Here it is; the best I could come up with for businesses. I will try something similar soon for consumers. Please bear in mind that this process is only useful to those domiciled and/or claiming in England, Wales and possibly Northern Ireland. Hope this helps! If so please click the scales...

edited

I received my defence papers this week which included the CPR Part 18 bit which I know from reading here is not right for small claims so today I contacted The Law Society regarding this. I had a very nice conversation with them and they have provided me with a course of action to follow. 1) Contact Cobbetts and ask why they have included this in their defence and get their reasons in writing. 2) This is the problem bit - when it gets to court (and we all know about that) but if it gets to court raise this with the judge. The judge will then make comment on the fact that Cobbetts have been using a defence which they know is wrong and is an abuse of their knowledge 3) Once I have this from the Judge I can go back to the Law Society and they will invesigate to see if Cobbett have been abusing their power and taking unfair advantage. I have tried to contact Cobbetts to get their point of view about this but just gone to voicemail, will keep on trying and will let you know if I get through. But thought if anyone else is close to court date they should try and get anknowledgement from Cobbetts as to why they feel this defence is correct. Even if you prove that this has been ask, you can ask the Judge to comment Apologies if I am repeating this and someone else has done this before but couldn't see it posted anywhere. I just feel that if Cobbetts are doing things wrong to gain an unfair advantage they should be held accountable

As someone about to face the higher court, I did not choose the transfer but do not regret going to court, of all of the banks and financial institutions which I have dealt with over the past few months CIti have been by far the most aggressive, rude and arrogant of the lot. I am well aware of the risks to any court process however that is my choice based on self gathered information not just from this site. It benefits nobody to fuel people's fear, however I am not scared and will if I have to fight my case eloquently and in a structured manner in whatever court I need to in order to get what is actually rightfully mine taken from me at a time when I was at my lowest!!!! I am hopeful that those on this site who can, will support and assist me in my case, as I will do, in support other CAG members who also may be at the CMC. If you are a genuine member please enter into the spirit.

WAHEY - I just multiplied my friends list by at least 10 fold - (I know-need to get out more ) THANK YOU guys (and gals) for ALL the support and encouragement - I'm quite honestly overwhelmed - I have done it, got my claim No now and my very own 'slot' at "Northampton County Court" and I'm now £120 worse off - BUT hopefully will be a WHOPPING £3,600 better off just in time for crimbo - watch this space Love's you ALL Steve x

This seems to be something Smile are more than willing to do, My overdraft with them hit 800 at one point and they suggested the same thing to me, sliding it down by 25 a month until it was back to its original 500 thus avoiding charges. As luck had it I started a DMP with CCCS at the same time so everything worked well together, and I have managed to not use the overdraft facility since (a couple of successful claims has helped) I've said this before and I'll say it again Smile are one of the most helpful banks I have ever dealt with. Now I must run off and see if that credit has cleared into my account yet so I can make a another donation to the site

Yes, it does make perfect sense, especially as you're probably chewing the furniture with rage! While it may be technically feasible to prove that other interest on your account was charged because the charges had made you overdrawn, I'm not sure it would be worth it. Check the amount of interest directly attributable to your charges and see what that adds up to. To get to the interest that was levied on the whole overdraft, calculate it day-by-day and apportion it correctly would be very, very timeconsuming. After you've done all of that, it could be opposed anyway: you could be inviting strike-out of the whole claim because you're not claiming back a clear, direct and traceable loss. The thing about English Law, and why we don;t have those massive settlements they have in the USA, is that it is based on the principle of equity. You only get to claim back that which you have lost, or could have expected to lose, in the case of persoanl injury (which this is not about). This is civil, contract law. You can easily justify the damage directly related to the charges - i.e., the charges themselves and interest thereon. Anything beyond that becomes progressively greyer and you run ever-greater risk, at ever-greater expenditure of time and effort, and for what? Icing on the cake. I simply can't be bothered for a few £00, which will cost me more in time and effort than I can hope to get back. That's my feeling, anyway - but it's not advice! I don't give advice, as I'm not a lawyer! Best Westy

Hi there Mrs Tiger, I saw you on my thread, I'm not sure about the whole interest thing. I just claimed for 8% of the whole lot, didn't do the compound thing, brain wasn't working. I used jonni2bad's template for my MCOL and he said to do the total claim (charges and interest) x 0.0002........thats what I did and then rounded up my daily figure. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/34887-5-money-claim-line.html Hope I've helped a bit, let me know if not, Babs x

Well, you could try arguing the following with them: 1. Sale of Goods Act 1979, s. 13 stipulates that goods sold by description (i.e. sold to you on the basis of your measurements as a fitted dress) must match the description. It seems the dress does not. 2. s. 14 stipulates that goods must be of a reasonable quality and free of minor defects and of a reasonable standard and finish. I'd argue this is not the case with your dress. 3. Point out to them s. 48A(3). This states that if goods do not conform to standard within 6 months of sale, they are deemed not to have conformed from delivery. Their 5 day limit is meaningless. 4. Under s. 48B the seller is required to repair, replace or refund. 5. Under common law there is a breach of contract entitling you to cancel the contract and obtain a refund. 6. The rights contained in ss. 13 - 15 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 cannot be restricted, as per s. 6 of the the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. 7. The attempted restriction of 5 days is an unfair term within the meaning of Regulation 5 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.

Have a look on Elsinore's thread Zak. He has'nt had a response yet, but to be honest, thats not totally the point - its to show the court that Lloyds solicitors are making a mockery of the system. Its a damn good letter and if you send it, make sure you also send a copy to the court.

Hi Kernser The request for your statements is £10 for the entire 6 years worth of all data they hold on you. If they play games on the phone explain to them that they will be reported to the Information Comissioners office. They are legally obliged to comply with a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request). If they fail to do so you can report them to the Information Commissioner and apply for a court order to force them to comply. Also you are not after compensation, you are asking for a refund on unlawful charges.There are some links below to assist you in getting around this site. Before you start please have a thorough read of the FAQs (there’s a Step by Step guide here too). You should print both of these out to refer to, so as to avoid having to ask basic questions later. Then look at other threads in your bank’s forum, so as you know what you can expect to happen. You can claim back your charges, and a few are trying for the payback of Early Redemption Charges on loans and Mortgages. You need to spend 2 or 3 days gradually getting your head round everything. If you find a forum/thread/post of interest, save it in your Favourites, so as you can always find it easily. There’s a lot to take in, but it’s time well spent and will ensure that you succeed in your claim without problems. Remember it’s not a race, don’t rush, just follow the guidelines one step at a time. This is a self-help forum and you must be prepared to put in time and effort. It is your claim, your money and you cannot expect others to do all the work for you. When you feel confident that you understand the process and the various stages involved, start a new thread in your bank’s forum and post your progress and any questions there and you’ll get plenty of help. All the info to get you started is here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...se-read-these/ There are more links below to assist you get around the site. Good luck Ukaviator

Hi Alison You can claim them back. Be careful with the wording on your AQ paperwork from the court if it gets that far. You have to show that you did infact breach the contract with them. They may try and wiggle out saying it's a service charge otherwise. Seen a few threads here where some are beginning to underestimate the enemy. If you need assistance keep on the mortgages thread and help is nearby. Read up on ZootScoot's thread about mortgage Erc's. Very good reading.Also read this thread to fully understand the rules of engagement. Great work carried out here. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgage-companies/32610-saraounia-simpleloans-gmac-rfc.html Good luck Uk...

is ur husband not able to tell them on the phone that he is too poorly to discuss this and gives consent for you to deal with it? If he cant then thats fine but could be helpful for a quick resolution. my dad hates talking to anyone official on the phone or even in letters so i always speak for him but with him quickly telling the person he gives consent. i think u will be fine. it just sounds like they r trying to push u to pay right away but if you ask them to do everything in writing it buys u a bit of time.

In a nutshell - no - but it is up to you - ask them to put it in writing.

I have put some useful links onto the thread that you can refer to when needed. Oh, and if they are useful please click on my scales at the bottom. This just shows that I have been a good boy!! Good luck. See you at the other end…… FAQ’s http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/faqs-please-read-these/ Letter Templates http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/ Interest Spreadsheet http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/182-6-interest-calculation-spreadsheets.html Court N1 form http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/681-4-particulars-claim-n1.html Court Bundle http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/33060-basic-court-bundle.html Bank Contact Details http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/faqs-please-read-these/31052-contact-details-banks.html

Hi and welcome Some of this info you will already know, so I apologise if you have already seen some of this. The process that you will follow is relatively easy but IS NOT a get rich quick scheme. Spend time reading the FAQ pages as this will stop you making mistakes along the way. Read as many threads as your eyes will allow, you will gain invaluable knowledge which will give you the confidence you need. You must always remember that this MAY lead to court, so far it hasn’t, but it may do. We will all be there if you end up being the ‘chosen one’ so don’t worry, it’s a long way off. I have put some useful links onto the thread that you can refer to when needed. Oh, and if they are useful please click on my scales at the bottom. This just shows that I have been a good boy!! Good luck. See you at the other end…… FAQ’s http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/faqs-please-read-these/ Letter Templates http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/ Interest Spreadsheet http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/182-6-interest-calculation-spreadsheets.html Court N1 form http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/681-4-particulars-claim-n1.html Court Bundle http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/33060-basic-court-bundle.html Bank Contact Details http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/faqs-please-read-these/31052-contact-details-banks.html

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/faqs-please-read-these/

Hi Kathryn I find the best spreadsheet to use for this is the one by Mindzai see thread Mindzai & Lucid vs Lloyds TSB and the spreaedsheet is in post 22 and can be downloaded from here Verzend.be - send files up to 1GB for free - CompoundSheet_v1.6.xls (note that the link take you to a web site from which you download the spreadsheet, for some reason you also have to wait 10 seconds before it allows you to do so but dont worry, it works) its really easy to use, you simply enter your interest amount (19.9 % in your case) in the notes sheet and all your charges in the charges & interest sheet. The compounded interest for each charge will then be displayed in the C.Interest (Daily) sheet. It will also allow you to calculate the interest levied by bcard on each of your charges but this requires balance information which due to the microfiche issue you probably dont have. In any case this type of interest is usually minimal iwhereas compound contractual interest can add up to a nice tidy sum. Anyway let me know how you get on with the spreadsheet an if you've any probs i'll do my best to help skb

Faxed this to Mr T: Following our recent telephone conversation (xxth November 2006) I have had time to reflect on your comments and would like to make the following points: 1) Although you take instructions from your client I think it is only a matter of courtesy that if I send correspondence to your firm requesting written acknowledgement that you should acknowledge receipt of my letter in writing and advise as to whether you have or are passing it onto your client. 2) Case management is obviously an issue for your firm as you appear unable to act upon your client’s instructions (the AQ you completed on their behalf indicated 1 month to attempt settlement – this failed to happen for whatever reason) and you also appeared to have no knowledge of the General Form of Judgment or Order recently issued by XX County Court. 3) I find it unbelievable that you are the only person who can deal with this case and yet appear to be away from the office or screened by your colleagues on a regular basis. I called yesterday to find that you were once again unavailable. On this basis can you please provide me with the name of the partner responsible for this litigation as I would like to ensure my concerns regarding the way this case has been handled is clearly understood by someone with authority within your firm. My understanding is that you are a legal executive and not a qualified solicitor. 4) I would be grateful if you could fax back a written response to my letter of the XXth October to assure me that my concerns about your firm and your client’s clear abuse of process are addressed.

Hi Alison, Don't be confused! Yes, you can reclaim your ERC. Here is the prelim: Request for repayment of early redemption charge Dear Sir/Madam Account Number: xxxxxxxxx I am writing to request a refund of the early redemption charge of £xxxx which was debited to my account on xx/xx/xxxx. I now understand that this charge is in all likelihood disproportionate to the costs that you actually incured. As such, this penalty is unlawful at Common Law, Statute and recent consumer regulations. Such disproportionate charges are considered to be unfair per se by the OFT who reported on 5th April 2006 and are therefore presumed to be unlawful in the absence of specific proof to the contrary. If you believe that this charge is proportionate to the costs you have incured as a result of the early redemption of my mortgage, could you please demonstrate this by providing a full breakdown of those costs or a pre-estimate of your losses. Please note that I do not require an explanation as to why this charge was made; I am fully aware of the terms and conditions of my mortgage. What I require is a breakdown of your costs in order to reassure me that the charge is justified. Having taken legal advice on this matter it is very clear, as you will no doubt be aware, that English contract law requires such charges to be a genuine pre-estimate of your losses. In the case of Castaneda and Others v Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Co Ltd., (1902) 12 SLT 498 the House of Lords held that a contractual party can only recover damages for actual or liquidated losses incured from a breach of contract as opposed to a charge which represents a penalty. This was upheld in the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79. In addition to this, your charge represents an unfair term of contract which is contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SL. 1999/2083). Your charges constitute an unfair penalty under Schedule 2 of the said regulations which provide an indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair. Under paragraph 1(e) of schedule 2 this specifically includes terms which have the object of requiring any consumer who fails his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation. I would also like to bring to your attention the following statement by the Office of Fair Trading: A term in a mortgage agreement which requires the borrower to pay more for breaching the contract than actual costs and losses caused to the lender by the breach (or a genuine pre-estimate of that) is likely to be regarded as an unfair penalty and to be unenforceable at Common Law and (in a consumer mortgage) under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations. The fact that I signed the mortgage offer containing the term relating to the early redemption charge does not make this term enforceable, as I’m sure your legal department are fully aware. I will now give you 14 days to reply to me accepting, unconditionally, my request in principle and letting me know a date by which I will receive payment. If you do not respond, or if you do not respond positively, within this time period, I shall send you a Letter Before Action giving you a further 14 days in which to reflect. While I would like to settle this matter amicably and without the need for court action and the attendant publicity this will receive, you can take this letter as 28 days notice of my intention to issue a claim should you not comply with my request. I believe that these targets are more than sufficient for a large company such as yours with dedicated staff and departments. Yours faithfully, Alison Hope this is of use. Good luck!

snap

Hi Meek, Look in the FAQ's you should find the info here. In section G of the AQ you need to add this: "I am respectfully requesting my claim be heard via the small claims track. This issue is not a complicated one; it is an issue of fact and not of law. The issue is only whether the money levied by the defendant in respect of its customer’s contractual breaches exceed or even reflect their actual costs incurred. I am happy to pay their actual costs and I am surprised the defendant did not counterclaim for these, as I would have paid them without argument. However, the continuing problem is (in common with the hundreds of other cases currently being brought by other bank customers) that the banks are refusing to reveal the details of their penalty-charging regime, and that the charges they apply to accounts for exceeding overdraft limits and so on are entirely disproportionate to the actual costs the banks incur. As the banks have a fiduciary duty towards their customers, they have a duty to deal straightforwardly and in utmost good faith. Accordingly, I would respectfully ask that the court in this case, not withstanding allocations to the small claims track, order standard disclosure. I understand that it is in the courts discretion to do so. I believe this would bring a rapid end to this litigation. I have attached the schedule of the charges I am claiming for to this allocation questionnaire to show a breakdown of the amounts for the courts perusal. I believe the case will take no longer than 1 hour". This asks the court to order bank to disclose their losses and basically show why they charge so much (which they wont do or how stupid would they look). see bookworms thread in barclays successes. Hope this helps. P.S I didn't put the above bit in my section but wish I had of. I just rushed mine but still have a court date 15th Dec and am happy to see them there if they have the bottle. Remeber this is your money and you should play them at their game to get it back. The banks will stall, ignore you, make you sweat it out, cause you stress, then they will bottle it and pay up at the last min before court. Remeber noone has gone to court yet. But heh it might be me. Keep up the fight, you will win in the end. Good luck, not that you'll need it. Tanz

Hi which letter did you send? and did you give them a deadline? Its normally 2 weeks so the 8th Dec is too late for them to reply.

We'll do it together! Jimfishybob - thank you so much for your reassurance I've just had a letter through that tells me I'll have to pay another £130 on my mortgage and so I really need this money. Mr Tiger has agreed to go for it, I've prepared the spreadsheets and now its all systems go. I'm right in saying that if we do it online we hold on to the spreadsheets to give them if they ask for them? Yes? Lets do it Babs - if you know what I mean

I assume you mean the current account charges announcement? No, HSBC have categorically stated they have no plans to introduce account fees at this time but they wouldn't rule it out. I suspect HSBC will see how this affects the business of FD before making any kind of decision. I also suspect it will affect FD by driving customers to other banks. You have to ask yourself, why have they done this at this time? The OFT are about to investigate current account charges to stop banks bleating that their charges are different to those of credit cards. FD must realise that the findings aren't going to go in their favour, they will be forced to reduce the charges and they need to find the money from elsewhere. This is an odd stance in light of the fact that banks state they make no profit from these charges.

I think with most people it starts off with being a few pence overdrawn, so you get a charge and then a 28 overlimit fee which isn't applied until the end of the month. I am on a set budget, so that is 58 quid from next months bills & mortage budget. The 28 quid then takes you over your limit again so another charge. Then by the following month, you are worse off, so maybe a direct debit will bounce and hey presto, more charges. If you then try to call the Halifax for an overdraft to try and be sensible, they will tell you you can't have an overdraft unless your account has been charge free for 3 months, which is helpful!! Then maybe a direct debit will be returned, so mare charges, and maybe a fee from the company trying to get their money and it seems a big hole opens up and swallows you! I have quite a healthy salary going in my account and was embarrassed by the amount of charges I had clocked up in 3.5 years (£1800), but from reading on this site, it is by no means unusual and the banks want to do very little in terms of helping you get out of the spiral, and why would they I suppose when they know they can charge more or less what they want each month!!

Robert, they tried the same to me. Keep going and they will grant a refund but they will not concede that the charges are unlawful. PM me if you want any advice - TBH it looks like you have it in hand - just don't give in.

10/11/06 Got a defence filed by GMAC. The failed to give a basis for calculation simply repeating that it was a liquidated damages claus, not unfair etc so no refund. 12 points all in all. Have written a draft response to each point in their defence. Sorry I haven't include thier points here, but it is far too long to type out and I cannot add attachments. So just my response is here for your comments. It is rather long I am afraid. Any points gratefully recived. Needless to say it is a cobble from all the great advice on the site....thanks Zootscoot et al! In response to the defence filed by the Defendant, I wish to respond to each point made by the Defendant as follows: (1) The facts stated by the Defendant in item 1. are not in dispute. The Claimant agrees with the facts as stated by the Defendant. It is not disputed that the Claimant took out a mortgage with the Defendant on the terms stated. (2) The facts stated are not in dispute. The Defendant’s offer, containing standard and special offer Conditions were signed by myself, at that time, in the belief, as was generally accepted, that the Defendant’s conduct was lawful and complied with UK law - otherwise, I would not have signed the agreement. For reasons stated in the Particulars of Claim and further, below, this is no longer my belief. (2.1) Irrespective of the nature of practices and methods prevailing in the UK mortgage / banking industry today; I recently became aware through reports in the UK media, that there may be a basis for a legal challenge. And I wish to take this opportunity to take up to challenge application of ERCs in the Courts of justice. (2.2) The Claimant, as an individual was at the outset already at a substantial disadvantage as the Defendant is a large financial institution with ready access to legal advice, extensive marketing and financial expertise. At the outset, the Claimant thus relied on the integrity and expertise of the Defendant and their introducing broker. (2.3) The Claimant attests that the Defendant’s concealment of the true nature of the ERC charges has prevented the Claimant from asserting her rights until now. In addition to the existence of the ERC in the manner stated, the Defendant’s repeated representations that the ERC charge was fair and reasonable were and are deceptive and expressly deceived the Claimant into agreeing to pay them. (3) The facts stated are not in dispute. It is the lawfulness of the clause that is disputed here and now, not its existence in the mortgage contract. (3.1) The Claimant accepts the contention that redemption of the mortgage was expressly provided for in the mortgage offer. Condition 13 provides that an early redemption charge was payable in the event of redemption and thus represents a charge that is payable in anticipation of the event of a breach of contract. This term merely anticipates a breach and does not represent the exercising of a right under the contract. (3.1.1) The fact that the Defendant contemplated early redemption, in no way prevents my actions from amounting to a breach. To draw an analogy from criminal law, the fact that a policeman contemplates that a particular known offender may offend again in the future does not make the offender's actions lawful when he does in fact offend. (3.2) Nonetheless, in the event that the court were to find the said term as exercising a right and without prejudice to the above paragraph it is submitted that the fact that such a term exists does not prevent a court finding of breach of contract following the House of Lords decision in Bridge v. Campbell Discount Co Ltd [1962] AC 600 (4) The facts stated are not in dispute. For expediency, the Claimant accepts the Defendant’s amount of £12,389.44 rather than the amount stated in the Particulars of Claim. (5) The Claimant strongly refutes the Defendant’s assertions. The contractual term agreed for the loan was 25 years; the Claimant redeemed the loan fully before the expiration of the contractual term. (5.1) The particular term in the mortgage, which was breached, was an express term relating to the period of 25 years for which the mortgage was to run. This term of the contract was clearly stated in the written mortgage offer signed by the claimant. The terms of which were incorporated by reference into the mortgage deed, which was not only signed, but also witnessed. (5.2) There is clearly no room for doubt that such a clause existed in the contract. Similarly, there is no question that the claimant in fact redeemed the mortgage on 12/11/01. This date is clearly well before the contractually agreed 25year redemption date and thus represents a clear breach of the contract. The event of early repayment by the Claimant clearly constitutes a breach of the expressly agreed mortgage term, (5.3) The Defendant expressly specified via Condition 13 that in the event of a breach of contract specified by the Defendant as early repayment, an ERC charge would be made. (5.4) To further the contention that a breach of contract did in fact occur, it is submitted by the Claimant that the Claimant was clearly under a contractual obligation to pay monthly instalments to the Defendants for the agreed 25-year term and clearly has not made such payments since the redemption of the mortgage. (5.5) Condition 6.1 is a standard term of the mortgage expressly permitting the Claimant to repay early. (5.6) Condition 13 is a special Condition imposed by the Defendant that has the overriding effect in practice of varying or nullifying preceding Condition 6.1. The Claimant could only exercise her right to repay early on a payment of the ERC specified by the Defendant. (5.7) In the circumstances, the ERC is a payment due only on the occurrence of a specific event, expressly specified by the Defendant in Condition 13 as an early repayment event. (6) The Claimant asserts that the amount charged, as the ERC is disproportionate because it far exceeds any actual loss the Defendant could possibly have suffered. (6.1) Commercially, an applicant compensates the mortgage provider for the costs (from application to account creation), via a series of fees set and levied by the mortgage provider (via arrangement fee £345, valuation fees £320+£360), legal fees etc). The mortgage provider sets the level of compensation required to cover costs at the level of working capital. (6.1.1) Once the loan is active, the mortgage provider applies a rate of interest to the ongoing account calculated to further compensate the mortgage provider for the assessed ongoing risk and deliver an ongoing profit element to the mortgage provider. (6.1.2) The mortgage provider borrows funds at a low inter bank rate and lends to the applicant at a higher rate, a margin made up of future interest and profit to the provider. (6.1.3) On early repayment, the mortgage provider will no longer receive instalments over the duration, but receives the loan amount immediately and the loan having been repaid in full, quite rightly forgoes future interest and profit. Excluding the ERC, the applicant is also charged upfront for the administrative costs of early repayment (Mortgage Administration Fee £115). The Lender rarely gives the Borrower any credit by discounting the early lump sum repayment to present value to account for the fact that Lender is getting its money in one go, earlier than it would have done if the loan had continued for the full fixed rate period. (6.1.4) Commercially, even where market interest rates are falling, the question of a significant loss of future interest does not arise; In the real world, any risk is passed to Customers as banks / mortgage companies all delay lowering interest rates till spare funds are routinely and systematically re allocated to new applicants / markets at the prevailing (higher) rate using standard methods and without significant loss or high re allocation costs to the mortgage provider. (6.1.4a) In a rising market, the banks obviously benefit from reallocating funds at a higher lending rate. Consequently, it is very difficult to comprehend how GMAC RFC can claim a significant loss on this account. (6.1.5) On the issue of "losses" to the Lender, the remaining element is future profit. Compensation charged for the profit element is unlawful, as it inflates the actual "damage". (6.1.6) To my current understanding, the Defendant is in law entitled to recover reasonable actual losses suffered as a result of my breach via a reasonable pre estimate of actual costs. The Defendant is not entitled a disproportionate charge for actual costs nor to compensation on redemption for a perceived loss of future profit over the mortgage term. (6.1.7) To my current understanding, it is not equitable to levy interest on money that is no longer owed. Creditors are entitled to charge interest on the amount that it is owed for the time that it is owing, and no more. If account holders no longer owe the money, then mortgage providers are no longer entitled to charge interest on it. (6.1.8) Furthermore it is submitted that the Defendant must take into consideration the duty that an innocent party to a breach is under a legal duty to mitigate their loss in accordance with the principles set out in Payzu v Saunders [1919] 2 KB 581. In practice, Lenders should be looking to re-lend the money as advantageously as possible and rely on penalty clauses to hedge against commercial risk. (6.1.9) For reasons stated, I submit that the ERC charged is a disproportionate penalty for lost future profit not actual loss incurred (6.2) The claimant denies any contention by the Defendant that the term relating to the early repayment charge is a liquidated damages clause. Bridge v. Campbell Discount Co. Ltd. (1962) In this case a Customer bought a car under a hire purchase agreement. He paid the initial and first payments and then cancelled the agreement. The company tried to recover the sums specified in the contract for canceling the agreement, but the courts held that the sums payable were excessive and constituted a penalty clause. It was, therefore, unenforceable. According to Dunlop v New Garage there is a distinction between a penalty clause and liquidated damages clause. (Penalty deemed unlawful, liquidated damages as lawful). To amount to a lawful liquidated damages clause it must be shown that the fee levied amounts to a genuine pre-estimate of losses. A contractual term which provides for a specified amount payable (whether by a fixed sum or calculated by way of a percentage) must represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss if it is to be regarded as a liquidated damages clause Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v New Garage & Motor Co. Ltd. [1915] A.C. 79. Under the Dunlop case a fee is a penalty if the sum stipulated is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to follow from the breach. In this case, the judges reached the conclusion that the sum to be paid for a breach of the contract was substantial and arbitrary and bore no relation to the potential loss of the other party. It was, therefore, a penalty. (6.3) The claimant has repeatedly asked the Defendant to provide the claimant with details of how their charge was calculated to represent a genuine estimate of their loss. In correspondence dated 21/09/06, 28/09/06 and 10/10/06, the Defendant has failed to respond to my requests to give a breakdown of its actual losses or provide a response as to how it came up with a genuine pre-estimate of its losses. (6.4) Thus the claimant is of the opinion that no genuine pre-estimate indeed took place. The claimant thus makes a respectful request to the court that disclosure of this information is provided to the claimant forthwith to bring an expeditious termination to the proceedings. (6.5) It is further submitted by the claimant that the Defendant’s failure to provide such information is for the reason that such information would reveal that the term is in fact a disproportionate penalty. Had the Defendant been able to demonstrate that the charge was indeed a liquidated damages clause it has had ample opportunity to do so and the claimant would not have need to initiate these proceedings. Again, it is thus respectfully submitted by the claimant that an order to disclose this information is made so as to satisfy the claimant that the charge is indeed a liquidated damages clause. The Claimant will not accept the Defendant’s assertions that the ERC represents a genuine pre estimate of the loss the Defendant suffered in the event of early redemption. (6.6) For reasons stated above, the ERC therefore amounts to an unenforceable penalty. (7) It is respectfully submitted by the claimant that a breach of S.4 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 is applicable because it provides that a business can only require a Consumer to indemnify their loss where it is reasonable (in accordance with s.11) to do so. Consequently, special Condition 13 should be regarded as unreasonable under s.11 of the said Act, as, the term effectively deprives the claimant of the right to exercise early repayment without payment of disproportionate penalty costs to the Defendant. (7.1) I believe a huge financial institution like GMAC RFC is better placed to bear the loss of its own commercial risk freely undertaken than myself, as a private, individual Consumer, relying of the expertise and integrity of the finance industry. (7.2) The practice of offering premium or discount rates are commonplace in the world of business and but few companies have the audacity to pass such commercial risk on to their Customers. It is a fact that Lenders offer and price fixed and discount deals in order to remain competitive. (7.3) The premium interest rate offered with my mortgage product represents a legitimate considered commercial decision by the GMAC RFC to attract my custom. A fixed rate protects the Borrower against rising interest rates. In order to lend at these rates, the Lender usually borrows on the market at a fixed rate. If the loan is repaid early and interest rates have fallen, the Lender will have to pay to break its own market deal. In theory, any liquidated damages cost is passed on to the Customer as an ERC. With fixed rates the Consumer also takes a risk in that interest rates could fall and bears all the risk. (7.4) In the real world, fixed rates are most attractive to Consumers in during periods of generally rising rates. The Lender is able to re allocate funds at the new higher prevailing rate at a higher profit – which of course is not shared with the redeemed Customer who provided them the opportunity. In addition, the Lender may already have collected an ERC from the redeemed Customer for the same funds re allocated at a higher lending rate / profit margin. This is the current status quo of a very happy ‘win-win’ situation for Lenders. (8) The Claimant submits that Para. 1(e) of Schedule 2 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 is applicable for the following reasons: (8.1) The court or Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) will consider whether, with regard to the circumstances prevailing at the date of the contract, the term is one, which contrary to the requirement of good faith, caused a significant imbalance in the parties’ contractual rights and obligations to the Customer’s detriment. Paragraph 1(e) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations provides that a term “requiring any Consumer who fails to fulfil his/her obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum by way of compensation” may be unfair. As stated in 5) above, the express entitlement to redeem was varied by special Condition 13, which effectively placed this entitlement beyond the reach of the Claimant unless the Claimant paid the ERC specified. (8.2) The claimant contends that if the Defendant complies with the claimant’s request to provide a breakdown of losses to which the Defendant has been put to, it would reveal that the charge levied would in fact be revealed to be a disproportionate penalty under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI. 1999/2083). (8.3) The claimant’s account falls within the ambit of Regulation 5 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 as the claimant is a Consumer. (8.4) The charge constitutes an unfair penalty under Schedule 2 of the said Regulations, which provide an indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms, which may be regarded as unfair. Under paragraph 1(e) of schedule 2 this specifically includes terms, which have the object of requiring any Consumer who fails his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation. The claimant vigorously contends that this is the position regarding the fee of £12,389.44 charged to the claimant’s account. (9) The Claimant does not dispute the fact that terms and Conditions including the ERC clause were signed. The basis of the claim is that the ERC charged was not a genuine pre estimate of actual loss on breach and is a disproportionate penalty and therefore unlawful. (9.1) The ERC in Condition 13 applied to my account was clearly not designed to reflect the true cost to the Lender of liquidating my mortgage early, because it lacks entirely those attributes or badges, which would give a result that approximated to actual cost, except perhaps by pure chance. The disguised intention is to impose a disproportionate penalty as follows: · The ERC was not based on the absolute movement in market interest rates, rationally any downward movement from the fixed rate at which the Lender actually lent to the Borrower. · The ERC was not based on a relative movement from a starting rate (eg. Fixed rate at start of loan) to some current rate – typically either the current fixed rate at which the Lender says it will lend money to new Borrowers or the current fixed rate it says it can get by reinvesting the money on the money market. · To calculate the ERC, an interest rate differential was not applied. I.e. differential rate then multiplied by the amount being repaid early and the unexpired term of the original fixed rate period. · There was no discounting to give a ‘net present value’. This would take into account the fact that the Lender is in fact getting its money in one go, earlier than it would have done if the loan had continued for the full fixed rate period. This adjustment has been recommended by the Financial Ombudsman in several rulings even where not specifically stated in the contract, but continues to be ignored by most Lenders. · The ERC was charged on redemption and had to be paid before the Lender would consent to close my account. It was applied as a matter of course and upfront; implying that the Lender did not in fact and as a matter of course, look to re-lend the money to mitigate any actual loss on my breach. Any consideration of actual commercial risk is therefore excluded. This to my mind operates as an indemnity against any commercial loss without any action to mitigate. · Effectively a single fee is levied irrespective of the actual loss of interest, perhaps for perfectly understandable practical reasons, as interest rates cannot be predicted with any certainty in practice. For this reason, it is difficult to see how GMAC RFC can argue that the ERC fee was a pre-estimate of actual loss. (9.3) The finance industry has traded on their reputation for integrity to foist their unfair practices and penalty charges onto an acquiescent public. In recent years, Consumers have started to fight back on a number of well-publicised issues with many uncompetitive practices being challenged in Court, the most relevant here is the penalty nature of bank charges levied by all UK banks and credit card companies lead by ‘Which’ magazine and the Consumer Action Group. In April 2006, the OFT forced credit card companies to reduce their penalty charges - it set a "threshold for intervention" at £12, above which point it will presume the charge is unfair. Non-personal services, to small businesses for example are also subject to continuing controversy and allegations of profiteering from Customers. (9.4) It is disingenuous for the Defendant to present the mortgage industry as delivering transparent choice to Consumers. It is very much a part of the wider finance industry and employs a raft of unfair practices of its own - from the way it operates the credit register, to the rate of increase and nature of fees. For example, due to the nature of products offered, ERCs are hard to avoid – they are applied to fixed, capped, cash back, discounted and some base rate tracker mortgages – their application by Lenders have become remarkably standardised in recent years as Lenders manipulate fees to support margins. (9.4.1) Common practices such as the "bait and hook" which is an extended tie in, where for example a Borrower can get a lower fixed rate, say 5.5% for five years (the bait), but is then locked in (or "hooked") for another two or three years on a higher, variable rate or "bundling". This is where Borrowers are offered an interest rate lower than most others on the market. The snag is that Borrowers must buy overpriced buildings insurance from the Lender. The Lender gets a chunky commission from the insurer, which issues the policy. Customers typically end up paying as much as they would if the interest rate had been at the market rate. This marketing gimmick is particularly controversial because it prevents Customers shopping around for better insurance deals. Buying buildings insurance from a Lender typically costs much more than buying direct from an insurer. Another is annual interest calculation. This is where the interest on a loan is worked out every year rather than every day or every month. It means your payments don't reduce the nominal value of the loan, and therefore the amount of interest you pay, until the end of December each year. A Borrower with a £75,000 mortgage loses £75 a year because of this. Multiply this by a few thousand Customers and there is your motivation. (9.4.1a) The penalties are normally expressed in one of four ways by all the mortgage companies, some methods more reflective of true cost than others. In some cases early repayment charges are set at the start of the mortgage term and remain flat throughout the deal period, in others the penalty reduces each year. · As a number of months' interest · As a percentage of the advance (the amount you originally borrowed) · As a percentage of the sum repaid · As a percentage of the outstanding balance (9.5) Most residential mortgages are regulated by the FSA, which now requires a section in the Key Financial Information given to the Customer, and also in the mortgage offer itself, describing whether and when any ERC may be payable, with a least three cash examples showing the range of charges that may apply. The Claimant acknowledges the existence of Condition 13 but with hindsight now submits that the clause is defective in terms of clarity, by reference to industry guidance for ERCs in the following respects: · The term “early redemption charge” is clearly stated · No example calculations of the ERC were included, at least 3 are recommended precisely as the contract allows · The calculation for the ERC does not stand up to scrutiny as specified in (9.1) above. · The Defendant cannot demonstrate that the ERC charged fairly represents actual loss on my breaking the loan · The Defendant cannot demonstrate any mitigation of their position by looking to re-lend and/or discounting the ERC to reflect receiving the money in one lump sum (9.6) Choice or not, an early redemption penalty is an attempt to charge interest on money no longer owed. The Claimant does not dispute the Defendant’s right to make a charge to recover actual costs (or a reasonable pre estimate of costs). It is the basis / nature of the ERC actually charged in substitution for actual costs incurred by the Defendant, due to the Claimant’s breach of contract, that is challenged here. 9.7) There is a very clear rule of law that says that the Lenders are only allowed to make certain charges. Consumers are not exploiting a legal loophole just demanding their rights by petitioning the Courts to bring Lenders back to lawfulness. (9.8) The mortgage industry has substituted 'not making as much profit' for 'making a loss'. To my mind, the two things are completely different. Common law permits recovery of 'liquidated losses' only. The only way they can justify the ERC is if that sum is the actual cost to them of ending my particular mortgage early. In other words, they would have to be able to point to specific expenditure, which they had to make in order to end my mortgage, and that is what the penalty is there to recover. I am petitioning the court because I believe the law says a mortgage Lender cannot charge more than the actual costs or losses incurred. And Borrowers are entitled to have their charges calculated accurately and the basis of the charge explained fully. The Defendant has in my opinion failed to act lawfully in these respects. (9.9) I would respectfully draw the court’s attention to the following statement from the OFT website ‘ A term in a mortgage agreement which requires the Borrower to pay more for breaching the contract terms than actual costs and losses caused to the Lender by the breach (or a genuine pre-estimate of that) is likely to be regarded as an unfair penalty and to be unenforceable both at common law and (in a Consumer mortgage) under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations. A redemption charge may be regarded as a penalty even if it is expressed as the price for exercising a right rather than a consequence of breaking the agreement’’ (10). It is submitted that the early repayment charge applied by the Defendant was unfair, unreasonable and disproportionate. For this reason, the Claimant contends that it is unenforceable entirely. (10.1) The Claimant contends that such a charge represents a disproportionate penalty and a fee calculated by terms of a percentage of the sum repaid can not amount to a genuine pre-estimate of the Defendant’s loss, but moreover represents a fee levied with a view calculated to profit from the claimant’s breach, to act as a clog on the equitable right to redeem and or to punish the claimant for its breach of contract. 11) The Claimant claims a refund of the ERC charge of £12,389.44 plus statutory interest on the grounds stated above and below plus court costs. 12) A claim for interest on the ERC charged from 12/10/01 to date is submitted.

Hiya Scouser, Yes you can claim old closed accounts (even if there is a default on it) it's just the same process = writing with the same letters from the templates library, listing dates of your charges etc..- like you've done with Halifax - lots on these Abbey threads to enlighten you and entertain you with their antics - keep reading and learning is the best thing to do as you'll keep up with the tactics the Banks are trying to pull etc.. Good luck - if you keep your thread updated with your progress there will be help when you need advice - there is always someone with an answer here.

You can use the original wording, but I'd use the opportunity to file fuller POC's

Well, what more can I say gang. Freebird's singing a happy tune tonight. Unconditional settlement in the bank today.....and yes I had a cry took the kids for a meal tonight..lol..their choice was pizza hut, and boy did we enjoy the pizzas... time now to thank all you lot on here so much, Admin, Mods, Site Helpers and of course posters, as all of you got me through this and I thanks you all from the bottom of my heart. A struggle, but really worth it in the end. Not only has another "little person" taken on "fat cats" and won but this year we're going to have the best Christmas ever and book a holiday....you bet ! Don't give in guys, just keep at it..keep coming on here for encouragement and help each other out..it's the kind words and positive posts that keep you going, believe me. Good luck to you all especially my fellow Lloyds claiments.. And thanks..I'm speechless tonight and working on the PC to do an AV for a presentation I'm doing for families with disabled children, to show services how best to meet the needs of our kids..and I just keep smiling....but I couldn't wait to come on in here and share my good news with you all.... Bless you all peace and love Freebird xxxxx

Defence received, nothing strange, although they are disputing some charges that predate the 6 yr limitation rule, there are only a couple beyond it by a couple of months. AQ has been filled in and will be popped in post tommorow.

Anyone?

Hi Jolou, Good luck. You could try the Yorkshire Bank, I opened a parachute acc. with them there and then, no credit checks nothing and it has all the normal things ie cheque book, debit card and O/D facilities if wanted.

Keeps us in the picture!

Ignore it In your AQ you can refute their contentions re: lack of particulars SECTION G OTHER INFORMATION The defendant in its defence contends that this claim is not suitably particularised and the statement of claim shows no reasonable grounds for the claim to be brought. The Claimant disagrees with this contention entirely. The claims particulars clearly state the statutory and common law provisions on which this claim relies, and the claimant will of course elaborate upon the claim particulars at such time as is required upon the direction of the court. Further, contrary to the contention of the defendant, the relevant numbers of the account in question were clearly identified in the claimant’s particulars of claim, and a full schedule of the charges which form the sum claimed from the defendant was sent to Northampton bulk court on the day of issue for inclusion alongside the claims particulars. Additionally, the defendant was served with this information on two occasions previously within a 28 day period allowed by the claimant to attempt to resolve the issue prior to the commencement of this litigation. For the sake of expediency, I have attached another copy of the schedule to this allocation questionnaire. As is known to the defendant, I am a litigant in person in this case. It is respectfully submitted that the contentions of the defendant are highly likely to be an attempt to distress and intimidate, rather than presenting any valid or reasonable objections to the clarity of the Particulars of claim. And also you can request Standard Disclosure: I am respectfully requesting that my claim be allocated to the small claims track. This issue is not a complicated one; it is an issue of fact and not of law. The issue is only whether the money levied by the Defendant in respect of its customer’s contractual breaches exceed their actual costs incurred. I am happy to pay their actual costs and I am surprised the Defendant did not counterclaim for these, because I would have paid them without argument. However, the continuing problem is, (in common with the 100s of other cases currently being brought by other bank customers), that the banks refuse to reveal the details of their penalty-charging regime. As the banks have a fiduciary duty towards their customers, they have a duty to deal straightforwardly and in utmost good faith. Accordingly, I would respectfully ask that the court in this case, not withstanding allocation to the small claims track, order standard disclosure. I understand that it is in the courts discretion to do so. This would bring a rapid end, not only to this litigation, but would also likely bring an end to much of the litigation in progress against other high-street banks.

.. Provisional Findings report -Northern Irish personal banking We haven't been through the whole document yet but there are little pearls throughout what I have read so far. In particular appendices 4.6 and 4.10 are worth downloading and reading carefully. You should try and read the rest of it, though. I would suggest notetaking and highlighting so that the significance is fully appreciated. Although this doument doesn't necessarily apply directly to all of the banks - or to bank in England, Wales and Scotland, it does apply. I would suggest that anyone transferred to the Mercantile Court give this document some very thorough treatment and then add it to your disclosure. bundle. Even though you may have filed your bundle by now, file this document anyway with an apology for late disclosure. Before filing, you should prepare a short summary of what you think the document shows and file that with the court as well. The summary should be about 1 A4 sheet in length and each point you make should have a reference to the page number and paragraph number which contains the point which you are referring to. This will be useful to the court - but also, it will be very useful to you as such a close reading of the report will help you to understand the parts which you are relying upon fully. Thanks to Robbertxc and then to jonni2bad for digging this up.

Its likely they will spot your mistake in any event. Best to phone and check to make sure. If you need to ammend you need to complete form N244 along with the 35.00 All the best Zoot

Found you;) Will keep an eye on your progress if you don't mind! Good luck! (Smile!)

You can claim contractual interest from the outset if you can argue that one exists. Statutory interest is designed for claims where no contractual interest rate exists. Only contractual interest can be compounded too.

Yes, that's it. The exact text of my letter to each was: Litigation and Disputes team Level 29 1 Churchill Place London E14 5HP Your Reference Number (From the top of their letters to you) To whom it may concern. Please find enclosed a schedule of charges in relation to the above claim. The “Interest” column reflects the current running Interest total as at the (the date you print out the schedule plus the 8%). A copy of this schedule has also today been sent to the County Court at Northampton. Yours Sincerely also send an identical copy to the Bank, replacing their reference number with the Court Claim Reference number and that a copy has been sent to the Bank. Also put the respective reference numbers on the top of the schedules. the full MCOL address is: The Court Manager Money Claim Online Northampton County Court 21-27 St. Katharine's Street Northampton NN1 2LH Good Luck

I agree with Joe. If they make it clear that their response is final then you can proceed with your LBA.

Just to point out Rob that the charges are unlawful and not illegal as they do not come under criminal law. Secondly I suggest that you cancel your cheque, send another S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) and a letter (or secure message backed up by letter) saying that you want to place the account in dispute so they cannot take any further action until the dispute is resolved. It may be too late to stop them pulling the overdraft, but assuming that you can't afford to pay it all back at once you need to try and agree a way to repay it over a period of time at a rate that you can afford.

If you're reading around the forum, as you should, these steps shouldn't really come as a surprise. The AQ and the preparation for court are standard steps, so, of course the answers are in the Templates Library! For the AQ advice, click here. For court preparation, click here.

Try this: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/681-4-particulars-claim-n1.html

More info on interest can be found here... http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/7252-new-way-looking-interest.html http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/6964-spreadsheet-interest.html http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/18313-why-no-one-claiming.html http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/7214-interest-calculation.html Lots of debate and assistance there.

Don't worry after you have got all your unlawful bank charges back if need be I will go with you if you want . Anyway I thought he said he was closing your account ... a change of heart maybe cos he couldn't get you in to blag you .. we will have to wait and see just reread your post and you will not have to go in and discuss your account as part of the settlement if your not accepting any conditions . After your claim is settled , yes keep us posted

For those that have looked at their statements and may be wondering, what can i claim for?, and why are the descriptions confusing?, what about the overdraft interest is that claimable aswell? wonder no more. you can claim for anything which is deemed a penalty charge, which includes: returned direct debits, card mis-use, unpaid standing order, unpaid item, exceeding your overdraft, overdraft interest (see below), total charges (see below) notifed fees Unauthorised overdraft arrangement fees (more will be added as and when confirmation is found) you can not claim for: ATM (cash machine) usage (typically £1), an agreed overdraft fee, anything which is deemed a "service" by the bank (more will be added as and when confirmation is found) Overdraft interest This is the single most confusing part of most peoples claim, and one of the most frequently asked questions overdraft interest is applied to your whole overdraft, however if some of your overdraft is made up from (unlawfull) charges, then a proportion of the interest has been wrongly applied and is therefore reclaimable Example you have a £400 overdraft, you purchase something that day for £200 so now you are -£200 on your current account balance, but on the same day £200 of charges are placed on your account, which means that your current account balance is now -£400 and the bank will charge interest on the whole £400, but as we are contesting that these charges are unlawfull, then the interest should not be placed on the whole amount, only on the amount that you have actually spent, therefore in this example you can claim back 50% of the interest, however these calculations have to be done daily to truly reflect the amount which can be reclaimed, Dont worry, Vampiress has made a spreadsheet that will calculate this for you, you can find it here, but please read the instructions that come with it; Overdraft interest calculator thread Total charges (HSBC) Again this is another issue which many people aren't sure about, total charges are reclaimable, they are a seperate issue to the other afore mentioned charges (card mis-use, returned d-d's etc), and are not simply all of these charges added together each month. so they are also claimable on top of the other charges "total charges" also listed as notified fees refers to the charge they put on your account for going over your overdraft limit, this charge is calculated daily, and they can charge up to a maximum of £125 in one month for this, it is then debited from your account on a set date every month Important! For buisness accounts ONLY the "total charges" include a combination of reclaimable and genuine charges, and you will need a breakdown to exactly know what proportion of "total charges" are unlawful.

Hi I wrote this letter and sent it recorded delivery the other day, I didn't see the advice on here cos it took a day or so for this thread to show up for me, for some reason! I have also made a complaint to the OFT on advice from the CAB. The letter was a usual demand letter, nothing said about a Court Order or anything. This is the letter I wrote: Dear Sir/Madam I demand that this letter is forwarded to the most senior person in your company. This is an official complaint and I am writing this with guidance from the CAB and the Office of Fair Trading. I am putting you on notice that I intend reporting you to the Office of Fair Trading, under Section 40 of The Administration of Justice Act 1970, for Harassment. Furthermore, from this point on you must NOT send any more communication to my mother at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. If she receives one more letter or visit from you, someone instructed by you or your organisation, I will see that you face criminal proceedings under Section 2 of The Protection from Harassment Act 1997, you may be interested to know that your consumer credit license will not protect you from prosecution. You are also in breach of the Office of Fair Trading Code of Guidance and your actions are bordering on breaching the Malicious Communications Act 1998. My mother who is bipolar and suffers from dementia got a letter from you approx 18 months ago regarding my sister who lived with her until 1996 and left when she was 16 years of age. The debt is with Capital One and in the name of xxxxxxxxxxx I rang you at the time to explain that my sister moved out of home at 16 and we have had limited contact with her due to her spending some time in correctional facilities and some time in hospital sectioned under the Mental Health Act. We didn't have a current address then but gave some previous addresses to see if that could help in any way, I was advised to send the letter back stating she no longer lived there. I was assured that my mother would NOT receive any further communication from you, this was especially important to me as just seeing my sisters name can set my other off into depression or panic attack. Then approx 2 weeks ago you send yet another letter, I was amazed beyond belief to be honest, you know full well that she does NOT live there, she has never been on the electoral roll as living there and never even lived there as an adult. I rang you again to demand that the address be taken off your system as it was making my mother ill. I got an apology from the operator and was told under no circumstances would any more letters be sent. This letter was also sent back with a full covering letter, including the time/date of the phone call and the name of the person I spoke to. On 1st April however a rather forceful and demanding letter saying that bailiffs will be sent to my mothers address and that legal action will commence arrived. My mother does not understand that it will not be against her and had a severe panic attack. You are making my mother ill over something her estranged daughter did. I don't understand why you can't do a simple search on the electoral roll to see that xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx has NEVER been registered as living there. I am getting the feeling that you have no understanding or compassion for the victim involved here. I want something in writing telling me that my mother will no longer receive any correspondence at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx from a senior member of staff, you can do this by either sending me an e-mail OR sending a letter to my mother FAO ‘The Occupier’ (this is the only instance you can contact her). My mother is already in the process of contacting the press over this with the help of my dad and one of her carers so you may well see this case on Watchdog, I will let you know the date if you are interested. Today 3rd April 2006 at 9.09am I spoke to a Mrs Fisher at your call centre (this call was recorded at my end and can be used as evidence that I was advised the address would be removed and no further correspondence sent). I explained the brief outline of this letter and she assured me at least twice that my mothers address would be removed. I also gave her the last known address for xxxxxxxxxxxxxx and she said that any further letters would be sent there and not to my mothers. Fortunately I have today managed to get a phone number for my sister and sent her a text message asking her to ring you quoting the reference number. I then got a phone call from my sister saying she had cleared it up and made a plan to pay and straightened out the address problem but also said that the operator mentioned my mothers address, so I can see that the address has NOT been taken off but is still on file somewhere. Even if it is just as a previous address or something I demand it is removed at all costs as xxxxxxxxxxxx was only a child when she lived at that address. You have 14 days to comply with this request otherwise the above action will commence and proceedings may be made towards you. Yours sincerely Do you think it will end at that???