Vs Natwest final stage I THINK

[mscrownjuls]

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

[cumbria123]

This is what you need to do:

 

 

Dear Sir or Madam:

Claim No:

 

I Acknowledge the receipt of the defence posted on behalf of National Westminster Bank plc.

I am not prepared at this stage to answer the CPR Part 18 Request. I anticipate that the claim will be allocated to the small claims track and would not then expect to have to deal with a Part 18 request since these are specifically excluded under Part 27 unless the court specifically orders me to do so of its own initiative

Furthermore I consider that the CPR part 18 request is intimidatory and I intend to bring the intimidation to the notice of the court. However, for clarity, I confirm the charges I am claiming were applied to the following account:

Account Name:

Account number:

Sort Code:

 

Please also find enclosed a breakdown of all charges I am claiming.

Yours Faithfully

[mscrownjuls]

I already sent this letter to Cobbett???

[Guest NATTIE]

If the court has asked you for the info you need to give it, can you please put down what you put on your Particulars of the Claim. Please use x's for account number and sort code and x's if you want for the amount. We can advise further with that info

[mscrownjuls]

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...

[Guest NATTIE]

When you sued the bank what did you write on the claim form?

[mscrownjuls]

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.

[mscrownjuls]

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

[Guest NATTIE]

did you include a schedule of charges with the claim?

[mscrownjuls]

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.

[Guest NATTIE]

give me a few secs and i will ask someone to take a look at it.

[Guest NATTIE]

did you file your Allocation Questionnaire?

[mscrownjuls]

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

[Guest NATTIE]

ok the next post I hope will be from a specialist in these matters and a diamond on the threads

[mscrownjuls]

Ok Nattie thanks for your help....

[Michael Browne]

Can you post Cobbetts Part 18 request.

 

 

Look here for responses to a previous Part 18 request. It is several months old and therefore may differ from yours, but should answer most of it:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/royal-bank-scotland/32948-cpr-18-requests-costs-5.html#post267852

[mscrownjuls]

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.

[Michael Browne]

Ok this virtually identical although paragraph no's are different.and are all answered in DNA's response. See the above link.Any problems, come back and post here

[Michael Browne]

IN THE XXXXX COUNTY COURT

 

CLAIM NO.

 

 

BETWEEN

 

XXXXXXX

Claimants

 

-and-

 

NATWEST BANK PLc

Defendant

 

 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR FUTHER INFORMATION AND CLARIFICATION

 

Put the above header and print thr responses below.

 

 

 

[mscrownjuls]

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.

[Michael Browne]

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.

 

If the defendant contests this does not amount to a breach of contract the claimant will contest that charges appear to represent an unfair term of contract which is contrary to the Unfair (Contracts) Terms Act 1977 s.4 and under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Para.8 and sch.2 (1) (e).The claimants account falls within the ambit of Regulation 5 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 as I am a consumer. These charges constitute an unfair penalty under reference to paragraph 1(e) of schedule 2 of the said regulations:

 

Indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair - 1. Terms which have the object of effect of - (e) requiring any consumer who fails his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation?.

[Michael Browne]

Send this to the court and a copy to Cobbetts.

[mscrownjuls]

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.

 

 

[mscrownjuls]

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

 

Kind regards

[Michael Browne]

Yes with brief covering letter FAO District Judge XXXX

 

Dear Sir,

 

Persuant to the Direction Order dated xx/xx/xx, I enclose my response to the Defendants CPR part 18 request

 

Yours sincerely.

 

Don't forget to enclose the schedule of charges as per your answer to 2.1