I wouldnt worry about it, they wont persue it, however here was the responce i sent to the cpr part18 request, they then sent the aq back with nothing in the further info box, maybe this will prevent them wasting others time.
pursuant to a CPR Part 18 Request
In response to your request for further information and clarification as requested for by Cobbetts acting on behalf of NatWest Bank PLC, pursuant to your CPR Part 18 Request, dated *********** 2006.
The information you request has been provided previously in the schedules attached to each letter of correspondence to yourself and NatWest Bank at every stage of this claim. However, to clarify further I offer a more comprehensive breakdown of the claim’s finer details.
As to part 1 of the request, whereupon you query as to ’what account’ we are dealing with, surely this is clear. All account details are on the attached schedule, and have been provided consistently with each letter of correspondence. Is there really still doubt over which account and branch this claim appertains to?
As to Part 2 of the request, whereupon you ask me to identify the date, amount and reason of each charge, once again the attached schedule lists the finer details of all the above.
As to Part 3 of the request, whereupon you ask why we are contesting the charges and why we should not have been charged each amount, the answer is again clear. We contest the legality of your client’s charges and need to see a breakdown of your client’s charge structure to ascertain exactly what level of disproportionate charging has taken place. However, this request has been ignored throughout this claim. This information, which NatWest appears reluctant to offer is the matter of contention in this case. If you were to offer a full breakdown of the costs incurred to Natwest Bank PLC where there has been a charge, then and only then could we come to a clear understanding whether such a high charge is disproportionate or not. It is my belief that they are disproportionate and as such contrary to common law and consumer regulations.
If you could supply us and the courts with this information we would clearly understand exactly how disproportionate or otherwise they are.
However, you have consistently been reluctant to share with myself or the courts a breakdown of such costs appertaining to each charge. Therefore, for further clarification, I raise the following points and ask for a more detailed response from yourselves to help us settle this matter.
If NatWest Bank PLC are claiming their charges are ‘fair and reasonable‘, I contest this. Moreover, I believe they exceed each transgression and are disproportionate contrary to common law and consumer legislation.
Without the benefit of a detailed breakdown of your costs, here’s why I believe the charges are disproportionate to offer further clarification of my claim number: ******* NatWest claim their charges are ’fair and reasonable’. However, their method of charging its customers is an automated process. As such and being that the process operates many thousands of times each day and millions each year, it is fair to assume that the cost of it is spread over this huge number of transactions and is shared equally between them. Without a clear breakdown of your client‘s costs, one can only assume this cost. As it is automated and spread across a wide range of customers I assess that this cost is most probably less than 50p per transaction. Unless you can clearly offer evidence to the contrary, why should it cost any more?
If NatWest Bank PLC do not contest this issue and are instead claiming that their charges are the price of a contractual service, then I claim that their price exceeds what is reasonable as required by S.15, Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. In it, S.15 says that where no price is agreed at the time the contract is made, that a reasonable price will be implied. I believe this not to be the case when charging £35 per automated refusal? A bank is a High Street business. Normal mark-ups on the High Street businesses are 100%. It would not be reasonable for Banks to mark up significantly higher than this without a full and detailed explanation to their customers.
I hope this response has covered all aspects of your request for further information satisfactorily? For a fair and reasonable hearing I would expect you on behalf of NatWest to offer a detailed summary of how their costs appertain to each charge as listed, or offer a settlement in full for my claim.
CC ******* County Court
This is also in this thread somewhere, it was posted her by someone else, so i take no credit for me, but it give them the info they require while making them look like a bunch of mupets at the same time, lol