strongly that I have not supplied them with enough information to mount a defence. Despite this they have submitted a very full and complicated defence.

I am anxious to be seen to be co-operating as much as I can and therefore I am providing the following information and sending a copy to the defendants.

In section 2.1 of their request, the defendants ask for a detailed breakdown of the charges that have been applied to our account and our account details. I do not understand why they require this information as I sent them a copy on both 6th November and 23rd November 2006. I have also filed a copy with my Allocation Questionnaire form, as well as an additional copy sent to Defendants

In section 2.2 the defendant asks why the charges should not have been levied against me, but it has already been explained in the claim, the charges are disproportionate penalties.

Section 4 of the defendant’s request; ask for details of our account contract with the defendant. However the defendants are clearly fully aware of the details of the contract, the contract is their own terms and conditions imposed by them with no basis for negotiation. Further more the defendant has purported to rely on upon the terms and conditions in order to implement charges against us. The defendants must understand very well, which are the contractual terms in issue.

I am sure the court is already aware of the current flood of litigation that is being brought against all of the major banks on the issue of penalty charges. I can tell the court that hundreds such of claims have been issued at courts around the country, many having been allocated to the fast track and there are at least 10 cases transferred to the mercantile court in London to be heard as a test case. However to date every case has been settled by the banks before going to a hearing, even Barclays bank which is the defendant at the Mercantile court cases has started contacting the claimants and making an offer of full settlement in order to avoid the case being fully heard.

The NatWest, the defendants in our own case has settled over 180 cases, many of them for much larger amounts than my own claim.

The banks are fully aware of the bank charges issue. The Office of Fair Trading conducted a 2-year investigation into Credit Card penalty charge cases and found they were unfair and unenforceable at law. The OFT also said there was a read-across to banks of their penalty charges. The OFT has urged the banks to comply with their findings. The banks have refused and the OFT in entering into further discussions with them.

In the meantime the banks oblige thousands of their customers – very ordinary citizens, to bring court claims which their banks or their solicitors then go on to complicate the process with procedural devices such as the present part 18 request.

Only those claimants of sufficient heart and tenacity are eventually paid out in full. I are sure the great majority give up altogether or accept reduced payments. This is the deliberate intention of the banks style of litigation.

The banks style of litigation is intimidatory and it is sham.

The banks style of litigation would be vexatious if it were not for the fact they are the defendants.

The Master of Rolls in 2004 addressed an international conference on vexatious litigation. He told the conference the evil of vexatious litigation was that it undermined justice and was a burden to the public resource.

I cannot imagine any better description of the result of the banks style of litigation.

It really should not be for an ordinary citizen to bear the burden of bringing the banks back within the rule of law.

The OFT has the power to deal with this matter and is tasked and resourced to do the job. If the OFT were to seek an injunction then this burden upon the private individual could probably be brought to an end within a week.

Yours Faithfully

cc Cobbets LLP

Hi Guys and Gals.

Can anyone advise me on a query I have??

I am at the stage where Cobblers have sent a CPR 18 request...I have sent the "Bog Off" letter response....

The Court has been re-allocated to my local county and I have completed the AQ and sent the standard letter advising the court of intimadatory tactics along with it.....and paid the £100 fee...my claim is for £1850.

The questions I have are:

1. At what stage do I get to claim the £100 court fee back?

2. Do I guess that as I completed my POC/claim on MCOL the court will request a CPR 18 as my POC are not as full as they would have been had it not been done through MCOL?

Sorry if the post is all over the place but am stressing abit about this.....****ing bank...why doesn't it just pay up what is owed???

Cheers Guys