Cobbetts Cpr part 18 request/CPR part 16.4.1

[mickpercy]

hello everyone. Thanks for all the info. We are part way through two claims and have won one already (still holding back the furore until the current one wins). I have sent off the letter (as per your template above) and they still refuse to accept it claiming they need further information otherwise they will ask the court to rule against the claim?

 

Any ideas on what to do next?

 

Yours hopefully

 

Mickpercy

[mickpercy]

Have had similar problems and the court have asked us to fill out a CPR Part 18 Request (which also costs an extra £100). In it they seem to be asking what reason do we think we have been overcharged amongst other things. I have written a response based on research into the template letters on this site and various threads appertaining to these issues. Here's the letter: Either it will help or someone will come back and suggest we have done the wrong thing... Either way will people please respond

 

Cobbetts LLP

Ship Canal House

King Street

Manchester

M2 4WB

********** 2006

 

In Response to a Request For Further Information

pursuant to a CPR Part 18 Request

Dear Sir,

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.

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

*********

CC ******* County Court

 

 

 

How does this sound and if good use it yourselves and add/take away where you think necessary. If not please let me know?

 

Yours ready to kick Asswest's Nat

 

Mickpercy

[mickpercy]

CPR Part 18 - We've had to do one at the request of the judge. There were further requests as Natwest felt we weren't being very clear, so we wrote a letter claiming it was simply a matter of just how disproportionate these charges were... and something we could never easily ascertain as the bank would not release this information. Here's the Judge's request after he recieved that letter:

 

The papers in this claim were considered by Judge ***** who allocated the Claim to the Small Claims Track to be heard. He also went on to say...

 

The Following Direections Apply To This Claim:

 

1. The Claimant shall within 28 days of service of this order send to the Defendant and to the Court:

 

a) A schedule setting out each charge repayment of which is sought, showing the date, amount, and reason given (if any) for that charge being made;

 

b) Copies of any statement or other document relied upon as showing that each and everry charge has been made;

 

c) A statement of evidence of all matters relied upon as tending to show that the charges are irrecoverable as penalties or otherwise;

 

d) Copies of decided cases and other legal materials to be relied upon.

 

If the Claimant fails to comply with this order, the claim will be struck out without further order.

 

Sounds pretty tough, but we think we have all the answers to these questions... Interestingly the Court order continues...

 

2. The Defendant (Natwest Bank) shall within 28 days thereafter file and serve a response to the Claimant's schedule, stating in respect of each item claimed;

 

a) Pursuant to what contractual provision such charge was made, producing a copy of the contractual document relied upon;

 

b) Whether such charge is accepted to be a penalty, and if not why not;

 

c) If such charge is alleged to be a pre-estimate of the Defendant's loss incurred by the Claimant's actions (whether or not such action is treated as a breach of contract between the parties), all facts and matters intended to be relied upon as showing that such proper estimate of such loss, and all evidence to be adduced at trial as to what the true cost of dealing with the matter was.

 

d) Any witness statements.

 

e) Copies of decided cases and other legal materials to be relied upon.

 

If the Defendant fails to comply with this order, the Defence will be struck out without further order.

 

 

So you see, at worst fellow CAB' ers, answer the four questions above and you will win your case. We're not there yet but, we know we will be and wish to impart this knowledge to anyone worrying about CPR Part 18 Requests. For this case to get to the courtroom, Natwest will have to give a detailed breakdown of costs to them appertaining to each charge levvied. Will they do it. No, as if the lose (very likely) this will set a precident, which means everyone can claim back their charges simply and quickly.

 

Hope this is useful

 

Cheers and good luck everyone