Thanks Bigredbus, and to everyone else who has responded, your help is very much appreciated... I need to reply to acknowledge the receipt of their Defence, so have now come up with the following letter in response:- *********************************************************** Cobbetts LLP Ship Canal House King Street Manchester M2 4WB 10th October 2006 By Post & E-mail Re: Claim No: XXXXXXX ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED Dear Sir I acknowledge the receipt of the defence posted on behalf of National Westminster Bank plc. In response to your queries, using the same numbering as per your defence for simplicity:- 4.1 a) the relevant sections of The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 are 3 and 11 and Schedule 2 b) the relevant regulations of The Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999 are 5, 6, and 8, and Schedule 2, 1. c) the principle of common law that the claimant relies upon is relating to liquidated damages and penalties in contracts. Having now identified the relevant contractual information as requested, I trust that my claim can now proceed to court. For clarity, I confirm that the charges I am claiming were applied to the following account: Account Name: Mr xxxxxxxxx Account No: xxxxxxxx Sort Code: xx-xx-xx Full details of each and every charge applied to the account are already in the possession of the Defendant, from whom I obtained the information prior to this claim. However details of all charges, the amounts, dates debited and a description of each is attached. I will forward a copy of this letter to Hereford County Court for their records. Yours faithfully *********************************************************** PLEASE CAN SOMEONE REASSURE ME THAT THIS IS OKAY AND THE RIGHT COURSE OF ACTION??

*bump* Pleeeeeeeeeeeease help!

Nope, still no luck??! Really starting to brick it now - I need to acknowledge my receipt of their defence at the very least... I've PM'd "Bankfodder", but I imagine he's a very busy man.... Can anyone tell me the Moderator of this forum to PM?? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGH!!!!

*bump* Any more thoughts please on what I do next??!

So do I need to provide them with this info?? Or can requests for additional info only come from the Court?? And does the fact they have requested a Case Management Conference mean one will definitely take place?? The bar stewards have got me rattled!!!!

Cheers again for the replies to date... In answer to some of the points raised:- - I entered my claim via the N1 route, not MCOL. - There is no mention of a "CPR Request" anywhere on the document from Cobbetts. The text is as above, plus the formailities above and below. - My Particulars of Claim were as follows:- 1. The Claimant had an account xxxxxx ("the account"), sort code xx-xx-xx, with the Defendant which was opened on or around 5th October 1995. 2. During the period in which the account was operating the Defendant debited numerous charges to the account in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant and also interest on the charges once applied. The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimant. 3. A list of the charges applied is attached to these particulars of claim. 4. The Claimant contends that: a) The charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature; are not genuine pre-estimate cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant; and are not intended to represent or related to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit. b) The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations (1999), the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the common law. 5. Accordingly the Claimant claims: a) the return of the amounts debited in respect of charges in the sum of £1,800 and any interest charged thereon; b) Court costs c) interest persuant to section 69 County Courts Act at a rate of 8% per year from 17th December 2004 to 5th September 2006 as set out on the attached list of charges of £118.06, or at such a rate and for such periods as the court deems just and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier payment at a daily rate of £0.40p. I suppose they want me to quote them the actual relevant sections of the 2 Acts I entered in my Particulars?

Thanks for the replies, but to be honest I'm none the wiser... As Lager_Lou says, thay don't actually mention the term CPR Part 18 Request? What should my response to Cobbetts be?? PLESE HELP ME, I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO NEXT??!

Morning All, I have a £2K claim with NatWest which I originally submitted via an N1 Form to my local County Court in early September. My Particulars of Claim were detailed, and I also attached a full listing of all the transactions I am reclaiming. Anyway, Cobbetts filed their defence on Friday (Oct 6th), surprise, surprise, the 28th day; the letter I received reads as follows:- ********************************************************** DEFENCE 1. This defence is filed and served without prejudice to the Defendant's case that the Particulars of Claim do not disclose resonable 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. On allocation the Defendant invites the Court to direct that there be a case management conference in order for the Court to consider the making of appropriate orders to give the Claimant the opportunity to properly particularise his claim. 3. No admissions are made as to what charges have been debited to the Claimant's bank account. 4. In relation to the allegation that th e contractual provisions pursuant to which the 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 ("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; and 4.2 the contractual provision(s) that the Claimant allege are invalid by reference 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. Save as hereinbefore appears the Defendant joins issue with the Claimant on his claim(s) and denies that it is liable to the Claimant as alleged or at all. ********************************************************** Although this is what I expected from reading through the forums, I am struggling to understand the terminology/legal jargon it contains, as I'm sure is the intention. :? (Paragraph 2 is of particular concern to me as I haven't yet seen this mentioned elsewhere). Please can someone translate it for me, and advise me on what I do next? Should I expect an Allocation Questionnaire from the Court this week? Is their correspondence to me a CPR Part 18 Request, or would they specifically ask for this by name if this were the case??! Also, please can someone reassure me by confirming that this is their standard Defence? Many Thanks in Advance...

Thanks to all who have responded to my thread! One thing I'm unsure of, with regards to PhantomReclaimer's post, is surely the claim is deemed as settled once a signed acceptance is returned? Because isn't the acceptance of a full and final amount?! I'm well confused now. If not, couldn't you accept any off, bank it as a partial settlement, and continue until the full amount is received??

Currently two days. Surely my acceptence was conditional, therefore they have failed to meet this?

I hand wrote the following on their standard acceptance letter which I signed & returned (by fax & by post) - I also put the same on the fax header sheet:- I am accepting this offer of £1,800 on the basis that I will receive payment within 10 working days. If this timescale cannot be met, please contact me on xxxx xxxxxx. Please advise?!

Morning All, I have searched the forum for an answer to my questions, but can't seem to find anything similiar.. Basically I have been through the reclaim process via the N1 route - my bank offered me 50% which I rejected; they then offered me an amount which related to 100% of the charges + my court costs of £120 (total of £1,800), but NO INTEREST (which totalled another £400)... At the time I was happy with this as I needed the cash, therefore I accepted the offer on the basis that I would recieve payment within 10 working days. I have chased a couple of times and got nowhere - the 10 days have now expired and there is still no sign of a cheque.. Is this condition of acceptence valid?? Can I now bank the cheque as a part payment and pursue the remainder of my claim? How would the court view this if it went all the way?? Could I lose the lot??! You help would be very much appreciated.

Hmmm........ Due to the fact not had one single reply I've had to go it alone and hope for the best... This was my final version:- ************************************************************ Response to settlement offer. Dear Sir Thank you for your letter dated 12th September 2006. I will accept the £870.74 sum offered only as part settlement and on the clear understanding that I will pursue recovery of all charges imposed on my account, totalling £1,621.48. In addition, I also request the following, in line with my County Court claim:- a) Court costs of £120 b) Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act at a rate of 8% a year from October 2000 to 5th September 2006 (as set out in the attached schedule of charges) of £536.83, or at such rate and for such periods as the court deems just, and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier payment at a daily rate of 0.36p. Total £2,278.31 excluding daily interest rate As I have stated in my previous letters I believe that the regime of 'fees' which First Direct Plc have been applying to my account in relation to direct debit refusals, exceeding overdraft limits and so forth are unlawful at Common Law, Statute and recent Consumer regulations. My argument is that the bank's charges are a disproportionate penalty and therefore unenforceable as they are contrary to common law. I have repeatedly asked the bank to justify their charges but to date they have declined to do so. I trust this clarifies my position. Yours faithfully ********************************************************** Any feedback would still be welcome & much appreciated!

Response to settlement offer. Dear Sir Thank you for your letter dated 12th September 2006. I respectfully decline your offer of settlement and request, once again, that First Direct Plc return to me all charges imposed on this account, totalling £1,621.48. In addition, I also request the following, as per my County Court claim:- a) Court costs of £120 b) Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act at a rate of 8% a year from October 2000 to 5th September 2006 (as set out in the attached schedule of charges) of £536.83, or at such rate and for such periods as the court deems just, and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier payment at a daily rate of 0.36p. Total £2,278.31 excluding daily interest rate I will accept the £870.74 sum offered only as part settlement and on the clear understanding that I will pursue recovery of the remainder through my County Court Claim. As I have stated in my previous letters I believe that the regime of 'fees' which First Direct Plc have been applying to my account in relation to direct debit refusals, exceeding overdraft limits and so forth are unlawful at Common Law, Statute and recent Consumer regulations. My argument is that the bank's charges are a disproportionate penalty and therefore unenforceable as they are contrary to common law. I have repeatedly asked the bank to justify their charges but to date they have declined to do so. I trust this clarifies my position. Yours faithfully

Having re-read my own post, I think I need to change "you" to First Direct throughout the letter... I'll amend then post my updated version!