Fantastic THANK YOU SO MUCH

Ok so this is all then I just send this to Cobbett and the courts (recorded) Kind regards

Thank you so much here is a final draft to help others IN THE XXXXXXX COUNTY COURT CLAIM NO. XXXXXXXX BETWEEN XXXXXX XXXXXXXX Claimants -and- NatWest BANK PLc Defendant RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR FUTHER INFORMATION AND CLARIFICATION The Request 1. In your claim you state: Claimant claims [the] return of £1401. 2. Please provide the following particulars in support of your claim: 2.1 In relation to each charge please identify (a) the date when the charges was charged; (b) the amount of the same; and © the reason(s) given for the charging of the same. I refer the Defendant to the attached spreadsheet/document I have prepared in which I have listed the following: (a) the date when each charge was charged; (b) the amount of the same; and © the reason given by the Defendant 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? The Claimant is aware that each charge has been debited by the Defendant from the Claimant’s account pursuant to the terms and conditions signed by the Claimant when the account was opened. However, please see my replies below. (b) If yes; please explain why the Claimant contends that the same should not have been charged? The Claimant does not contend that the same should not have been charged; merely that the charge made should have represented the Defendant’s liquidated losses and not the fixed charges applied by the Defendant according to the terms and conditions in force at the time the charge was made. © If no; is it the case of the Claimant that the same should have been charged in this amount? This is exactly the Claimant’s case. Each charge debited by the Defendant from the Claimant’s bank account should not have been charged in the amount that was charged. It is the Claimant’s case that each charge is a disproportionate penalty in that each charge does not truly represent the actual cost to the Defendant. The Claimant reminds the Defendant that it has been put to strict proof in previous correspondence and/or the Particulars of Claim that the amount charged for each charge debited does truly reflect the Defendant’s costs and that they are not making a profit from such charges – in the absence of any documentation to support the Defendant’s contention that each charge debited represents the Defendant’s liquidated losses, the Claimant contends that the Defendant has no defence to the claim that each charge is disproportionate and therefore unenforceable in common law, or by the previously claimed Acts, Statutes and Regulations pleaded. (d) If yes; please explain why the claimant contends that the same should not have been charge in this amount and identify the sum the claimant contends should have been charged. The Claimant cannot specifically reply to this request in that the amount that should have been charged cannot be specified because the Defendant has failed to reply to the Claimant’s request for a breakdown of costs incurred by the Defendant in applying charges to the Claimant’s account. The Defendant’s contentions that the charges are fair, reasonable and transparent are denied because of this material failure to disclose this information. Had the Claimant been made aware of the breakdown of each and every charge debited, the Claimant would have been able to reply to this particular request. (e) If no; please state the claimant case. The Claimant has already stated a case in the Particulars of Claim (or as amended) and repeats the same claims as if they were repeated in this reply. The Claimant also refers the Defendant to the answer at 2.2© above. 3. In your claim you state that the charges are "unenforceable under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, the unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and at Common law" and 2they 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 contentions 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 replied upon by the Claimant in alleging that the contractual provision(s) referred to are unenforceable. Please also identify the contractual provision(s) that the claimant alleges are unenforceable by reference to UCTA/ the regulations. The Claimant specifically pleads that the charges debited to the Claimant’s account by the Defendant are automatically unfair because, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract (which the Claimant pleads is invalid in any event) to the detriment of the Claimant. “Good faith” (as defined by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999) means that that the Defendant must deal fairly and openly with the Claimant. The Defendant has not dealt fairly and openly with the Claimant. Further, as the contractual term (i.e. each and every charge debited from the Claimant’s account according to the “contract” entered into by the parties pursuant to the Defendant’s terms and conditions, as well as the terms and conditions themselves) was not individually negotiated and was drafted in advance, the Claimant was unable to influence the substance of the term, making it unfair. In the absence of a breakdown of the Defendant's liquidated losses and/or actual costs of each and every charge applied to the Claimant's account, the contractual term in force at the time of the charge forced the Claimant to pay a disproportionately high sum to the Defendant in compensation for the Claimant’s alleged failure to fulfil his obligation.

Ok so I've refered to the link you sent and put it together is this correct??? If so do whom then do I send it to (you've all been so helpfull thankyou) and if I win I'll be sure to make a contribution The Request 1. In your claim you state: Claimant claims [the] return of £1401. 2. Please provide the following particulars in support of your claim: 2.1 In relation to each charge please identify (a) the date when the charges was charged; (b) the amount of the same; and © the reason(s) given for the charging of the same. I refer the Defendant to the attached spreadsheet/document I have prepared in which I have listed the following: (a) the date when each charge was charged; (b) the amount of the same; and © the reason given by the Defendant 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? The Claimant is aware that each charge has been debited by the Defendant from the Claimant’s account pursuant to the terms and conditions signed by the Claimant when the account was opened. However, please see my replies below. (b) If yes; please explain why the Claimant contends that the same should not have been charged? The Claimant does not contend that the same should not have been charged; merely that the charge made should have represented the Defendant’s liquidated losses and not the fixed charges applied by the Defendant according to the terms and conditions in force at the time the charge was made. © If no; is it the case of the Claimant that the same should have been charged in this amount? This is exactly the Claimant’s case. Each charge debited by the Defendant from the Claimant’s bank account should not have been charged in the amount that was charged. It is the Claimant’s case that each charge is a disproportionate penalty in that each charge does not truly represent the actual cost to the Defendant. The Claimant reminds the Defendant that it has been put to strict proof in previous correspondence and/or the Particulars of Claim that the amount charged for each charge debited does truly reflect the Defendant’s costs and that they are not making a profit from such charges – in the absence of any documentation to support the Defendant’s contention that each charge debited represents the Defendant’s liquidated losses, the Claimant contends that the Defendant has no defence to the claim that each charge is disproportionate and therefore unenforceable in common law, or by the previously claimed Acts, Statutes and Regulations pleaded. (d) If yes; please explain why the claimant contends that the same should not have been charge in this amount and identify the sum the claimant contends should have been charged. The Claimant cannot specifically reply to this request in that the amount that should have been charged cannot be specified because the Defendant has failed to reply to the Claimant’s request for a breakdown of costs incurred by the Defendant in applying charges to the Claimant’s account. The Defendant’s contentions that the charges are fair, reasonable and transparent are denied because of this material failure to disclose this information. Had the Claimant been made aware of the breakdown of each and every charge debited, the Claimant would have been able to reply to this particular request. (e) If no; please state the claimant case. The Claimant has already stated a case in the Particulars of Claim (or as amended) and repeats the same claims as if they were repeated in this reply. The Claimant also refers the Defendant to the answer at 2.2© above. 3. In your claim you state that the charges are "unenforceable under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, the unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and at Common law" and they must be reasonable under s15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 Answer to follow – I can’t find a copy of the terms and conditions to reply to the request for specific clauses. 4. Please specify all of 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 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 replied upon by the Claimant in alleging that the contractual provision(s) referred to are unenforceable. Please also identify the contractual provision(s) that the claimant alleges are unenforceable by reference to UCTA/ the regulations. The Claimant is aware that the Defendant contends that the charged applied to the Claimant’s account were due to a breach of contract on the part of the Claimant strictly according to the terms and conditions applied to the operation of the Claimant’s account; however, the Claimant has pleaded that the Court make a declaration that the contract between the Claimant and Defendant is invalid in light of the claim that the Defendant’s charges are disproportionate and therefore unenforceable and/or invalid. This decision will be made by a Judge at the final hearing of this matter. It is therefore not for the Claimant to reply as to whether the charges applied were or were not due to a breach of contract by the Claimant. The Claimant specifically pleads that the charges debited to the Claimant’s account by the Defendant are automatically unfair because, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract (which the Claimant pleads is invalid in any event) to the detriment of the Claimant. “Good faith” (as defined by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999) means that that the Defendant must deal fairly and openly with the Claimant. The Defendant has not dealt fairly and openly with the Claimant. Further, as the contractual term (i.e. each and every charge debited from the Claimant’s account according to the “contract” entered into by the parties pursuant to the Defendant’s terms and conditions, as well as the terms and conditions themselves) was not individually negotiated and was drafted in advance, the Claimant was unable to influence the substance of the term, making it unfair. In the absence of a breakdown of the Defendant's liquidated losses and/or actual costs of each and every charge applied to the Claimant's account, the contractual term in force at the time of the charge forced the Claimant to pay a disproportionately high sum to the Defendant in compensation for the Claimant’s alleged failure to fulfil his obligation.

The Request 1. In your claim you state: Claimant claims [the] return of £1401. 2. Please provide the following particulars in support of your claim: 2.1 In relation to each charge please identify (a) the date when the charges 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 that the same should not have been charged? © If no; is it the case of the Claimant that the same should have been charged in this amount? (d) If yes; please explain why the claimant contends that the same should not have been charge in this amount and identify the sum the claimant contends should have been charged. (e) If no; please state the claimant case. 3. In your claim you state that the charges are "unenforceable under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, the unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and at Common law" and 2they 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 contentions 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 replied upon by the Claimant in alleging that the contractual provision(s) referred to are unenforceable. Please also identify the contractual provision(s) that the claimant alleges are unenforceable by reference to UCTA/ the regulations.

Ok Nattie thanks for your help....

I sure did and it cost £100, which was cashed so I know it was received

The schedule of charges where sent with the request letter to Natwest and then with the LBA, then again with the reply to (part 18 request) to Cobbett. Shall I send another copy? A schedule of charges were never sent to the courts as it was done via money claims online.

So basically does this IT IS ORDERED THAT 1. Unless the claiment do file and serve replies to Part 18 request by 4.00pm 5th March 2007 2. Defendant do serve and file proposed directions for the disposal of the case by 4.00 12th March 2006 Mean unless I now reply to the Part 18 it will be thrown out of court

Is this what your after ;-( Particulars of Claim 1. The Claimant has an account ******** with the Defendant, opened Oct 2002 2. Since 28/11/02 the Defendant debited charges and interest in respect of purported breaches of contract. 3. Defendant is aware of all details as a list of charges has already been supplied. Another copy will be sent. 4. Claimant contends: (a) The charges exceed the Defendant's losses caused by the breaches; (b) The Term permitting the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and at Common Law. 5. Claimant claims: (a) return of the amounts debited of £1,401.00; (b) Interest per S.69 County Courts Act 1984 of 8% - £245.07 continuing at 8% until judgment or settlement at a daily rate of £0.30; 6. Alternatively, if the charges are a fee for a service, then they must be reasonable under S.15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. 7. Costs allowed by the Court.

Sorry I'm confused and scared what do you mean by "Particulars of the Claim" ??? I've sent my AQ and sent cobbett the letter above regarding the part 18 including breakdown of charges...

I already sent this letter to Cobbett???

Great site, its helped me all the way but... I just received a letter from the courts today saying: IT IS ORDERED THAT 1. Unless the claiment do file and serve replies to Part 18 request by 4.00pm 5th March 2007 2. Defendant do serve and file proposed directions for the disposal of the case by 4.00 12th March 2006 can anyone explain what this is all about Thank you

Thanks, just done my MCOL for Natwest £1,646.07 at least this time I'm not threating I'll just sit back.

Phew, I must admit I was starting to panick a little so my advice to anyone would be HANG in there they dont want to pay you so they'll try and scare you off so be strong and stand your ground the money is rightfully your......... I receive full payment of £3879.78, started the ball rolling the end of September. Got Natwest to tackle now £1400 + I'll be making a donation x