2 cca DEFAULTS? About ready for this letter then : I refer to my letters dated XXXXXXXX which was delivered via recorded delivery to your offices on XXXXXXXX, and my follow up letter dated XXXXXXXX. In my letter xxxxxxI made a formal request for a copy of the signed, executed credit agreement for the above numbered XXXXXXXX account under section 77(1) and section 78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act. In addition a statement of my account should have been sent along with any other document mentioned in the credit agreement. The Consumer Credit Act allows 12 working days for this request to be carried out before your company enter into a default situation. If the request is not satisfied after a further 30 calendar days, Your company commit an offence. These time limits expired on XXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXX respectively. As you are no doubt aware subsection (6) states: If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)— (a) He is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement; and (b) If the default continues for one month he commits an offence. Therefore as at XXXXXXXX this account became unenforceable at law and it is now my intention to refer this matter to the enforcement authorities. Any default notices or adverse comments your company have recorded on my credit reference file should be immediately removed. Failure to respond favourably to this letter within seven (7) days of receipt will result in immediate litigation being commenced against your company without further notice. I await your rapid response.

I refer to my letters dated XXXXXXXX which was delivered via recorded delivery to your offices on XXXXXXXX, and my follow up letter dated XXXXXXXX. In my letter xxxxxxI made a formal request for a copy of the signed, executed credit agreement for the above numbered XXXXXXXX account under section 77(1) and section 78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act. In addition a statement of my account should have been sent along with any other document mentioned in the credit agreement. The Consumer Credit Act allows 12 working days for this request to be carried out before your company enter into a default situation. If the request is not satisfied after a further 30 calendar days, Your company commit an offence. These time limits expired on XXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXX respectively. As you are no doubt aware subsection (6) states: If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)— (a) He is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement; and (b) If the default continues for one month he commits an offence. Therefore as at XXXXXXXX this account became unenforceable at law and it is now my intention to refer this matter to the enforcement authorities. Any default notices or adverse comments your company have recorded on my credit reference file should be immediately removed. Failure to respond favourably to this letter within seven (7) days of receipt will result in immediate litigation being commenced against your company without further notice. I await your rapid response. Yours Faithfully

Firstly, the spreadsheet I used was mindzai's which you can find by looking at his profile page - there should be a link to the spreadsheet there. Over the years, when I received my statements, along with it came an extra page outlining my monthly charge for the previous month. This was made up of my arranged charge(s) - in my case Royalties (I know, I'm foolish...). On top of this however, there would generally be other charges. If I had had a bad month and gone overdrawn, there would be an arrangement fee added to this charge of £28 (or sometimes more). It would then tell me that the sum would be debited from my bank on a certain date (next month) and come the date of charging, there would be an entry on my statement that read "CHG A/C 12345678" (12345678 being my account number). Now when I received my duplicate statements having sent an S.A.R - (Subject Access Request), none of these breakdown sheets were sent so I was a bit stuck, I knew that some of the amount charged on these charges I could claim back and some of it I couldn't (because the Royalties charge for example, is a service and is therefore unclaimable). Using my statements as a guide to what level of royalties I had (I have at some stage been on Royalties, Gold and Premium and at the top of each statement it will tell you what type of account it is during that month) I basically deducted the monthly Royalties fee from the CHG A/C charge therefore leaving the amount I could claim back. When setting up your first statement (for your prelim) ensure you add to this any overdraft interest that you can claim back. DO NOT GET THIS CONFUSED WITH 8% INTEREST YOU ADD TO YOUR CLAIM AT COURT STAGE. Overdraft interest is the interest that is charged to your account on a monthly basis when you are overdrawn. This interest is calculated on any amount that exceeds your interest free overdraft (not your agreed overdraft limit). Because your unlawful charges contribute to your overdraft, the interest that is charged against these charges can be claimed back from stage one. On the spreadsheet, enter the date the interest was debited, the amount charged, the interest free overdraft amount and the balance of your account at the time of the interest charge and the spreadsheet does the rest. It calculates the difference between your overdraft at the time and your interest free amount to find out how much the interest was charged against. It then finds out what percentage of your overdraft is made up of charges and adds this to the claim. To explain in layman's terms what the spreadsheet does, if you were £600 overdrawn and had an interest free amount of £100, were charged £50 in charges and were deducted £10 in overdraft interest, the spreadsheet would calculate: Overdraft £600 minus Interest Free £100 equals £500 Charge amount £50 as percentage of Chargeable overdaft £500 equals 10% Amount claimable equals 10% of interest charge of £10 equals £1 Royalties interest free amounts are easy to find out, just ring RBS and ask them! The current amounts are (or at least were when I did mine) Basic 100, Gold 250, Premier 500. Anything over these amounts (whether it is an agreed amount or not) is charged interest. The obvious issue here is Royalties charges have changed over time and it is difficult to pinpoint when they have changed. For the sake of keeping things simple, I didn't bother finding out, just used the current levels and said so in my prelim - the bank can always amend if they want to (which I doubt they will). Finally, you can find a list of all charges and their amounts going back as far as 1993 here. This can give you an idea of what charges can be reclaimed and how much they were at the time of the charge you are reviewing. An extremely useful post!! Had a couple of questions regarding this over pm, thought I would post a couple of them as they may be of use also..... Can't say for sure, but I added to the letter that I was using the current charges at time of writing to them. Note, I believe some ppl in RBS forum are attempting to obtain a list of historical royalties charges. The most likely thing is Loanguard. If you had an overdraft and were somehow advised to take this out then you got caught! This is basically payment protection of your overdraft, is arranged and is therefore unclaimable.

I have posted a letter to HSBC Direct and received a reply 09/03/07 saying they will forward statements by courier, how long should I wait and should I count the 40 days from the date of their letter to me? What do I wait for now if they are delivering by courier I will need to be in?

Strictly speaking you should claim for them all in one go. The court has the power to combine separate claims if it wishes. The £5000 ceiling for small claims is flexible and you can argue on your allocation questionnaire that the case should be allocated to the small claims track (help is available if it comes to that). Alternatively if allocated to the multi-track there is technically a risk of higher costs if you lose but (and it's a very big but) the disclosure rules that apply to bigger cases would force Abbey to reveal their exact costs, which they won't want to do so they are very likely to settle at an early date. Ultimately it is of course your decision but I know which route I'd take.

thanks curlyben & diskmandave. i haven't even begun questioning interest charges as i'd rather keep that in reserve if i do end up paying the debt off. in general i feel that this forum has the awesome ability to empower the masses but for newbies, the info is just too overwhelming. May i suggest to the moderator that hardcore posters gain reputation points and then people can post bids on what advice they seek. This fee will be nominal but it will mean that the right people give the right advice. I for one would quite happily pay £20 to this forum rather than giving it to DCA's in the hope that their ongoing advice could help my financial cause. Just a thought. Thanks again

You may want to visit their website. It gives a good impression of the type of firm they are HL Legal

Absolutely - and that is why this site is dedicated to helping people with financial difficulties and makng sure they know their rights and the implications of any contract they enter into - particulary when it comes to your home.

Go Girl.. go get em x

Hello Vetinari, Welcome to CAG!!!! What programe were we on tonight? Have a good nose around. Are you going to be claiming against any banks? If so Which ones? Remember before you start any claims, read the FAQ's, read the step by step guide, basically read everything , digest it all, know what you are doing then go for the attack!!! Once you are ready, start threads in the appropriate forums. That way we can follow your progress, answer any questions you have and cheer with you when you get your money back! If you need help and fast there is a live chat section, usually has some helpfull people lurking there! Good Luck:D

Yes thats correct a case thats already had a ruling on a point of law will carry alot of weight next time around, unless of course the defence has a better case that shows the contrary. The law is often very contradictory in nature and case law research takes quite alot of time, but is worth it in the long run, especially if it wins you the case. Beaman v Arts is a case i looked into a while ago in pursute of bank charge claims. Google it and have a read up, you may be surprised ! Best of luck

hope this helps

This should do the trick Dear Sirs, thank you for your letter dated . I understand you are asking for arrears of £1335.50 payable by 2nd April 2007. After speaking to one of your representatives today, she informs me that my arrears are in fact 2 months which equates to £534. This I shall endeavor to bring up to date by 2nd April. I have now been informed that you have called in the whole loan before this date and have illegally removed monies from my bank account. This as your are aware is in total breach of the banking code and is a very serios action taken on your part. I firmly suggest that you replace the monies in my account otherwise I shall immediately take court action to retrieve same. Interalia your insistence on the collection of this money may amount to an attempt to obtain property by deception,which is a violation of section 15 of the Theft Act 1968. It is additionally illegal for you,under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to handle,tranfer, or arrange assets derived from criminal conduct. By doing so, you may be in violation of sections 327 (Concealing etc),328 (Arrangments) and 329 (Acquisition,Use and Possession) of criminal property.If you do not immediately refund me these monies to me i will file a formal complaint against you with my local police.A copy of this letter, along with the necessary documentation to support my claim,is also being forwarded to my member of parliament. Leech

Hi Doo, Have a look at this website:- Revenue Collection Services - Home Yvette

The authority is Stour Valley Builders v. Mr & Mrs T.P. Stuart 1993 WL 964283. This is a Court of Appeal case. I'm not sure if the judgment is published openly or not on the net, that discovery is left as an exercise for the reader:) The judgment is quite lengthy and considers a number of other authorities but the key points are: There needs to be agreement (accord and satisfaction) between both parties that the payment is accepted as full and final settlement of the claim. This agreement needs to be evidenced. The offer creates a rebuttable presumption that the offer is in full and final settlement. The creditor rebuts the presumption by informing the debtor promptly that the cheque is not accepted as full and final settlement. The creditor can bank and keep the cheque as long as this is made known to the debtor before the debtor has a chance to assume that the offer has been accepted as full and final. The judgment cites a couple of other cases. In one where the debtor was informed promptly (within a few days) that the cheque was only being accepted as part-payment the presumption was rebutted. In another the debtor was informed after seven weeks. This was deemed to be too late to rebut the presumption so in that case the creditor was not able to pursue the debt. Stour Valley Builders confirmed that Day v McLea (1889) L.R. 22 QBD 610 (CA), an earlier appeal court decision stating that accord was required between creditor and debtor when an offer of full and final settlement was accompanied by a cheque that was then banked, was still good law. Turning to the practicalities of banking a cheque for CAG claimants I say that it all depends on the circumstances of the claimant. If that claimant is in a position where keeping the funds will make a difference to them then in my opinion they should write to the bank stating that the claim is accepted as partial payment only and that they will continue with the claim. This letter should be written and posted ASAP and ideally before but not more than 3 or 4 days after is the cheque is banked. The claimant should then bank the cheque. :)thanks for the click t4ff

Dear Mrs Littlewoods, Thankyou for your letter dated xx/xx/xx the contents of which I note. However this does not fulfill your obligations under the CCA 1974, details of which I requested xx/xx/xx. The alledged debt is at present unenforceable, until you satisfy my request. To this end I would like you to note that I will not enter into any further communications with your company on this matter, unless and until my request is actioned. For ease of reference please find enclosed copy of aforementioned letter Love Kenny

Question 1 all depends on what you mean by overdraft interest. If you are referring to the debited interest charges on your statements, then certainly not. The reason they offer partial amounts is to make you think twice about accepting it - saving them a fair amount of money. If however, you have already added 8% interest to your claim before you should have then I would expect this is all you are entitled to and you shoudl accept. You have to be fully aware of the implications of refusing it however. If you do not receive a full settlement offer soon you will have to file a court claim, this will increase your claim as you will be able to include 8% statuatory interest to your claim. However, you will need to be fully aware of how to file you claim etc. Question 2 is a little difficult to answer. They might, the might not? No one is really sure. If you overdraft is a little inflated right now in comparison to your income then it might well be recuced. Trouble is no one can really tell what they are going to do? If you could clarify point 1 I could give you a more defining answer. Excuse the questions - you may have a full understanding of what you are doing but more often than not newcomers tend to do the wrong thing on the back of advice from other sites so I' mjust double checking.

Depends on how busy your court is - my local one is now listing for August!

CONGRATULATIONS, MATE !!!

Not sure what the rate is, maybe look on their website. It will probably be quite high though (around 20%). As for working out the interest, yes, for each charge enter the date, the amount and the current date. It then gives you the interest for that charge. You then add them all up Its a bit laborious but it works out to be a very good hourly rate of pay.

You may be able to pick some bits out of this.. If you look at yours and mine thye are both similar defences... I, Jos say as follows. I am a litigant in person. I make this reply to the defence as a response to the banks defence and the also the banks application to have part of this claim dismissed. I make this response from matters within my own knowledge. It is acknowledged that the defendant denies that the punitive charges were debited unlawfully however it should be noted that the defendant has settled many hundreds of claims without once defending any in a court hearing, this is a clear and systematic abuse of the court system. I base my claim for Contractual Interest being awarded due to the imbalance in favour of the defendant in applying compounded contractual interest to the penalty charges and the borrowing of my money and no fairness in this being reciprocated by Claimant in their use of my money or any legal redress by the Claimant. This therefore being deemed an unfair term in the contract. Insofar as it is possible and material to this case the Claimant pleads and maintains as follows with regard to the Defence and this Claim. 1. At several points in the Defence the Defendant avers that the Claimant must plead further than he already has in the Particulars of Claim (‘PoC.’) The Defendant calls upon the Claimant to plead information (and in some cases evidence) which the Claimant isn’t required to plead at this point 1.1 For the avoidance of all and any doubt, it is specifically denied that the Claimant needs to plead further than he already has in this case. 1.2 The Defendant makes several averments in the Defence reserving its “right” to plead further in this case. 1.2.1 It is denied that the Defendant has such a right to plead further in this case, as alleged or at all. 1.2.2 Nothing in this Reply or the PoC should be construed as giving the Defendant the right to plead further at a later date. 1.2.3 Nothing in this Reply or the PoC should be construed as derogating from the provisions of CPR 15.9, or giving the Defendant the right to do so. 2. In your defence (paragraph 2) you make reference to the Claimant not being able to bring a claim more than 6 years after the date on which the cause of action accrued. 2.1 I feel if your client had disclosed their true costs to me, this would have ended any dispute. However although your client has had every opportunity to do so, they have failed to avail themselves in this matter. I am also prepared to argue and show the court that the Limitation Act 1980 restriction does not apply under the specific exemptions in Section 32(1).a, b, and c and therefore my claim is not time barred under s5. I am fully prepared to prove to the court that your client’s charges are punitive in nature, excessive, unfair, not a true reflection of actual costs. And therefore show the court that my claim is not time barred due to your client concealing and or fraudulently concealing and or making a misrepresentation and or making a fraudulent misrepresentation. The Claimant avers that Section 5 of the Limitations Act is not relevant in respect of this claim. 3.1 The Defendant is a major financial institution within a group of companies that have interests throughout the world. They operate as fiduciary to many thousands of customers in the UK, and employ a large number of staff, including experienced corporate lawyers and accountants. 3.1.2 As a company regulated under the Financial Services Authority (“the FSA”), the Defendant has agreed to abide by the Principles for Businesses, as outlined in Chapter 2 of the FSA Handbook: 1. Integrity - A firm must conduct its business with integrity. 2. Skill, care and diligence - A firm must conduct its business with due skill, care and diligence. 3. Management and control - A firm must take reasonable care to organise and control its affairs responsibly and effectively, with adequate risk management systems. 4. Financial Market Conduct - A firm must maintain adequate financial resources. 5. Market Conduct - A firm must observe proper standards of market conduct. 6. Customers’ interests - A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly. 7. Communications with clients - A firm must pay due regard to the information needs of its clients, and communicate information to them in a way which is clear, fair and not misleading. 8. Conflicts of interest - A firm must manage conflicts of interest fairly, both between itself and its customers and between a customer and another client. 9. Customers: relationships of trust - A firm must take reasonable care to ensure the suitability of its advice and discretionary decisions for any customer who is entitled to rely upon its judgment. 10. Clients' assets - A firm must arrange adequate protection for clients' assets when it is responsible for them. 11. Relations with regulators - A firm must deal with its regulators in an open and cooperative way, and must disclose to the FSA appropriately anything relating to the firm of which the FSA would reasonably expect notice. 3.1.3 This document is produced under the powers given to the FSA within the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, and provides a benchmark by which financial companies should operate within the United Kingdom. Paragraph 9, places a duty on companies to “take reasonable care to ensure the suitability of its advice and discretionary decisions for any customer who is entitled to rely upon its judgment”. The Claimant contends that a bank’s fiduciary responsibility is encapsulated in law, and therefore if such a regulated company informs a customer that it is entitled to levy a charge against an account, it would be reasonable to expect the account holder to believe that the actions of the bank are lawful, and that the charge does relate to it’s internal costs, as they continue to contend is the case. 3.1.4 In addition and without prejudice to the above, as a Litigant in Person, the Claimant could not reasonably have discovered that the making of such payments was a mistake before the report of the Office of Fair Trading (“the OFT”) was published on 5th April, 2006, and the up swell of public information regarding unlawful bank charges during 2006. 3.1.5 It is worth noting that the Defendant and its peers will not allow the issues involved in these claims to be judged on merit in court, which would resolve the issue of the lawfulness (or otherwise) of banks’ penalty charges. 3.1.6 In support of this, the Claimant will also rely on Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council; Kleinwort Benson Ltd -v- Mayor Etc Of The London Borough Of Southwark and Others; Kleinwort Benson Ltd -v- Birmingham City Council; Kleinwort Benson Ltd -v- Mayor Etc Of The London Borough Of Kensington And Chelsea And Others [1998] UKHL 38; [1999] 2 AC 349; [1998] 4 All ER 513; [1998] 3 WLR 1095; & Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group Plc (Respondents) v. Her Majesty's Commissioners of Inland Revenue and another (Appellants)[2006] UKHL 49 (on appeal from [2005] EWCA Civ 78) 4. Regarding the reference to the doctrine of laches in Paragraph 2 of the Defence. Again, it is submitted that, given the reputation of National Westminster Bank and their duties as outlined by the FSA above, after being made aware of the possibility of challenging these charges, the Claimant took the following actions: 4.1 The Claimant made a Subject Access Request (“S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)”) under s7(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 (“Data Protection Act”) to the Defendant on 14th November 2006 to obtain bank statements for this account. 4.2 A preliminary refund request was sent to the Defendant on 2nd December 2006. This request gave the Defendant 10 working days to reply, which it decided not to do so. 4.3 As the reply had not been received, despite the Claimant giving ample opportunity and more time to take into account the festive season, a Letter Before Action was sent to the Defendant on 5th January 2006. This letter gave the Defendant a further 14 working days to settle the amount in dispute before court action would commence. 4.4 The Defendant did not make a timely reply to the Claimant’s letter of 5th January 2007, and thus the claim was prepared and taken to Luton County Court on 25th January for issue on 27th January 2007. 4.5 On 6th February 2007 in a reply to the letter dated 4th December 2007 (some 2 months later), the Defendant made a conditional settlement offer which did not satisfy the Claimant’s requests in full. 4.6 In a letter of 13th February2007, the Claimant advised the Defendant that the conditional settlement offer of 6th February 2007 did not meet the Claimant’s requests in full, but would be accepted in partial settlement without any conditions. 4.7 Further to the above, it is submitted that the doctrine of laches cannot be applied as the Claimant has not unreasonably delayed in asserting his equitable right. 5. Paragraph 3 of the Defence - it is the Claimant’s case that the Claim is properly particularised in the first instance and fully discloses grounds for bringing a claim against the Defendant. 6. Paragraph 4 of the Defence - if no admission is made of the charges that have been debited to the account, does the Defendant require further proof? Submitted with the PoC, at Appendix 1, was a full schedule of charges & interest paid, complete with 66 pages of statements showing the application of each and every charge and interest deduction. Since the Defendant supplied the statements and the data contained therein it is contended that no further evidence in support of the application of the charges is required. 7. Paragraph 5 of the Defence is denied in its entirety, and it is denied that the Claimant must identify the Contractual provisions which are Penalty clauses 8.Paragraphs 6.1 & 6.2 of the Defence – the Defendant’s case in relation to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA) are denied in their entirety, subject to the additions, deletions, replacements, amendments, clarifications, etc. that appear in the sub paragraphs below. 8.1 It is denied that the Claimant must identify the Contractual provisions which are invalid under the UCTA. 8.2 The Defendant’s interpretation of s4 UCTA contained within paragraph 6.2 of the Defence, is specifically denied. 9. Paragraph 6.3 of the Defence – the Defendant’s case in relation to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (“the UTCCR”) - is denied in its entirety, subject to the additions, deletions, replacements, amendments, clarifications, etc. that appear in the sub-paragraphs below: 9.1 It is denied that the Claimant must identify the Contractual provisions which are invalid under the UTCCR 9.2 Paragraph 6.3.1 of the Defence is admitted, insofar as it quotes the title of Schedule 2 to the UCTCCR. The Claimant contends that the emphasis of “may” by the Defendant is irrelevant. By virtue of the fact that Schedule 2 is a “non-exhaustive” list, it is implied that any clause can be deemed to be unfair, providing it meets the criteria of any item contained within Schedule 2. 9.3 Paragraph 6.3.2 of the Defence – the Defendant’s contention that the Claimant is required to plead further - is denied in its entirety. Evidence is not required to be pled in a PoC. In any event, the Claimant has given an indication of the factors and evidence which he intends to rely upon in the PoC. 9.4 Paragraph 6.3.3 of the Defence – the Defendant’s contention that the PoC disclose no reasonable grounds for a claim under the UTCCR - is denied in its entirety. 9.5 Paragraph 6.3.4 of the Defence is denied in its entirety. 9.6 Paragraph 6.3.5 of the Defence – the Defendant’s contention that the UTCCR have no application - is denied in its entirety, subject to the additions, deletions, replacements, amendments, clarifications, etc that appear in the sub-paragraphs below. 9.6.1 If the Defendant wishes to contend that the Charges are consideration for services rendered, then it is required to plead and prove the nature of the service provided. 9.6.2 In any event, even if the Charges are consideration for a service it is the Claimant’s contention that the UTCCR still apply, as detailed in the PoC. 10 Paragraph 6.4 of the Defence – the Defendant’s case in relation to the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (“the SGSA”) - is denied in its entirety, subject to the additions, deletions, replacements, amendments, clarifications, etc that appear in the subparagraphs below. 10.1 Denied that at this time the Claimant is required to plead further than he already has. 10.2 In response to paragraph 6.4.4 (c ) The Claimant is not in a position to determine what level the penalty charges should be. The Defendant can only levy a charge which is a genuine pre-estimate of its liquidated losses or the actual liquidated losses. It is therefore denied that the Claimant can suggest an appropriate fee. However, when determining the liquidated losses it would be reasonable to take account of the fact that the charges are applied automatically to the Claimants accounts; the charges are applied by way of systems put in place to manage the whole of the account along with those of the millions of other accounts operated by the Defendant. 10.2 Paragraphs 6.4.3, 6.4.4, 6.4.5 of the Defence are specifically denied. 11. The PoC outlines three interest rates that the Claimant will take the Court's direction on which rate should be applied – these are 29.50% compounded (unauthorised borrowing rate), 16.99% compounded (authorised borrowing rate) and 8% simple interest as allowed by s.69 County Courts Act 1984. 11.1 It is further submitted that Paragraph 7 of the Defence does not comply with CPR 16.5(2) 11.2 In relation to entitlement to interest, the Defendant charges interest to the Claimant, via the Account, at its published “unarranged overdraft rate” of 29.50%. The Defendant claims that it is entitled to charge this rate by virtue of the Terms & Conditions. 11.2.1 In maintaining the principal of fairness and balance, the Claimant has at no time disputed the interest charged by the Defendant, either unauthorised or authorised, nor has the Claimant attempted to seek any restitution on the interest charged. 11.3 The unarranged overdraft rate was charged to the Claimant, via the Account, when the Claimant drew money from the Account whilst he had not obtained prior permission from the Defendant for exceeding any overdraft limit that he had. It is in effect, a rate that the Defendant charged the Claimant when he drew funds from the Defendant when he had no right for doing so. 11.4 Using the reasoning as outlined in 11.3 and maintaining the principal of equity, mutuality and reciprocity and fairness and balance between the parties, the Claimant contends that he is entitled to an equal rate of interest in this case. The Claimant notes in particular that the Defendant erred in law, had no legal right to levy the charges to the Account and refused to refund the Charges when asked to do so by the Claimant. 11.4.1In addition the Defendant has had the enjoyment of this money to use as they so wished. It is averred that the Defendant has been able to re-lend the money unlawfully taken at the rates set out in the contract including the rate for unauthorised overdraft. 11.5 If the Terms and Conditions form part of contract between the parties hereto then there is an implied and/or imposed term of contract that the Defendant must pay the Claimant at the same rate of interest which it reserves for itself in similar circumstances. 11.6 Without prejudice to 11.5, if no express contract exists between the parties hereto then the Claimant contends that an implied and/or imposed contract exists between the parties hereto relating solely to the Claimant’s right to charge interest to the Defendant at the rate which it reserves for itself in relation to similar circumstances. Hope it helps.... J

Good idea...I imagine that your reasoning is that not everyone has MS Office. If people are prepared to wait for a week or so I can convert the bundle to Open Office (as I used to do with the spreadsheets) and people can then download OOo for free. The extra bonus here is that everything can also be saved as PDF, for viewing in a browser, for smaller file size and also for easier printing...

groovy as a point to note, it is always best to follow up phonecalls with the written word to make sure they cant deny your request at some time in the future. If you havent written to them do so straight away and confrim your instruction to them from the 1st time you requested this. when it comes to disuputing the charges this is a critical action imho. glenn

Noddy, Good luck,this might help;http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/64975-business-claims-basic-guide.html

Hi Ainsworth. Spend a few days reading the FAQs and step by step guide in the library section. Provided you follow, faithfully, the well-tried and tested route that we suggest, then you will be successful. Good luck. Regards, Rooster.

It will get where it is meant to via internal post.

thanks for your pm I think I'm about a month ahead of you as I'm about to file with the court on monday. This site has been really helpful. You do need to read up the 'frequently asked questions' though to familiarise yourself with the procedure. You will be more confident with each stage then as it comes up. Also just by reading as many threads as possible (especially the HSBC ones) you will find out lots of information & some of your answers can be found here. I have spent many hours in the evenings over the last 2 months just reading & reading. Hopefully it will be worth it as I get closer to getting my money back. Good luck with your claim - i've subscribed to your thread so I'll keep an eye on how your doing too. there are many excellent helpers here & although quite new myself I will help you if I can.

Hi Noddy -- a good friend of mine has an old business debt with Nat West. I think the account was closed probably 1996. Not sure if he can get anything back as he (or rather me on his behalf) hasn't made a start yet!!!! How old is your debt?? Will watch your thread with interest. The very best of luck.

Yes. You can file using N1 at any County Court, Berwick or Carlisle are the nearest bearing in mind if you have to attend a hearing you would need to travel to England. Cheque made payable to Her Majesty's Court Service. If you file using MCOl you need an English address for service of court documents.

hi jamesiebabie welcome to this forum, well done for taking the first steps to getting whats rightfully yours, so you say you have sent off 2nd letter, so you sent the SAR with £10 and recieved your statements, worked out your charges, then sent the prelim letter along with the spreadsheet. did you send it recorded so you can check when and who took delivery of your letter on the royal mail site. when they have taken delivery of your letter you give them 14 days. after that has passed you send the next letter LBA (see templates) and give them a further 14 days. then make your claim if you have had nothing!! keep us posted on how you get on.

I would say that you did the right thing, but........A CCA request has to be 12 working days from receipt for them to supply. if they havent supplied the paperwork in that time they can't collect on the debt until they do. If they havent supplied one month after that then they have committed an offence and can be reported to the statutory authorities. The debt does not go away they just cant enforce it. I would write them a letter explaining that they have not complied with your request and you will be reporting them if they don't. this will probably have the effect of them telling you they have passed the debt back to whoever they got it from. if you have not acknowleged the debt or paid on it for five years and it is not a ccj then very shortly it will be statute barred (6 years) good luck Dave

Yes, this is all standard silly stuff from RW&C. They have 12 days (+2 for delivery) to provide the agreement or they are in default of your request, they are obliged to provide under s.189 of the CC Act wether they are the original creditor or not. If they are then in default for a calendar month they have committed on offence. They are already in default, and they cannot legally enforce the debt (court or otherwise) until they produce an acceptable copy of the agreement. Don't give them an inch on the 'phone, they'll just want to play silly games, go in to attack straight away and threaten them with OFT & TS etc... Here's my own RW thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collectors-debt-collection/71386-diskmandave-robinson-way-co.html Good luck with it!

360 day year and 12 "rests" per year

well done for winning the last... how did you recieve it same as others, in your account? did you have to go to court? so its easy then?!! see your going for nationwide again!!! i am now taking nationwide for 2nd time (husbands) and barclays for son in law(barclays returned SAR cheque and are sending them complimentary) good luck for your 2nd round - enjoy spending!! how do you add the history at bottom of your post like a signature??

You must not stand for the default being registered with credit reference agencies. Write Capquest a LBA demanding they remove the illegal default notice within 14 days. When they don't comply (and they won't ) you have a number of options 1) written complaint to Information Commisioner 2) Court Action- file an N1 stating default is unsubstantiated and claim compensation for distress. If they do not have CCA which they don't, they haven't a leg to stand on....You could also write to Experian but in my experience this is the least effective option.

Joesoap Best way is to write to the courts manager he should supply you with the paperwork for the case Still waiting for my SAR results. Judi3 thread purports to ignorance of the law being no excuse. This may be true but I'm going to contest that the amounts on the CCJs I have are based on a false evidence & therefore should be set aside until such a time as I the claimant re-applies with true figures or gives me an option of arranging payment - which I'm doing already albeit through AN iva. Hope this was useful MAC

obviously, they don't charge you £78.50 to take money from a cash machine (though I'm sure they would if they could). I think it's something like £1.50 per time or summat like that....

Hi Cabsi28, No, it won't matter. Simply start court action once you have the fees. Thanks for the click! regards, Pondy

if you are looking into legal implications, i would also enquire about your landlady walking in unanounced. as far as i am aware she should be giving you 24 hours notice before she comes in unless its an emergency. but, the fact that it's untidy while you are there doesnt mean anything as long as its not causing a nuisance, any damage, and it's obviously moved when you vacate. yes, i would think that 5 years would constitute fair wear & tear, but wouldnt she then question why it hadnt been re-decorated. let us all know what the housing department has to say.

Yay! I agree with the "LOL", but, why shouldn't we all (essentially) congratulate each other? 3 months ago I would have hidden in my bedroom if a DCA called demanding this, that and anything else.....! But now we can take them on, on their terms and come out ahead! And it seems that we're winning!!! So yeah we all congratulate each other! Isn't this how this site works...???! I've clicked everyones scales in this thread! Regards, Dave.

14 years for what you say at most is £3k seems like a long time unless you're only making token payments! To start with I think the best plan of action would be to send the DCA the CCA letter (link below), and ask for a full statement of account as to all monies paid by you, opening balance of debt to them, and amount now outstanding. The CCA request is a legal request for a copy of the original credit agreement and they have a set period of time in which to supply it, and they cannot enforce a debt in court without it. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/post-162367.html Adapt this letter to suit your needs and get it off by Recorded Delivery, make sure you include a postal order for £1 which is the maximum they are allowed to charge for providing the service. Carry on reading around the threads in the debt forums, I promise you, it will start to make sense soon, and there are loads of people here willing to help if you get stuck at all. Good luck, best regards, Dave.

Following your thread with anticipation!! Cant wait the outcome and wishing you loads and loads of luck. Just setting out on my quest for refund, nervous and a bit scary but hey gotta be done. We're all rooting for you.

Hi Ron. Yes. But don't put both claims in at the same time because if seen together the courts will probably combine them. Wait until the first one is settled before claiming the second one. For more information, spend a few days reading the FAQs and the step by step guide in the library section. Good luck. Regards, Rooster.

If they offer your charges in full prior to you filing, you should accept. To go ahead with a court claim for interest, which as you now know, you are not entitled to before filing a claim would be foolhardy.

Hi there, you need to make your cheque payable to your bank or building society, whomever you are asking for the statements off, i.e. Natwest Bank, Barclays Bank, or whoever. You need to send the first letter asking for your statements to their addresses to be found in forum links. If you need help just reply to this post and I can find the address for you. Hope this helps, but hurry up and start your claim. Hope this helps. Fend x

Would this help? It has the relevant acts, sections thereof and the appropriate bits of NatWest terms and conditions. PARTICULARS OF CLAIM 1. The Claimant has an account, number xxxxxxx, sort code 54-41-19, ("the Account") with the Defendant which was opened on or around DATE. 2. During the period in which the Account has been operating the Defendant has automatically debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant and also charged interest on the charges once applied. The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimant. 3. A list of the charges (“the Schedule”) applied is attached to these Particulars of Claim. 4. The Claimant contends that: a) The charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature; are not genuine pre-estimates of costs incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant; and are not intended to represent or related to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit. b) The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of i) the Unfair Terms In Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 particularly but not limited to Regulations 5, 6 and 8 and Schedule 2, 1 e); and ii); the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, particularly but not limited to sections 3 and 11 and Schedule 2 and; iii) the common law and Case Law relating to liquidated damages and penalties in contracts. c) To the extent that it is found that the Defendant’s charges are for the provision of banking services the Claimant contends that the price thereof is unreasonable pursuant to section 15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. 5. The Defendant has produced standard terms and conditions for the Account, known as Personal Banking Terms and Conditions, (“the Personal Terms”). Copies of the Personal Terms are believed to be in the possession of the Defendant and will be referred to by the Claimant at the trial of his claim. The Personal Terms contain provisions which are, as far as the Claimant is able to identify, the contractual terms upon which the Defendant relies in levying charges to the accounts. The Personal Terms do not contain numbered paragraphs that can be easily referred to and the Claimant therefore sets out the relevant terms below: From the Personal Terms: In Section 1b: “Service charges Service charges for operating the account are charged as detailed in the promotional leaflet insert relating to the account and are subject to annual review. If any changes are made, details of the revised charges will be sent to you at least one month before the implementation date for the changes.” In Section 1a: “Additional services and charges We are entitled to charge for additional services provided to you, whether these relate directly to the account or not. The current charges for the most common additional services are detailed in a separate leaflet ‘A guide to Personal Current Account Fees’ available from any of our branches; details of services not included are also available from any branch. These additional charges, which are normally paid for at the time the service is provided, are subject to annual review. If any changes are made, a revised price list of the most common services will be sent to you at least 30 days prior to the date of their implementation.“ The Personal Terms contains the following provision relating to operations on the account. In Section 1b: “Operations on the Account You must always ensure that the cleared balance (plus, where applicable, any unused agreed overdraft facility) on your account at 3.30pm on the working weekday before the day: – cheques you have issued are presented for payment – standing orders and direct debits are due to be paid – you withdraw money from a cash machine – you carry out a Switch/Maestro or Solo transaction – you request us to make payments by any electronic means or by telephone – any other transactions are due to take place, including the application of interest and charges is sufficient to cover payment of all these transactions. If a sufficient cleared balance (plus, where applicable, any unused arranged overdraft facility) to cover payment is not available on your account by 3.30pm on the working weekday before the day on which these transactions are due to take place, payment of some or all of the transactions may be refused. However, if at any time such transactions would result, without prior arrangement, in the account being overdrawn or the arranged overdraft limit being exceeded, we may exercise our sole discretion and without contacting you, allow an overdraft to be created or allow the borrowing limit to be exceeded. In these circumstances, the new or excess overdraft is an unarranged overdraft.” b) The Claimant contends that the term “Additional Services and Charges” is not a core term of the contract and therefore falls within the remit of The Unfair Terms In Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and that the term is subject to the Unfair Contract Terms Act and the common law as set out in paragraph 4 b) of this Particulars of Claim. c) The Claimant avers that the circumstances giving rise to the levying of charges by the Defendant are all breaches of the provision relating to Operations on the Account and which sets out a mandatory requirement in respect of the maintaining by the Claimant of cleared balances on the accounts. As such failure to adhere to that contractual requirement is a breach of the agreement between the Claimant and the Defendant. d) The Claimant further contends that the Defendant is only entitled to be compensated by the amount it would be able to secure in a claim at common law in the event that the Claimant was individually sued for breach of contract by the Defendant. Accordingly the charges that result from the breaches are by their nature as set out in paragraph 4a) of this Particulars of Claim and are therefore unreasonable and/or unenforceable and/or in terrorem in respect of each and every occasion that they have been debited to the Claimant’s account. e) The Claimant avers that the Provisions relating to “Service Charges and “Additional Services and Charges” provide no details whatever of the extent or type of services that might be provided and that it was not clear from the contract to the Claimant at the time the contract was made that the Defendant would be providing anything other than a free banking service. Further, the leaflets setting out charges referred to therein were not made available to the Claimant at the time the contract with the Defendant was made and are therefore not incorporated into the contract. To the extent that they may be found to be so incorporated and therefore form part of the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant the Claimant avers that the items referred to in such leaflets do not constitute service charges but punitive penalty or default charges for acts of default. Further the Claimant contends that these show that the Defendant has structured the Claimant’s accounts in order to present events of default spuriously as additional services for which a charge may be made and that any purported fees for “services” or “additional services” are no more than disguised penalties. The Claimant avers that no additional services are supplied by the Defendant in relation to acts of default or at all. f) The Claimant further avers that the sole discretion referred to in the provision relating to Operations on the Account does not refer to or make clear that the Defendant is providing an additional banking service to the Claimant in exercising that discretion, nor that a charge for such alleged “service” will be made. The Claimant also contends that the discretion referred to is limited to allowing payments to be made where insufficient funds are or were in the Account and therefore relates only to the Defendant’s “paid referral fee” and that this discretion has no connection with fees applied immediately for refusing payments or for unarranged borrowing/excess borrowing fees applied later to the Account for being overdrawn or exceeding any overdraft limit in the preceding month, card misuse fees or other fees. g) the Claimant further avers that the ‘sole discretion’ referred to involves no actual discretion or intervention by the Defendant the Defendant’s staff but is an automated process, conducted by computers or other electronic equipment purchased in whole or in part for the purpose and is used in this manner in the management of all the Defendant’s personal and/or business banking accounts. 6. Accordingly the Claimant claims: a) the return of the amounts debited to the Claimant’s account in respect of charges in the sum of £xxxxx (xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Pounds Sterling) and any interest charged thereon, detailed in the attached Schedule and amounting to £xxxx (xxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx Pounds and xxxxx Pence) as at [date of claim] and accumulating at 17.95 per centum per annum (the Defendant’s current advertised ‘authorised overdraft rate’), calculated daily; b) Court costs; c) administrative costs and other costs incurred in the course of researching, preparing, presenting and pursuing the claim; d) Interest pursuant to section 69 County Courts Act as set out on the attached list of charges or at such rate and for such periods as the Court deems just. I believe that the contents of these particulars of claim are true Full name: YOUR NAME SIGNED………………………………………………………………………………………(Claimant) Westy

Hiya, Consumer Credit Act 1974 states that they have to send you a default notice prior to taking action I quote from the OFT (in an email sent to me on just this subject): You furthermore state that you believe the comments made by EGG that they do not have a signed copy of the default notice as this is done electronically in response to your request is incorrect and unlawful. Under section 87(1) of the Act a default notice must be sent to the debtor or hirer before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement to: - terminate the agreements, or - demand earlier payment of any sum, or - to recover possession of any goods or land, or - to treat any right conferred on the debtor or hirer by the agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred, or - to enforce any security I can confirm that such notices may also be sent electronically, but they are not deemed to have been served on the debtor or hirer unless a paper copy is presented or sent to him.

I think, no I know, we have all been where you at now, I know I was! You know the type of thing? "They're not going to pay me" "I am going to be the test case" "I've done everything wrong" and many many other worries in that vein. Slow down, take it easy and read ALL!!! of the success stories. I managed to claim back a lot of money from the Halifax that they took from me when I was at my complete lowest and not only that they insulted me when taking it also - "can't manage your account Boo?" "Well here's a couple more thousand in charges that should help"! Everyone has some financial pitfall at some point, all you is need someone to assist and point you in the right direction, not kick you when you're down. CAG is a self help forum If you're prepared to put in the work, CAG are prepared to help. Use the forum, read as much as you can and enjoy the many many varied stories. Good luck and welcome Boo

I sent mine to Electra House, Farnsby Street, Swindon, SN2 1SR Good luck

I tried to put this info on the Consummer Info main forum but its locked. So I,m putting this here in the hope a lot of people read it. I'll post it on other forums also or start a new thread. I have had to do a lot or investigating into CRA's and Credit file searches etc etc, and I've found out something that I dont think people are aware of Banks etc use different types of seaches on credit file, 1 an enquiry type search.....this one is used to check your file if you apply for credit with them. This search is recorded on your file so that you know it has been searched. 2 is an update search/entry to put monthly info about your account with them Its the third type of seacrch that they use that will be of interest to members... its called a CM type of search, This search method is used to "monitor" your credit status this search is never recorded on your credit file it is never seen by you nor other institutions, so in theory according to Equifax it can never harm you, but in my fight with Equifax over this because I stumbled on this search method by accident and they did not like me finding out about this search type I can tell you for a fact. The RBOS used this type of search on my credit file and downloaded a hard copy of it on 6th Jan 06. I had had no dealings with the RBOS since 2000, so as they had no right to search my file they used this type of search. This means that these banks etc can search anyones file get all the info they want and you are never aware of the fact that your file has been searched. for 6 months Equifax denied my file had been searched at all but I finally got them to admit it had and have now got the proof which I'm using in my case against the RBOS. Just thought I'd let every one know about this type of "secret " searches that are carried out without anyone knowing Sparkie1723:)