nice 1 dont forget to click on my scales Thais away out in front of me ! ho ho ho

Poor you. I wish I could be more positive but unfortunately you will have a real issue here with proving what was given to you at the time, especially since you didn't check it when you picked it up. I know you have a very good reason for that and understand your situation, but if Currys are stalling over this and saying that they don't have the items, it will be a very very difficult case to prove. Effectively you are claiming that they are in possession of items that you have title to (you own) and it might just be worth mentioning that you will go to the Police if they don't hand them over - just to see if that makes any difference. But I have to be honest, I highly doubt that the Police would get involved after all this time has passed. You'd have to take them to court for damages, and then you would also have the issue of proof. I'm sorry I can't give you a better answer.

You claim the full amount that was in your original schedule, minus what Tescos have repaid. In other words, yes, claim interest on the whole thing. Good luck with your claim. Regards, Rooster.

Well done Steven you should have your money back by the end of January, if you stick to your timescale, Nationwide are paying out roughly a week after court claims are issued. Open a new thread for Capital One, people that are already having issues with them will be able to help and advice you. Good luck!!

yes add your £100 fee !

I will get back to you soon.

Hi RFC Welcome. 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. Our aim is to make you aware of your rights as a consumer, enabling you to fight back against unlawful bank, credit and store card charges. In the website you will find information on how you could get your money back 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. Take your time and have a good read around this site. Then come and join us in our forum. Here we can guide you every step of the way. Please remember, we are here to help you help your self. 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. If you any questions please do come to the forum and we will only be too happy to help you! 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

I have written a letter to send to their collections center about this (will post later), but I have also just emailed their CEO: They just do not seem to get it do they?! Doesn't inspire me the same sense of confidence I'm afraid! If they have no intention of proceeding then in my eyes these letters amount to abusive attempts at intimidation. Still i'm not going to worry about this over Christmas, we'll see what happens next, but rest assured they ain't getting a penny regardless of what they say or do.

OK my panic is now over! I just phoned collections to see what was going on and managed to speak to somebody useful. I explained the situation that we have a court hearing on 7th February and there's a dispute going on over this "debt". I then said that I understood from Mindzai having to phone them a lot that they aren't always made aware of the fact that we've got a court hearing and we have sent letters to various departments. I asked if he knew that we have a court hearing and he said that there was a note on our record. I said that I wrote a letter to Brighton Customer Recovery on 28th November to complain about the high level of phone calls from collections, and I explained that the first thing I here back is this. To which he answered that I should completely ignore the letter, as they won't go ahead with any proceedings while I'm being dealt with by Customer Recovery. So I then asked if that means I won't be contacted again until 7th February and he said he will put a note on the record. So I don't know how promising this all is but it sounds as though there's nohing to worry about at the moment. I think I was very lucky that my call was answered by a member of staff who wasn't intent on arguing. I will still go ahead with writing to them just to be sure, but I'm pretty confident all will be ok. Lucid

Are you on about claiming back your royalties payment or the difference of the "CHG to 12345678" charge less your royalties payment? __________________ If I've been help to you, click on my scales and add to my rep! __________________ Stuck with RBS charges? Click here!! Settled RBS Current Account1 £2794 RBS Current Account2 £503 HBOS Credit Card £498 Still to Settle Barclaycard Est£180

Woohoooooo!! Ain't Temilope Fatogun a real cracker:) Still not coughed up mine though!! Congrats again

The value of the claim relates to the track it is allocated to...under £5k is small claims, £5-10k is fast-track and above that is multi-track. The principle differences as far as I can see is the cost and that certain extra information can be demanded if you aren't small-claims (cpr part 18 request forexample, only applies off small-claims track, but as Cobblers seem to be sending them out anyway, it probably won't make that much different on the legal side.) HOWEVER - I am not a legal head and everything I am doing is driven by what I read here, so there are probably several legal implications to 'fast-track' that I haven't yet considered. Please click my scales if anything I say is helpful!

You can try writing to the dealer in the first instance stating that the car is not of satisfactory quality and therefore does not comply with the terms of the Sale of Goods Act and therefore you are rejecting it and claiming a full refund. Describe the faults, explain what you were told about the mechanic being unsure of the cause and state that you have lost faith in the car and therefore you want your money back in full, plus consequential losses for your costs as a result of the car being faulty. (Number plate transfer I am not entirely sure about, since it's not something which is a "normal" cost in the sale of a car) It's tricky as it's hard to know what is wrong with the car. If it's a reasonably minor fault, it may be seen as reasonable for the trader to offer a repair in the first instance. Sometimes judges will think like that, so be prepared to be reasonable if you can. Ultimately it is only a court who can decide whether it is reasonable to reject and claim costs, but it's at least worth trying a letter to them along these lines and see what response you get.

Hi Newlywed Yes it is of course worth following this up. Though as always with PPI it appears to be their word against yours. If you have the full terms and conditions of the PPI Policy , please spend a few minutes having a proper read through them to see what if anything it states regarding self employed. I know a lot of PPI policies will not cover you at all if you are self employed. The whole Issue of reclaiming Mis Sold PPI is somewhat new and we are slowly starting to win some of the fights, some easier than others I may add from personal experience..lol I had a claim with Lloyds and it was settled quite quickly, the other bigger on I have had ongoing since September is sort of at stail mate at the minute. I will be taking this one to court at the beginning of 2007, I just dont have the time at the moment to get it sent off etc. I have also to fight it through the English Court System rather than the local Scottish court. In your case I would after you have read the terms and conditions etc , send them a LBA to reclaim the full amount that you have paid so far towards the policy and dont forget to Add interest at the rate they are charging you. Blackhorse are also regulated by the FISA, so a letter to them wont go amiss, I have taken my complaint to the FISA, though they were very helpful they do not appear to have any real power with these companies. Good Luck, if you need any more help just shout. Ian

Without the research and legal jargon - I'd say something along the lines of... When the law came in that stated penalties should not exceed costs, the banks and their solicitors should have been fully aware of this at the time. Being an everyday process of charging penalties, this law would have been noted at some point soon after it came into force. If the banks are stating they didn't know this law existed, then I would say there are some pretty serious consequences to that. Whether they concealed it by theft, fraud, ignorance, or plain stupidity is irrelevant. They were aware of the law, and as such statute of limitations does not apply. Or have I missed some major point of law here? I'd love to test it. Surely they pay or look a bit daft saying they weren't aware of that particular law that applied sto something they do every day, on mass.

Barclays Bank PLC Customer Relations Barclays Bank PLC 1, Churchill Place London E14 5HP

FWIW There is a lack of clarity as far as I can tell, and Ive looked reasonably hard, on the issue of whether contractual interest is, or is not, part of the claim value when considering allocation. Theres a CPR which says interest isn't included. However, i have had a legal view from a solicitor (retired) and a judge, which suggested that contractual interest is part of the claim value for allocation. On the AQ from the defendant in one of my claims they talk about the 'true value of the claim' being the charges only, which is interesting since if there was specific CPR to refer to then i would have expected (naively maybe) that they would have simply said 'that the rules say to disregard the contractual interest and that this is in effect a small claim', they didnt. SO IMHO if you are claiming contractual interest and it is above the threshold for small claims or fast track, then you need to be prepared for the claim to be allocated to that track. The implications of this are that if your claim value is more than 5k it goes into fast track with the attendant risk for costs being awarded, generally limited to 750. What is more worrying of course is that if the claim is above 15K and is allocated to multi track then your exposure is for full costs, which could of course be significant and unless you have lottery winning money could mean the loss of everything. You should also be aware that whatever the value of your claim, the rules are in fact guidance and the judge can allocate as they see fit. Hence there have been claims allocated to mercantile court and fast or multi track when the value is only a couple of hundred quid. Re splitting claims, you should always aim to make a single claim, if you don't then the defendant can ask for second/subsequent claims to be struck out on the basis that theyre vexatious i believe. If you have a good reason to split claims, e.g. you don't have all the statements when you submit the first claim, it would be unlikely that a court would swallow this argument. I think its feasible that a defendant could use this argument whether the first claim got to court or not. JMHO Glenn

Hi Vixtress. Good for you. It's ALL your money. Go for the lot. Have you read the FAQs and the step by step guide in the library section? Spend a few days with them and you will find that they will answer most of your questions. Just click on the link in my signature for the FAQs. Good luck with your claim. Regards, Rooster.

This thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/34887-5-money-claim-line.html contains everything you need to know about POC with MCOL, use this http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/681-4-particulars-claim-n1.html if you are filing paper N1 (this is where most of my source came from) About the only thing you need to send with the N1 (apart from the court fee) is your schedule of charges. I will be filing my paper N1's today using the text below. I'll let you know later if it all goes okay. Best of luck Phil (Don't forget to click my scales if I've helped at all - )

A Subject Access Request entitles you to a copy of ALL information a company or organisation hold on you under the Data Protection Act am.1998; call notes, transaction history, payment details, everything. There's a template letter in the library - you'll have to adjust it slightly as it refers mostly to bank accounts. You need to send a £10 cheque with it as the statutory fee - this is all they are allowed to charge you for the information. They have 40 days from receipt to comply. _________________________________ ----- Click the scales if I've been useful!

just to say when searching these companies to be thorough search 3 ways ( you never know what xtra bit of info might turn up) creditgate.co.uk with thw www before ( if i actually type it -- the link takes over and zzz.creditgate.co.uk zzz.ukdata.com ( i have changed "w" to "z" tobreak the link) UK, Europe and International business credit reports, risk scores, annual account and company filings online from UK Data Ltd Business credit checks and Companies House documents instantly online. and the traditional one companies house and on one of the two above if you give them an email address you can track a company .....for free i believe .. so when some new data is added you get an email go get em terminator

Exactly that - it just says goods should be repaired within a "reasonable time". This is because this timescale won't be the same for different products. For example, a fridge is more urgent than a television - so a reasonable time to repair a fridge would be shorter than a reasonable time to repair a television. The best thing to do with goods like this is to make time of the essence at the time of taking it in to repair - tell them that you want it back by [and name a reasonable date in the circumstances, it's no good saying you want your laptop back tomorrow!]. Follow up by putting this in writing. Then you have a definitive date by which you can say - you've not repaired this within a reasonable time, so I'm looking for a replacement/partial refund.

I would write to them straight away telling them that as your claim was for £512.23 + and as they have not repayed that amount then you are still going ahead with the court claim. S.P

For concealment they must have had knowledge that what they have or intend to do is wrong. How did the Credit Reference Agencies come into being? I have phoned the Financial Ombudsman Service who have admitted they originally developed the database for credit checking but have not confirmed the date they ceased to develop it and passed it over to private companies. My guess is they developed something they believed to be a service (on the behalf of the banks) and ditched it when they realised the implications of the DPA. Whoever took the reins at that point must have known why the FOS were getting out and either saw an opportunity, or a necessity. Either way, the FOS got out for a reason and this will have been pointed out to their successors. Their Lawyers must have been competent, and therefore informed them what they were doing was unlawful. Else, I hope their Lawyers were relevantly insured.

tanz.sorry i was not specific enough last time i poted regarding removal of default charges,if you type in to your search area on google or whichever search engine you usethese words then it will take you to a site where they have listed hoe to remove defaults from credit file.ok so in the searc box on google type,REMOVE DEFAULT NOTICES ON A CREDIT FILE-WE TELL YOU HOW,CAN BE IN LOWER CASE IF YOU CHOOSE.YOU SHOULD GET THE IMFO YOU REQUIRE THERE.

scouser these loosers from moorcroft do not pay any attention to your rights or letters you send to desist from phoning..if you really must answer the door and are being threatened call the police it is an offence.. i have been dealing with these clowns for about 6 months now as they have been harrassing my mum....they only get to you if you give them airspace or ear space...they are a bunch of chimps that threaten everything and do nothing....they rely on continued harrassment to break people down....if they call dont answer the phone, or pick it up and put it on the tv and leave it for half hour...they soon get bored...do not try to talk to them as they are only interested in getting your cash.... if the situation is that dire and the debt is not in dispute i would apply to the courts for a time order...this should reduce the amount you pay and also is paid to the courts...make sure you complain to the oft about these animals..they need sorting out...contact the trading standards and make an harrassment complaint about them, do not sit quietly and let every authority you can know about the abuse you receive from these chimps... they flout the laws of debt collection and every one should complain to the authorities and the regulatory bodies about them....but do not let them get to you and do not enter into any conversation with them...i have been paying my mums original creditor each month as the account is in dispute but they refuse to get moorcroft off her back..so we just play games with them and know they are stuffed...they have no powers of entry or any other POWER so just give em the finger....if the debt is in dispute stand your ground... they have no right to visit your house without giving 48 hrs notice in writing and you have the right to tell them no you are not coming...they are all mouth...good luck and tell your wife not to worry...it is not worth it and that is what they want!!! the problem is you are made to feel guilty about debt by these bastards...DONT...you have done nothing wrong and they are harrassing you which is an offence.

Hi Andrew, I have had a read of your story and hopefully I'll be able to give you a bit of advice. Essentially you have two options available to you if you want to go the litigation route. Your first option would be to bring a claim in tort based upon negligence. You could do this because a bank owes a fiduciary duty to its customer(s) to use reasonable skill and care when dealing with them. They are also subject to the duty of care that everybody else is subject to. So in order to prove a duty of care is easy and it is also easy to show that they failed to use reasonable skill and care. However in order to successfully prove a negligence claim you need to be able demonstrate causation and forseeability, this could be more complicated even though it is clear they have been negligent. The second much easier option is to make a claim in contract. You would simply have to prove they are in breach of contract, this is easy. Implied into every contract, regardless of what is in the small print of your terms and conditions, is a term that the supplier of a service will use reasonable skill and care when supplying the service. This is found in s.13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. In order to prove this you need to prove the existence of a contract: this doesn't need to be signed. You will need to check your terms and conditions for any other relevant terms as well as the implied statutory term. You will also have to prove a breach of contract; in your case they have taken money from your account without your consent and failed to use "reasonable skill and care". You will also have to show the court that it has caused you a loss, that will be easy just the court your bank statement detailing how much money they took. If I were you I would definitely consider the second option as it is straight forward and very easy to prove in court before a district judge in a small claims court. Before starting proceedings though I would write a letter to your bank rejecting the initial offer of £150 as being unreasonable in the circumstances and state what amount you would prepared to accept and also specify a time limit when you need a reply back otherwise you will commence proceedings in the county court. I’m new to this site as someone at work told me about it, I work as a solicitor in a City practice and no doubt you will read a lot of people on this site talking about the Consumer Credit Act and the like; this just complicates matters and makes things take longer. If you stick to basic legal principles of contract then it is usually very straightforward.

It came to a bit of halt I'm afraid Buenofrog but certainly not forgotten. I was sort of thinking of being just as stubborn as them and leaving it open just for the loan purpose only, afterall I'm sure it costs the bank to maintain an account. One good thing though was by insisting on me keeping an active account for the purpose of the loan meant there was no way of them shutting it, so they can't demand I repay my O/D. I might persue it again in the New Year, for now though I have busy times ahead spending all this money....

Thank you. I wasn't aware that they actually predict anyhting - they just keep information don't they? Also, what you have to remember is that it if someone has a defualt on their credit file, the companies lend them at higher interest rates so it's in their interest to issue them sometimes. I don't think to be honest that they actually would consider each entry and their dates etc, taking the most recent first - what they do is check if you have a default, if you do then they charge you more interest etc. Maybe if they check them manually they might consider the extra "fiddly" details, but automated searches won't. I've learnt this whilst applying for credit and things when they say, "well, if you've got a default then we can't lend to you!" If they didn't get to charge more interest on borrowing then they wouldn't bother issuing them, and certiainly wouldn't fight as hard as they do when you try to get them removed!!!

Well recieved another letter from Lloyds TSB it reads as follows: 13th December 2006 Our reference: HW/AND/******** Dear T Thank you for getting in touch with us again. I am sorry you are still unhappy about your account charges. (to right I am) We've already explained that we believe it is fair to charge you for extra services you've requested, as long as you know about the charges in advance. (well I dont) When you didn't have enough in your account to cover a payment you'd asked us to make, we had to agree to make it by setting up or increasing your overdraft, or tell you we couldn't agree it. (and send you a templated letter, big cost that eh) We feel it's only fair to charge for our services in considering and implementing this. Its easy to keep a running check on how much is in your account. Blah blah blah. Blah blah blah Generally we don't agree to adjust any of these charges (unless you threaten us with court action), but I can tell you that on this occasion we are prepared to reduce the charges by repaying you £750. (Well feel free but i'm still going after the rest as just shelled out £80 on MCOL, plus you now owe me interest, If you'd had offered me this after my first request then to be honest I probably would have accepted this as my charges only totalled £823, but now to little to late, i'm going for the full amount plus cost and interest) You may have read that we and other banks are discussing overdraft charges with the Office of Fair Trading (I have read that the OFT are going to seriously slap you over the arse with a wet kipper on this so pull down your pants and take it like you know you deserve, and then stop trying to justify the unjustifiable). Meanwhile we do consider each customer's position individually (prob cause all their claims are for different amounts you silly fools), and we are making you this offer as a gesture of goodwill (no your not you doing it cause your scared of having to reveal your true costs in court) because we might face that cost in dealing with your complaint if you took it further (well actually this and more as my claim now stands at just under £1k). I need to let you know that this does not mean we consider we have any legal obligation to do so (I beg to differ). This sum will be credited to your account, in the next few days (thanks, just in time for Christmas, however i'm still going to pursue this claim for the full amount). As i've explained, these charges are avoidable and we would strongly urge you to keep within the limit you'v agreed with us or ask us now to see if we could increase it for you. (well I did when I opened the account but you said I could only have a sh*t one due to my credit score, do you really beleive this would have changed, cause I don't) This letter is the bank's final response, which means that if you are still dissatisfied you may refer your complaint to the FOS blah blah blah. (no thanks cause I'll see you in court) Yours sincerely Karen Roberts CSO Happy days Tanz

Oh sweetie I'm so sorry. Thats really awful. I know there,s nothing I can do but I just wanted to let you I'm here if you need me. Take care Paul Love Sam xxx

Pete, I have Summary Statement of Evidence which I downloaded from somewhere on here. It seems to be as Zoot described. Could this be what your looking for? Obviously wants amending to suit your case. SUMMARY STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE The claimant submits that the charges levied to his bank account, as set out in the enclosed schedule, are, notwithstanding the defence of the defendant, default penalty charges imposed because of and relating directly to breaches of contract, both explicit and implied, on the part of the claimant. As a penalty, the charges are unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, the Unfair Contracts (Terms) Act 1977, and the common law. The Defendant contends that the charges levied are legitimate fixed price contractual services, which are therefore not required to be a pre-estimate of loss incurred on the part of the defendant. The claimant further submits that this contention is merely an attempt to ‘cloak’, or disguise, their penalties in order to circumvent the common law and statutory prohibition of default penalty charges with view to a profit. The claimant believes a 'service' to be a provision of knowledge, skill or other transferable facility that benefits the consumer, and one that the consumer agrees is at a reasonable market rate commensurable with the service provided. The claimant believes it to be inconceivable that the charges levied to his account by the defendant could be any form of ‘service’, rather than a penalty. The law clearly states that a company cannot profit from a breach and the charge for a loss suffered from a breach of contract should be the amount necessary to put both parties in the same position before the breach occurred. This means that Liquidated damages are charged. This is backed up by case law – Robinson Vs Harman 1848. The law says that the charge for loss or damage must be proportionate to the loss incurred. The breaches of contract in this case relate to exceeding overdraft limits, and having insufficient funds available to pay a direct debit or a standing order. On one occasion in June 2006, a direct debit payment was returned due to insufficient funds in my account. The shortfall was only one pound and nineteen pence. I was then penalised for this breach by way of a charge of £35. The claimant holds this charge and indeed every other charge in question, to be punitive in nature, and wholly disproportionate. The law states that a clause is a penalty if it provides for “a payment of money stipulated as in-terrorum of the offending party”. I.e. it is punitive, designed to scare or coerce or it is used as a threat. Lord Dunedin stated in the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage & Motor Co 1915:- “the sum is a penalty if it is greater than the greatest loss which could have been suffered from the breach” It is also worth noting that the defendant is a multi-national corporation. This term regarding charges was inserted unilaterally in contract. I.e. I had no opportunity to negotiate the clause. Under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, Sec 2 Par 1 states that: “A term that allows a party to unilaterally raise of price or for a price to be determined on delivery is unfair” The cost of Lloyds charges have increased twice during the period in which my account was held, neither time was I given the opportunity to negotiate, or even notified of this increase. This means the bank has unilaterally altered the terms of my account contract to my detriment, and to their advantage. Further under the UTCCR: 5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer. (2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term. (3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract. (4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was. Schedule 2 also includes such clauses (to define examples of unfair clauses) as: (i) irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which he had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract; (m) giving the seller or supplier the right to determine whether the goods or services supplied are in conformity with the contract, or giving him the exclusive right to interpret any term of the contract; The claimant further submits that the defendant’s contention that the charges are now a legitimate service charge represents a contradiction to materials published by the bank previously. In correspondence with Lloyds TSB’s ‘Customer Service Recovery’ department in July 2006, Martin Orton, who is manager of said department, stated this in a letter: “As you are aware, I am afraid that it is the case that any items that are returned incur a fee in order that we can recoup our costs”. This was in response to a direct and plain request to justify Lloyds TSB’s charges. Throughout the letter, no mention was ever made of the charges as being the cost of any sort of ‘service’. The claimant also cites a radio interview in 2004 with Lloyds TSB’s former head of personal banking, Peter McNamara, in which he states the charges are used to fund free banking for all personal customers as a whole. Additionally, the claimant believes that it is a high possibility that the terms and conditions of his account contract explicitly describe the fee’s as to be applied in instances of breaching those terms. This is true of the contracts of other customers of Lloyds TSB that the claimant is aware. However, the bank has failed to provide me with a copy of the account contract, despite repeated requests to do so, so unfortunately this cannot be proved. A right of subject access request for this document was submitted to the defendant under the Data Protection Act 1998, on 8th September 2006. The defendant has failed to comply. The claimant also refers to the statement from the Office of Fair Trading (April 2006), who conducted a thorough investigation into default charges levied by the British financial industry. While the report primarily focused on Credit card issuers, the OFT stated that the principle of their findings would also apply to Bank account charges. They ruled that the default charges at the current level were unfair within their interpretation of the UTCCR’s. With regard to the ‘cloaking’ or disguising of penalties, the OFT said this; “4.21 The analysis in this statement is in terms of explicit, transparent default fees. Attempts to restructure accounts in order to present events of default spuriously as additional services for which a charge may be made should be viewed as disguised penalties and equally open to challenge where grounds of unfairness exist. (For example, a charge for ‘agreeing’ or ‘allowing’ a customer to exceed a credit limit is no different from a customers default in exceeding a credit limit.) The UTCCR’s are concerned with the intentions and effects of terms, not just their mechanism”. Additionally, if these charges are incurred a certain number of times within a given period, i.e. a month, they may be registered as ‘defaults’ on the account holders credit file with credit reference agencies. I, the claimant, believe all facts stated in this summery to be true Signed: Dated: DOCUMENTS ENCLOSED IN SUPPORT OF THIS SUMMARY Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd –v- New Garage and Motor Co Ltd Lloyds TSB automated Direct Debit ‘return to payer’ letter Letter from Martin Orton, Manager of Lloyds ‘Customer Service Recovery’ Dept. Transcript of Radio interview with Peter McNamara, Lloyds former head of personal banking, Sept 2004 House of Commons Early Day Motion, May 2006 OFT statement, April 2006, section 4.21 – ‘disguised penalties’ Data Protection Act 1998 Subject Access Request for account contract and information Elsinore

Are they aware that you have started the claim process? If they are not then that would explain why they are offering the lesser amount. You need to contact them and explain that the claim had already been issued before their offer and therefore the interest and court fees need to be added to their offer for you to withdraw your claim. David

Hiya Yes your right, below is a letter for not accepting this offer: Your Address Their Address Date Dear Sir/Madam, Sort Code: ACCOUNT NUMBER: Your Reference: In response to your letter offering £xxxx as a goodwill gesture - your offer is accepted only as a partial repayment of the outstanding balance and I do not recognise it as a full and final settlement. Although I appreciate your offer, I would like to notify you that my request is for £xxxx I hope this matter can be resolved amicably and swiftly. Yours Faithfully (your name) Hope that helps, just copy & paste it & fill in your details

No problem at all! You've been even more reasonable by giving them longer to respond!! You're ready for your MCOL now. Go get them tiger! A D

Ooooo Michael, you are a sneaky helpering type, thats the second or third time...thank you xxxx

You're gonna love this, part of my claim this time around is for the return of charges added to an account I've already settled (but were applied after I filed at MCOL). They say, I wonder what they'll say when I explain that in fact they already have, and that my current claim does not relate to any of the charges they think they do? It's a cruel sport, like shooting fish in a barrel, but someones gotta do it. I got a second letter that relates to the second a/c I already settled (again for charges after last claim was filed). This one claims that as I have already received a final settlement of my complaint, they are unable to refund any further charges. Hmmmmm, let's review the facts. I have signed no such agreement or indeed any terms imposed on the settlement. They did not attempt to claim any such terms when they offerred to settle. They sneakily tried to add some after payment by saying "thank you for confirming your acceptance of our offer (which I didn't) of X in full and final settlement of your complaint. In reality my complaint was VERY clearly defined by the schedules etc as being from x date to x date. All charges now being claimed occurred after those dates and so did not form part of any complaint, let alone settlement that I alledgedly accepted (with or without any terms they dreamt they added). Hmmm, adding clauses after the fact, and with no evidence of my consent to said terms...... Yep, I think i'd enjoy seeing them sqirm in a court over that one! That's round 1 of the rematch to me I believe......

Hi Paula You need to ask a Admin (Dave or Bankfodder) but as you can guess they are VERY busy with the site and I would say PM a mod and ask them to sort out when they can. Goto the main page of the forum and go all the way to the bottom and anyone of the GREEN users click on the name and the send Private Message:) Good luck;)