Natwest defending

[karen jenkins]

Hi everybody, I need a bit of help on the defence that Cobbetts are lodging. I received details from Cobbetts as follows; 1) This defence is filed and served without prejudice to the Defendant's case that the Particulars of Claim do not disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim against the Claimants 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 Claimants do not properly particularise their 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 Claimants the opportunity to properly particularise their claim. 3) No admissions are made as to what charges have been debited to the Claimants' bank account. 4) In relation to the allegation that the contractual provisions pursuant to which the charges have been applied are unenforceable pursuant to the Unfair Contracts Terms Act 1977 ("UCTA 1977") and/or the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999("the Regulations") and/or the common law. 4.1 The Claimants are required to identify the relevant sections of UCTA1977/ the Regulations and identify the contractual provisions that they allege are invalid by reference to UCTA1977 and/or the Regulations. Until such time as these sections/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 Claimants identify the relevant sections/contractual provisions. 4.2 Without prejudice to the above, in relation to the case of the Claimants that the contractual provisions are invalid pursuant to the Regulations it is the case of the Defendant that the Regulations have no application because the charges amount to payment for services provided by the Defendant and the adequacy(or otherwise) of consideration paid under a contract for services is not an issue to be judged by refence to principles of fairness under the Regulations. 5. Save as hereinbefore appears the Defendant joins issue with the Claimants on their claim(s) and denies that it is liable to the Claimants as alleged or at all. Has anyone else had a defence worded the same? Any comments/pointers for info would be much appreciated, thanks for taking the time to read this.

[cumbria123]

standard defence, you`ll get a cpr pt 18 next, fill it in and return it. it`s all just stalling tactics. keep going.

[karen jenkins]

Thanks very much, I'm so relieved.

[cas1blue]

How do I complete a CPR 18 in relation to specifiying the facts relied upon in support of my contention (in my claim) that NWB charges were 'unfair under schedule 2e of the "Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999" and in patricular 'identify the contractual provisions that the Claimanats allege are invalid by reference to the Regulations'.

 

Help!

[danmoz98]

standard defence, you`ll get a cpr pt 18 next, fill it in and return it. it`s all just stalling tactics. keep going.

 

Excuse me, but I thought the general consensus from past threads on the subject of the CPR18 was that you DO NOT have to reply to it as it isn't required for the small claims track?

[bogey]

Wot happened?! Did you have to go to court?