mcuth v RBoS ***WON***

[Harassed]

Hello again. Don't mean to be stupid but how do I post a thread? Also RBOS have got back in touch with me " Mrs Joan Mc Gillivary, Senior Business Associate" has written that they will get back to me in due course. Have given them a time limit of 28 days, in initial letter, in which to respond, so will wait and see. They have replied to this letter in 2 days!

[mcuth]

Hello again. Don't mean to be stupid but how do I post a thread? Also RBOS have got back in touch with me " Mrs Joan Mc Gillivary, Senior Business Associate" has written that they will get back to me in due course. Have given them a time limit of 28 days, in initial letter, in which to respond, so will wait and see. They have replied to this letter in 2 days!

 

Just go to the RBoS forum page and click "New Thread" ()

 

Stick to your timetable even if they don't

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[windymiller2014]

Hi mcuth, can you help !!!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/53488-gary-natwest.html?highlight=natwest

[HydraUK]

Michael

 

Wondering how you're getting on with your arguments on the limitations act?

 

Just received banks defence and because about 9months of charges(amounting to around £1.5k) are outside the 6 years, Cobbets are going for strike out (I'm assuming 'of that portion') on the basis of Limitation and/or Laches.

 

Quite worried about this because I had hoped others would have been further ahead by now - as far as I can see there aren't any successful tests of sec 32? I've got a fairly good grip - I think! - on the secton 32 issues and would really like to get rolling on my documents.

 

The rest of the defence is the usual line as far as I can see...identifying relevant contract terms etc.

 

I realise you're probably bows under with your own case but any input would be gratefully received.

 

Cheers

 

Phil

[mcuth]

Hi Phil

 

Wondering how you're getting on with your arguments on the limitations act?

 

Wel, yes, it's coming along nicely - I'm still finalising & pulling together all the information I've been gathering - quite a big task actually, and I'm continually adding bits to it too!

 

If you haven't already, take a read through the 37 pages of this giant thread:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/3598-do-you-have-charges.html

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[mcuth]

Spoke with the court today - I noticed that my copy of the AQ has "Natwest" in the "to be completed by" box and wanted to check that I was ok to just put my name in there (am using a PDF copy, so that'll be fine) - also discussed that the Defendant hasn't been corrected as yet

Finally asked if Cobbetts have sent their AQ back yet (remembering we have til Monday) - no they haven't - I wonder if they're going to....

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[Glenn UK]

Re Sec 32, having spent a lot of time reading various bits of case law i am of the view that its entirely feasible to use both 32.1.b and 32.1.c both with supporting quotes from a variety of cases.

 

In the same way that the Doctrine of Laches seems entirely defeatable too.

 

Mind you in my case against abbey they rolled over on the pre six year charges. They paid all charge from 1997 in my claim.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

 

I have thought of posting my text i had put together but its specific to my claim and also is ten pages long, so probably not worth posting.

[HydraUK]

Re Sec 32, having spent a lot of time reading varios bits of case law i am of the view that its entirely feasible to use both 32.1.b and 32.1.c both with supproting qoutes from a variety of cases.

 

In the same way that the Doctrine of Laches seems entirely defeatable too.

 

I'd be very interested in having a look at your arguments on this...could you e-mither then to me pls Glenn?

[mcuth]

Re Sec 32, having spent a lot of time reading various bits of case law i am of the view that its entirely feasible to use both 32.1.b and 32.1.c both with supporting quotes from a variety of cases.

 

In the same way that the Doctrine of Laches seems entirely defeatable too.

 

Mind you in my case against abbey they rolled over on the pre six year charges. They paid all charge from 1997 in my claim.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

 

I have thought of posting my text i had put together but its specific to my claim and also is ten pages long, so probably not worth posting.

 

Yeah, I think I'm pretty much there with the LA & laches arguments, though it's always good to have more info Would you mind emailing them to me? mcuth @ cag's domain name would be just dandy, thanks

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[Glenn UK]

I'd be very interested in having a look at your arguments on this...could you e-mither then to me pls Glenn?

 

If you pm me your addy il send it over.

 

MCuth let me know if you get my email please

 

Glenn

[mcuth]

MCuth let me know if you get my email please

 

Yup, got it thanks mate - just digesting now

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[Harassed]

Hi again. I received 2 letters from RBOS today in reply to my letter sent on 28 Jan 07. I requested return of £3 826.64 to my personal account for charges - did not include compound interest as I hadn't a clue what this was- and sum of £3,734.74 to joint account with ex. They have offered me £3092 for personal account and £2814.21 to joint account. Quick response! Can I ask them to pay by cheque or do they have the right to put that back into my account?

[mcuth]

Hi again. I received 2 letters from RBOS today in reply to my letter sent on 28 Jan 07. I requested return of £3 826.64 to my personal account for charges - did not include compound interest as I hadn't a clue what this was- and sum of £3,734.74 to joint account with ex. They have offered me £3092 for personal account and £2814.21 to joint account. Quick response! Can I ask them to pay by cheque or do they have the right to put that back into my account?

 

I see you have your own thread here, please ask your questions on your own thread so you don't take mine off topic. Thanks.

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[Harassed]

I'm sorry. On nights and not been to bed yet. Also not great with computers. X

[mcuth]

Ok then, since Cobbetts will have received their copy either today (Tuesday) or will do in tomorrow morning's post and the docs were filed appropriately at court, there's no reason to keep these under wraps anymore. Here's what went in my AQ & Reply to Defence..........The relevant sections of the AQ (N150) look like:

 

Section B:

Swindon County Court.

The Claimant is a Litigant in Person, and claiming against a company that carries on business in this area, and thus the claim should be heard locally to the Claimant.

 

Section D (request for allocation to "not normal" track):

The actual charges and overdraft interest elements of this claim total £2,711.38 - the balance is for contractual interest applied under the principles of mutuality and reciprocity in the contract. This is set out in the Particulars of Claim (paragraphs 10 & 11), with rates of interest specified as the unauthorised borrowing rate, the authorised borrowing rate and also 8% s.69 County Courts Act 1984. As such, the Claimant does not believe that this interest amount should be taken into account for track allocation, but will accept the Court's direction on which rate should be applied accordingly.

 

Section H - as per N150 AQ template, but with the following added at the beginning:

The Claimant respectfully requests that this claim be allocated to the Small Claims Track for the reasons set out in Section D above. Notwithstanding allocation to the Small Claims Track, if the Court's direction is to allocate this claim to the Fast or Multi Tracks, the Claimant respectfully requests that a Small Claims Costs Order be made.

 

Draft directions are as per template suggestion, with the removal of the first 2 Claimant actions (supplying schedule & statements - already done that)

 

Here's the Reply to Defence:

 

1. Insofar as it is possible and material to this case the Claimant pleads and maintains as follows with regard to the Defence and this Claim.

 

2. The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim (“PoC”) are repeated, with the following additions, deletions, replacements, amendments, clarifications, etc. For the avoidance of any doubt, all references remain as defined in the PoC, unless it is stated otherwise in this Reply.

 

3. The entirety of the Defence is denied, save as it is otherwise pled, or implied, by the Claimant hereinafter

 

4. Paragraph 3 of the Defence - it is the Claimant’s case that the Claim is properly particularised in the first instance and fully discloses grounds for bringing a claim against the Defendant.

 

4.1 At several points in the Defence the Defendant avers that the Claimant must plead further than he already has in the PoC. The Defendant calls upon the Claimant to plead information (and in some cases evidence) which the Claimant isn’t required to plead at this point

 

4.2 For the avoidance of all and any doubt, it is specifically denied that the Claimant needs to plead further than he already has in this case.

 

4.3 The Defendant makes several averments in the Defence reserving its “right” to plead further in this case.

 

4.3.1 It is denied that the Defendant has such a right to plead further in this case, as alleged or at all.

 

4.3.2 Nothing in this Reply or the PoC should be construed as giving the Defendant the right to plead further at a later date.

 

4.3.3 Nothing in this Reply or the PoC should be construed as derogating from the provisions of CPR 15.9, or giving the Defendant the right to do so.

 

5. The Defendant

5.1 This claim relates to a Royal Bank of Scotland (“RBoS”) Royalties Current Account - sort code XX-XX-XX, Account number XXXXXXXX (“the Account”).

 

5.2 The Account has been held with RBoS since it was opened on, or around, XXth XXXXXX 1999.

 

5.3 All communication relating to the Account since the Account’s inception has been addressed to, and received from, RBoS.

 

5.4 The N1 Claim Form for Claim Number 6SN05490, issued on 15th December 2006, was completed with RBoS as the Defendant, and served on an appropriate service address – namely RBS Litigation, 1 Princess Street, London, EC2R 8PB.

 

5.5 When the Notice of Acknowledgement of Service was received, the Claimant noticed that the Defendant’s name had been changed to National Westminster Bank plc (“NatWest”) and advised the Court accordingly by telephone on 7th January 2007. The Court staff advised that the Defendant’s Solicitor had changed the name of the Defendant, and that they would write to the Defendant’s Solicitor and request clarification.

 

5.6 Whilst NatWest are indeed a member of The Royal Bank of Scotland Group (“RBoSG”), RBoS is not a member of any NatWest company.

 

5.7 The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC (“RBoS”) and NatWest are registered as entirely separate entities whilst both existing within RBoSG - RBoS are registered in Scotland (No 90312) & NatWest are registered in England and Wales (Registered Number 929027).

 

5.8 It is therefore submitted that the Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service and Defence are flawed in the first instance by the Defendant’s Solicitors asserting that the Defendant in this case is NatWest.

 

6. The Limitation Act 1980 – in reply to Paragraphs 2, 7 & 8 of the Defence, the Claimant pleads the following:

 

6.1 Paragraph 8 of the Defence - the Defendant states that “in order for the Claimant to invoke section 32(1)© of the Limitation Act 1980, his claim must be 'for relief from the consequences of a mistake'. This provision only applies where the mistake is an essential ingredient of the cause of the action. Moreover, it is implicit in section 32(1)© that the mistake must be that of the Claimant rather than the Defendant. Insofar as the Claimant requests the postponement of the limitation period by reference to a mistake on the part of the Defendant, such a submission fundamentally misunderstands section 32(1)©.”.

 

6.1.1 The Defendant has fundamentally misunderstood paragraph 9b) of the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant does not claim that the mistake was on the part of the Defendant. It is the Claimant’s case that payments were made to the Defendant on a mistake by the Claimant, in that said charges and interest thereon were lawful and legitimately applied. The Claimant would not have paid those charges had he known they were unlawful.

 

6.1.2 The Defendant is a major financial institution within a group of companies that have interests throughout the world. They operate as fiduciary to many thousands of customers in the UK, and employ a large number of staff, including experienced corporate lawyers and accountants.

 

6.1.3 As a company regulated under the Financial Services Authority (“the FSA”), the Defendant has agreed to abide by the Principles for Businesses, as outlined in Chapter 2 of the FSA Handbook:

 

1. Integrity - A firm must conduct its business with integrity.

2. Skill, care and diligence - A firm must conduct its business with due skill, care and diligence.

3. Management and control - A firm must take reasonable care to organise and control its affairs responsibly and effectively, with adequate risk management systems.

4. Financial Market Conduct - A firm must maintain adequate financial resources.

5. Market Conduct - A firm must observe proper standards of market conduct.

6. Customers’ interests - A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly.

7. Communications with clients - A firm must pay due regard to the information needs of its clients, and communicate information to them in a way which is clear, fair and not misleading.

8. Conflicts of interest - A firm must manage conflicts of interest fairly, both between itself and its customers and between a customer and another client.

9. Customers: relationships of trust - A firm must take reasonable care to ensure the suitability of its advice and discretionary decisions for any customer who is entitled to rely upon its judgment.

10. Clients' assets - A firm must arrange adequate protection for clients' assets when it is responsible for them.

11. Relations with regulators - A firm must deal with its regulators in an open and cooperative way, and must disclose to the FSA appropriately anything relating to the firm of which the FSA would reasonably expect notice.

 

6.1.4 This document is produced under the powers given to the FSA within the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, and provides a benchmark by which financial companies should operate within the United Kingdom. Paragraph 9, places a duty on companies to “take reasonable care to ensure the suitability of its advice and discretionary decisions for any customer who is entitled to rely upon its judgment”. The Claimant contends that a bank’s fiduciary responsibility is encapsulated in law, and therefore if such a regulated company informs a customer that it is entitled to levy a charge against an account, it would be reasonable to expect the account holder to believe that the actions of the bank are lawful, and that the charge does relate to it’s internal costs, as they continue to contend is the case.

 

6.1.5 In addition and without prejudice to the above, as a Litigant in Person, the Claimant could not reasonably have discovered that the making of such payments was a mistake before the report of the Office of Fair Trading (“the OFT”) was published on 5th April, 2006, and the upswell of public information regarding unlawful bank charges during 2006.

 

6.1.6 It is worth noting that the Defendant and its peers will not allow the issues involved in these claims to be judged on merit in court, which would resolve the issue of the lawfulness (or otherwise) of banks’ penalty charges.

 

6.1.7 In support of this, the Claimant will also rely on Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council; Kleinwort Benson Ltd -v- Mayor Etc Of The London Borough Of Southwark and Others; Kleinwort Benson Ltd -v- Birmingham City Council; Kleinwort Benson Ltd -v- Mayor Etc Of The London Borough Of Kensington And Chelsea And Others [1998] UKHL 38; [1999] 2 AC 349; [1998] 4 All ER 513; [1998] 3 WLR 1095; & Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group Plc (Respondents) v. Her Majesty's Commissioners of Inland Revenue and another (Appellants)[2006] UKHL 49 (on appeal from [2005] EWCA Civ 78)

 

6.2 Regarding the reference to the doctrine of laches in Paragraph 2 of the Defence. Again, it is submitted that, given the reputation of RBoS and RBoS’ duties as outlined by the FSA above, as a Litigant in Person the Claimant could not reasonably have discovered that making such payments was a mistake before the OFT’s report was published on 5th April, 2006, and the upswell of public information regarding the lawfulness of bank penalty charges during 2006. After being made aware of the possibility of challenging these charges, the Claimant took the following actions:

 

6.2.1 The Claimant made a Subject Access Request (“S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)”) under s7(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 (“Data Protection Act”) to the Defendant on 12th June 2006 to obtain bank statements for this account. The DPA allows 40 days for the SAR to be fulfilled, but despite a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office, RBoS remained in breach of this legislation until statements were received under this DPA SAR on 21st October 2006.

 

6.2.2 A preliminary refund request was sent to the Defendant on 24th October, 2006 (delivered the following day). This request gave the Defendant 10 working days to reply, which it did on 26th October 2006.

 

6.2.3 As the reply did not meet the Claimant’s request, A Letter Before Action was sent to the Defendant on 7th November, 2006 (delivered the following day). This letter gave the Defendant a further 10 working days to settle the amount in dispute before court action would commence. On 10th November 2006, in reply to this letter, the Defendant made a conditional settlement offer which did not satisfy the Claimant’s requests in full.

 

6.2.4 In a letter of 14th November 2006, the Claimant advised the Defendant that the conditional settlement offer of 10th November 2006 did not meet the Claimant’s requests in full, but would be accepted in partial settlement without conditions imposed. By way of reply to this, the Defendant made a further conditional settlement offer on 21st November 2006, that again did not meet the Claimant’s requests in full.

 

6.2.5 Again, on 27th November 2006, the Claimant advised the Defendant that the conditional settlement offer of 24th November 2006 did not meet the Claimant’s requests in full, but would be accepted in partial settlement without conditions imposed. However, in the belief that some agreement could be reached before court action was necessary, in this letter the Claimant made a final written attempt at settlement negotiation, offering a reduction in the requested settlement amount and extending the previous timescales for court action to 6th December 2006.

 

6.2.6 The Defendant did not make a timely reply to the Claimant’s letter of 27th November 2006, and thus the claim was prepared and taken to Swindon County Court on 14th December for issue on 15th December 2006.

 

6.2.7 Further to the above, it is submitted that the doctrine of laches cannot be applied as the Claimant has not unreasonably delayed in asserting his equitable right.

 

6.3 Paragraph 7 of the Defence is specifically denied

6.3.1 It is submitted that the true nature of the charges and the actual costs of contract breaches have been deliberately concealed in an attempt to continue the current charging regime.

 

7. Paragraph 4 of the Defence - if no admission is made of the charges that have been debited to the account, does the Defendant require further proof? Submitted with the PoC, at Appendix 1, was a full schedule of charges & interest paid, complete with 38 pages of statements showing the application of each and every charge and interest deduction.

 

8. Paragraph 5 of the Defence is denied in its entirety, and it is denied that the Claimant must identify the Contractual provisions which are Penalty clauses.

 

9. Paragraphs 6.1 & 6.2 of the Defence – the Defendant’s case in relation to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA) are denied in their entirety, subject to the additions, deletions, replacements, amendments, clarifications, etc. that appear in the sub paragraphs below.

 

9.1 It is denied that the Claimant must identify the Contractual provisions which are invalid under the UCTA.

 

9.2 The Defendant’s interpretation of s4 UCTA contained within paragraph 6.2 of the Defence, is specifically denied.

 

10. Paragraph 6.3 of the Defence – the Defendant’s case in relation to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“the UTCCR”) - is denied in its entirety, subject to the additions, deletions, replacements, amendments, clarifications, etc. that appear in the sub-paragraphs below:

 

10.1 It is denied that the Claimant must identify the Contractual provisions which are invalid under the UTCCR

 

10.2 Paragraph 6.3.1 of the Defence is admitted, insofar as it quotes the title of Schedule 2 to the UCTCCR. The Claimant contends that the emphasis of “may” by the Defendant is irrelevant. By virtue of the fact that Schedule 2 is a “non-exhaustive” list, it is implied that any clause can be deemed to be unfair, providing it meets the criteria of any item contained within Schedule 2.

 

10.3 Paragraph 6.3.2 of the Defence – the Defendant’s contention that the Claimant is required to plead further - is denied in its entirety. Evidence is not required to be pled in a PoC. In any event, the Claimant has given an indication of the factors and evidence which he intends to rely upon in the PoC.

 

10.4 Paragraph 6.3.3 of the Defence – the Defendant’s contention that the PoC disclose no reasonable grounds for a claim under the UTCCR - is denied in its entirety.

 

10.5 Paragraph 6.3.4 of the Defence is denied in its entirety.

 

10.6 Paragraph 6.3.5 of the Defence – the Defendant’s contention that the UTCCR have no application - is denied in its entirety, subject to the additions, deletions, replacements, amendments, clarifications, etc that appear in the sub-paragraphs below.

 

10.6.1 If the Defendant wishes to contend that the Charges are consideration for services rendered, then it is required to plead and prove the nature of the service provided.

 

10.6.2 In any event, even if the Charges are consideration for a service it is the Claimant’s contention that the UTCCR still apply, as detailed in the PoC.

 

11. Paragraph 6.4 of the Defence – the Defendant’s case in relation to the Supply of Goods and Services Acr 1982 (“the SGSA”) - is denied in its entirety, subject to the additions, deletions, replacements, amendments, clarifications, etc that appear in the subparagraphs below.

 

11.1 Denied that at this time the Claimant is required to plead further than he already has.

 

11.2 Paragraphs 6.4.3, 6.4.4, 6.4.5 of the Defence are specifically denied.

 

12. Paragraph 9 of the Defence is incorrect in the first instance, in that interest is not claimed at the rate of 29.69%. The PoC outlines three interest rates that the Claimant will take the Court's direction on which rate should be applied – these are 29.84% compounded (unauthorised borrowing rate), 15.00% compounded (authorised borrowing rate) and 8% simple interest as allowed by s.69 County Courts Act 1984.

 

12.1 It is further submitted that Paragraph 9 of the Defence does not comply with CPR 16.5(2)

 

12.2 In relation to entitlement to interest, the Defendant charges interest to the Claimant, via the Account, at its published “unarranged overdraft rate” of 29.84%. The Defendant claims that it is entitled to charge this rate by virtue of the Terms & Conditions.

 

12.3 The unarranged overdraft rate was charged to the Claimant, via the Account, when the Claimant drew money from the Account whilst he had not obtained permission from the Defendant for exceeding any overdraft limit that he had. It is in effect, a rate that the Defendant charged the Claimant when he drew funds from the Defendant when he had no right for doing so.

 

12.4 Using the reasoning as outlined in 12.3 and maintaining the principal of equity, mutuality and reciprocity between the parties, the Claimant contends that he is entitled to an equal rate of interest in this case. The Claimant notes in particular that the Defendant erred in law, had no legal right to levy the charges to the Account and refused to refund the Charges when asked to do so by the Claimant.

 

12.5 If the Terms and Conditions form part of contract between the parties hereto then there is an implied and/or imposed term of contract that the Defendant must pay the Claimant at the same rate of interest which it reserves for itself in similar circumstances.

 

12.6 Without prejudice to 12.5, If no express contract exists between the parties hereto then the Claimant contends that an implied and/or imposed contract exists between the parties hereto relating solely to the Claimant’s right to charge interest to the Defendant at the rate which it reserves for itself in relation to similar circumstances.

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[elsinore]

Bit of a masterpiece is that, Michael!;-)

 

Good luck

 

Elsinore

[Guest bong]

excellent Michael

[HydraUK]

WOW!

 

I'm humbled....excellent work.

 

Do you mind if I plagiarise somewhat?

[mcuth]

Do you mind if I plagiarise somewhat?

 

Absolutely not at all - it's posted here for folks to use, just remember it's currently untested and comes with no guarantees!

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[HydraUK]

Looks great but no guarantees to work! Are you employed by Microsoft?

 

Thanks Michael, knock em dead

[mcuth]

Looks great but no guarantees to work! Are you employed by Microsoft?

 

Oh no, no way whatsoever - and if you knew my IT background, you'd be glad you're not nearby after making that accusation - LOL :D

 

Thanks Michael, knock em dead

 

Thanks - going to try

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[HydraUK]

Reading between the lines, you've already sent them copies of the statements as well as the standard schedule? I haven't done that yet (they've had the schedule) as I thought that came later...helps to do it earlier?

 

At what point do you respond to the defence? Did you send this to them with their copy of the AQ? That's the point I'm at and I've become a bit vague about the exact way forward....

 

As advised elsewhere I haven't mentioned the Limitations Act before the bank did. Am I right in my belief that this is now the point to flesh out the s32 argument, much as you have?

 

Thanks for your time, Michael.

 

Regards

 

Phil

[mcuth]

Reading between the lines, you've already sent them copies of the statements as well as the standard schedule? I haven't done that yet (they've had the schedule) as I thought that came later...helps to do it earlier?

 

Yup, I always submit the schedule & copy statements with the N1 - dunno if it makes it any easier for later, but it's not caused a problem

 

At what point do you respond to the defence? Did you send this to them with their copy of the AQ? That's the point I'm at and I've become a bit vague about the exact way forward....

 

Well a reply to defence isn't actually required as far as I understand - but with the inaccuracies, I thought it best to do it - as far as I know you can send in an R2D at any point up to judge's orders (don't quote me though ). Yes, I've sent the R2D with the AQ, partly for postage, but the other parties will get to see both the AQ & R2D together then

 

As advised elsewhere I haven't mentioned the Limitations Act before the bank did. Am I right in my belief that this is now the point to flesh out the s32 argument, much as you have?

 

If the bank's using it for defence, you can flesh out s32 at any point after they've raised it. I decided to do that initially in the R2D because it was convenient and would also be seen by the judge before he/she decides to order a hearing (or pre-judged the situation & made a ruling without a hearing!). Didn't think it'd do any harm to add in some more info at this stage I haven't exhausted everything yet either, if Cobbetts think I've used up my whole arguments in the R2D

 

Thanks for your time, Michael.

 

No problem mate - hope it helps

 

Cheers

 

Michael

[HydraUK]

One more point, sorry. When you included the template draft direction for orders, did you agree it with Cobblers first?

[mcuth]

One more point, sorry. When you included the template draft direction for orders, did you agree it with Cobblers first?

 

Nope, and there's a box to tick on the AQ that says whether you agreed it or not

 

Cheers

 

Michael