Sent off the AQ yesterday but this morning (ie before Cobbetts received their copy) I received a partial settlement offer. They owe me £1800 and they've offered £850. I've written a stiff letter back rejecting the settlement and giving them 7 days (which they gave me to accept their offer) in which to settle in full. We're getting there I think.

Hi there What do you mean by attach the schedule? my schedule of charges? Edwin

Hiya Just got through the Notice of Transfer of Proceedings and the Allocation Questionnaire (N149). Just a couple of questions. Part A - Settlement Do I wish any further action to be postponed? I'm presuming I put No in this bit? Part G - Other Information Do I need to put anything in here? All the other sections are self-explanatory. What happens if Cobbetts put that they want the claim to be postponed? Best regards Edwin

Hiya Just got through the Notice of Transfer of Proceedings and the Allocation Questionnaire (N149). Just a couple of questions. Part A - Settlement Do I wish any further action to be postponed? I'm presuming I put No in this bit? Part G - Other Information Do I need to put anything in here? All the other sections are self-explanatory. What happens if Cobbetts put that they want the claim to be postponed? Best regards Edwin

hey thanks for that, stupid of me really, however all posts now edited and number off. panic over, thanks to kind people on these boards. a letter telling them to b#**#cks has been sent Special D Edwin x

Hi there Just had a letter from Cobbetts solicitors (NatWest's) and I'm a little worried. There are loads and loads of questions in the defence document and requests for further information and clarification. They are asking me to clarify the following (taken verbatim from letter); 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. Huh? They are requiring me to identify which sections of the UCTA 1977, the Unfiar Contract Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999 "the Regulations" and the principles of common law I'm referring to They say that until I identify them the Defendant cannot plead to the allegation PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE can someone advise me as to my next move? Edwin

Hi there Just had a letter from Cobbetts solicitors (NatWest's) and I'm a little worried. There are loads and loads of questions in the defence document and requests for further information and clarification. They are asking me to clarify the following (taken verbatim from letter); 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. Huh? They are requiring me to identify which sections of the UCTA 1977, the Unfiar Contract Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999 "the Regulations" and the principles of common law I'm referring to They say that until I identify them the Defendant cannot plead to the allegation PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE can someone advise me as to my next move? Edwin

Hi there Just had a letter from Cobbetts solicitors (NatWest's) and I'm a little worried. There are loads and loads of questions in the defence document and requests for further information and clarification. They are asking me to clarify the following (taken verbatim from letter); 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. Huh? They are requiring me to identify which sections of the UCTA 1977, the Unfiar Contract Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999 "the Regulations" and the principles of common law I'm referring to They say that until I identify them the Defendant cannot plead to the allegation PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE can someone advise me as to my next move? Edwin

Hi there Sent Subject Access Request - 30.08.06 and received statements on 27.09.06 but no details of manual intervention or the fact that there wasn't any manual intervention were included. Sent Preliminary Approach for Repayment - 27.09.06 and received a standard reply from Stuart Higley on 05.10.06 Sending Letter Before Action on 06.10.06 so I will keep you posted. This site is an excellent resource so will be donating a sum when I get my money back. Because I will get it! Positive Mental Attitude. Best regards Edwin x

Hi there Am in the process of writing my LBA to Natwest having had statements sent within the time frame and then a standard letter in reply (Higley) to my Preliminary Approach. I've calculated that they've taken £1392. You can't help but feel it in the pit of your stomach when you get a standard fob off letter, even though you know it's a fob off letter. Wish me luck guys and gals! Edwin x