How about applying for a Visa in advance. That wouldn't cost too much. If there's a problem, at least you'll know about it without risking your air fares and insurance costs. The £1,00 sounds excessive and they let you go when you said you had no deposit. Hope you get to the wedding. Slick PS Don't drink too much at the reception;)

Simple...Have they told U what U, or anyone else's TRUE Cost of the Penalty Charges are?? How many times have they Defended, only to concede at the very last minute?? Hunt out the Facts + Figures!!! (...soz am off to work now + don't have a link readily to hand... ) In one of the LloydTSB Court Cases that was LOST during last summer, it was cos the ORIGINAL T & C's were NOT included in the Court Bundle + the District Judge took it upon himself to go searching for them on the internet. The Claimant failed to provide his original T & C's, upon which he was basing his argument that the Debits were Penalty Charges and NOT Charges for a Service. Preferably DON'T forget to included them in any Court Bundle that U send off!... The District Judge found the latest T & C's on LloydTSB's website and cos he didn't have anthing else to go on, he based the Claimant's arguments against these, which were less favourable worded for the Claimant...+ therefore the Claimant lost his Case when given the opportunity to verbally explain in Court! There is NO automatic right of DISCLOSURE in the Small Claims Track. Therefore a Bank would be under NO obligation to supply U with a copy of the T & C's from 'n'years ago to enable U to prove your argument against them! Here are a few links that may be of interest to U... http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/90791-we-need-your-help.html http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/101412-document-library-work-progress.html http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/90742-natwest-terms-conditions.html Internet Archive: Wayback Machine http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/cases-library/95399-case-law-relevant-limitations.html Having said that, it MAY be possible to force the issue of DISCLOSURE by asking for a Draft Order of Directions at the Allocation Questionaire Stage of a Claim. The following Thread contains some very useful further links to read... http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/nationwide/94540-nationwide-going-court-ignoring.html The onus is ALWAYS on the Claimant to prove their Case!!!

Good luck stone, Cant wait to see how you get on. You go show them you mean business!!!!

I promised an update to this thread. It's been a couple of months now and at last we have got some satisfaction from Barclays. After several phone calls I received a letter in early January 2008 that really did not answer any of our concerns at all. There was a generalised apology about the treatment we received at the branch, but no feedback on the particular areas of concern. I called Barclays' Customer Relations to complain again that the family's concerns had not been answered in the letter. I asked for an apology from the branch, but was told that they cannot issue apologies - these are done on their behalf by the Customer relations department. However, I continued to complain and insisted on a written apology in answer to the specifics of the complaint. Last week, the latest letter arrived. Barclays gave an explanation as to why the meeting could not be held with the advisor who it was booked with. They also admitted that we were misinformed (read "lied to") in the meeting. We were told that the widow would need to pay for the funeral expenses, whereas in fact these can be paid from the deceased's estate, despite the account being frozen. It has taken a long time and a lot of wasted anger to get to this point, but at last I think Barclays have admitted they were at fault. At this point we are not seeking any financial compensation, the point of the exercise was to extract an apology and this has arrived at last. If you are unfortunate enough to find yourself in a similar situation, my advice as a layman is to pursue the offending institution until you get the answer you deserve. Cheers, Tim

They may read the forums but so what? They can't do anything other than bully. And they will receive dozens of SARs and CCA requests every day, so I doubt if they will identify any member of CAG. Don't worry.

You need a lasting power of attorney, not an enduring power of attorney. unfortunatly, they can be quite expensive - although you can fill the form in yourself, it is complicated. There are two types; your daughter needs to give you both types... some more info Managing your affairs and lasting power of attorney : Directgov - Over 50s .

And also write and tell them that proof that an account once existed in no way consitutes proof of a debt, enforcable or otherwise. And let them know that you consider their poo ridden communication to be as worthy of comment as would be the excretions of a ruminant's rectum. Therefore you see no point in continuing any form of dialogue, due to their nonsensical gainsaying of everything you have written to date.

Newbie, you said, "apparently the reason was alignment to wages. Pardon my ignorance but I don't even know what an alignment to wages is." F.Y.I. alignment payments are a stop-gap payment either - to benefit claimants when delays in processing their JSA, IS or IB etc. or - people returning to work whose final benefit payment is insufficient to last until first pay-day, e.g. moving from fortnightly paid welfare to a monthly salary. It will not be helpful going to the bother of obtaining either pay slips or tax records showing that you were working at the time of the alleged Crisis Loan, it doesn't prove that you couldn't have received a CL. I'd just like to correct the misconception that people (e.g. Newbie) have, i.e. that people have to be receiving a "gateway benefit" in order to get a Crisis Loan. In fact this only applies to the two other elements of "discretionary Social Fund payments", which are "Community Care Grants" and "Budgeting Loans". Strangely, (even) people without a N.I. number can qualify for a CL subject to their being able to prove their ability to repay the loan. "Deciding if a crisis loan is appropriate 216. CLs are not restricted to people receiving IS, JSA(IB), PC or payment on account of such benefits or any other social security benefit" Source: Social Fund Guide (Part 3 - Crisis Loans) http://www.dwp.gov.uk/advisers/socialfundguide/sfguide/social-fund-guide7-june07.pdf And more bad news is that - there's no statute of limitations on the time they can take to reclaim a CL. I read on another forum of someone also being pursued after 9 years, and worse, he's sure that it was repaid via deductions from other benefits. Godzilla knows how he's supposed to provide the proof? It would seem that we all have to retain and file every financial record, Giro counterfoil and pay slip ever received. Another case which came to my attention is of someone who was in the middle of a term of H.M. Custody when he is alleged to have received his CL 8 years ago. His theory is that someone else used his identity and had the money paid to a third party, its perfectly feasible that Newbie was victim of a similar fraud because the Secretary of States guidance does permit payment to 3rd parties. "Third party payments 221. The award should normally be payable to the applicant. However, DMs also have power to make payment to a third party who can provide, or arrange for the provision of, the items or expenses covered by the award. See Sections 138(3) and 139(5) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. 222. This power should only be used exceptionally, for example, where there is firm evidence that the award may not be used for its intended purpose. If you do decide to make such a payment, document the reasons fully, since a DM's determination to make payments to a third party can be reviewed like any other documentation." Source: Social Fund Guide (Part 3 - Crisis Loans) http://www.dwp.gov.uk/advisers/socialfundguide/sfguide/social-fund-guide7-june07.pdf

Spot on, once they find the agreement and providing its enforceable they can restart enforcement activities again

Hi Stone everything sorted for tomorrow? All the best - you know we'll all be on here clicking "refresh" every 5 seconds until you appear, don't you

Take this further OP and write to the store in the first instance.

Crap One is quite a complimentary term, I've always thought. Far better and much more printable than some other names we could all think of for them:D And thanks, Steven, for being so complimentary. You are my top scale clicker!

Hi elecyac. Welcome to CAG. You can obtain bank statements from any bank as long as it is within the last six years and also whether the account is open or not. All you need to do is send a SAR (a template for this is in the bank template library - link below) add your details eg sort code, account number, name address etc and enclose £10 cheque or postal order made out to HSBC. link for letter:- http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/516-1-data-protection-act.html Letter needs to be sent to:- HSBC Bank Plc Service Quality Team Arlington Business Centre Millshaw Park Lane Leeds LS11 0PP

I note that Link are trying to get out of their obligations in another way, too. In their letter they say: A request pursuant to s.77/78 of the CCA 1974 requires the provision of any doument referred to in the agreement - which means the original terms and conditions, not the latest. Link should know this, so they are clearly attempting to be deceitful and misleading, contrary to OFT guidance. I stongly suspect that MBNA can't provide them, and you will get some specious waffle about how the latest T&Cs are provided in order to help you understand the current position.

Weather they have the right person or not is of no concern whatsoever to the DCA's...if they can get some vunerable sod to pay up who is not aware of their rights, then they wont lose a winks sleep over that

Yep send it and make them prove this debt is viable.

Hi The signature in a pre 2005 agreement does unfortunately not have to be on the same page as the prescribed terms nor does the no interspersing rule apply it does however have to be within the same document but this could run over many pages. This was rectified in the 2004/1482 where it states that the signature has to be uninterspercesed and within the same block as the rest of the section 1 etc information. This does not mean that a signature document and a set of T and cs will do as these would not be part of the same document nor is refering to another document containg the information allowed. THe application/agreement debate is quite a complicated issue. If the document says Application form at the top, then as rediculous as it seems the court can rule it as an agreement if it contains the prescribed terms and in particulararily any cancellation details, the incorrect heading is not a prescribed term and would not make it unenforceable as such, it would be up to the court to decide based upn the amount of prejuide caused by the ommissionas to whether the document was an agreement or not, they would then look at what else it contained. Also it must be remembered that whilst an aplication form cannot be an agreement (in that all that it would contain would be application details) an agreement can be used as an application and this is wht the creditor will say has been sent, for instance if we look at an agreement sent under section 62 where the agreement is executed by the signaure of the creditor because the debtor has already signed, he has the ability to sign thus commencing the agreement or not sign and thus the agreement is scrapped in this sence this is an application. Section 59 could be used in a case where an application form was used in that it purprts to be an agreement but there again you would have to show that it was a sepperate document and not the agreement itself it can also be used along with section 57 to with withdraw from a prospective agreement. Best regards Peter

Please IGNORE THE TROLL. Do not respond to his posts. He will doubtless be back later when his shift finishes in Leeds.

I would also add my concerns here about there having been a deal done in advance. The consultation between the OFT and the banks is a concern. Moreover, I have always been suspect that the £20 plus billion ripped-off by the banks these last ten years is ever going to be allowed to be repaid. Government (let alone the banks) can't allow it. Let's also not bow the the psychologically emotive impact of the word "conspiracy" - which has been modified over the years to imply "crazy" on the part of those who advance alternative viewpoints - as if conspiracies never happen. Well, they do happen Everyday and in every strata of society and business and politics. Conspiracies are commonplace and an ingrained feature of social interaction ---- especially when money is involved.

Personally, I take great offence at your comment about people on DLA. Have you any idea how hard it is to qualify for this particular benefit? No, I thought not. I'd rather have my health back and not be disabled and long term ill thank you very much. The only reason I can attend university is because I qualify for DSA (Disabled Students Allowance) and have a full time support worker and other arrangements to accomadate my disabilities. I'm studying for a degree to better myself so I won't have to rely on meager, almost impossible to qualify for benefits. When the DCAs mentioned in my previous post were abusing me, I had to resort to serious complaints to Trading Standards to get them off my back and using such tactics. All of them apologised at once and denied ever knowing how serious my conditions were even though I'd told them countless times over a period of about a year. TS asked them all for their phone recordings and/or transcripts and all of them said they did not have any I wonder why? Probably because if they did keep them and a judge got hold of them they'd be in DEEP s**t!!! Now, I suggest you go away and think before uttering another word on here about people you know absolutely nothing about

First thing I would do is check with your bank, make sure the standing order was set up with the correct payment details, sort code, account number and reference number. Get your statements so you can show that the payments were being made. The reference number to use on the standing order is your account numbr, the sort code and account details would be shown on your Crap One statement. You need to find out where this money has gone, so the bank is the best place to start. If you have online banking you could probably check the details on there. You never know, it could be a banking error, so the bank may put it right. If everything is correct, then you'll need to write/speak to someone at Crap One, don't be fobbed off by the clerical staff, insist on speaking to a manager. get a fax number and fax them the proof of payment etc. They are hopeless though so be prepared for a battle. And write to them immediately putting the account into dispute, they cannot take any further enforcement action once it is formally in dispute.

I think you should make further research in to this subject, as you clearly only understand a little of what the UTCCR are and how they apply here - have you read the standard Court bundle, as this is covered in detail? For exampe, the UTCCR say that any term unilaterally inserted in to a contract, such as the pre- and mass-produced contracts the banks use, can be unfair. Regardless if you agree to the term or not, that has nothing to do with its perceived fairness - it's also part of the "contract" of the account, but this blows your argument (and the ones used by the bank) wide apart. Have you tried to negotiate a term in your current account terms and conditions? I couldn't disagree more, as you've ignored the fact the common law on penalties says a party cannot benefit or profit from a breach of contract - back to my argument that the banks have never been open and honest about how their charges are made up. I really can't say this any other way, but you're wrong. What about the others?; and; and; So why are the banks not defending in this manner? This is clearly a consumer contract, which they are bound under the regs, but as long as people don't understand them (perhaps choosing not to, even, for their own benefit) this argument will still stand. I say again - whether a contract is covered by the UTCCR is a matter of fact, not law, so can't be decided until you're in a Court room. No, I'm taking about showing how the penalty can be fair - not whether it is or not - which is what the Court will be interested in. If the charge exceeds the cost it's a penalty, as they are making a profit - nothing else to say there. Read the caselaw; I don't think I can reply to your posts any more as there's nothing else to be said, apart from pedantic, irrelevant argument that has already been used by the banks throughout the last few years without success. Without understanding the whole background to this, coming in at this late stage and asking us to cover old ground is slightly rediculous! I hope we can agree on that, yes?!

Well since my last post all that has been on is a platinum account cat and a non avatar classic account post non of which have told me anything except how betting works;) I would be happier if that Dennis Taylor lookalike worm was to speak to me then I will know there is no more news .

"ignore moral behaviour"? Very true of most debtors I think! "ignore laws". Ditto

Top QC or not, until the banks can show their charges are fair and justified, it leaves them open to claims based on the common law of penalties and the UTCCR. Where they cloak their charges as services, they are still subject to the law of penaties until they are open and honest with their customers about how they deal with unauthorised or unplanned payments that take you in to unauthorised or unplanned overdraft. Whether a charge is a penalty or not is a question of fact - not law - so your argument is circular until you get in front of a Judge who decides the facts, then applies the law to them. Doing it the other way around is nonsensical - hence my distaste for this test case in it's entirety. What the banks are effectively trying to do is to turn hundreds of years worth of "good law" on its head, in that the argument is that the law of penalties doesn't apply to them. There's a reason why this law has been around for so long - because it works. The banks aren't exempt, but should have adapted their working practises to suit the law. What is coming next is that the government wades in with a political stance - which we've already seen in the removal of automatic unenforceability of consumer credit agreements, which was an issue decided by the House of Lords on appeal in Wilson -v- First County Trust - and legislates for the good of the financial industry of this county. That has to be better than the day-to-day debarcle we are currently facing, isn't it?

Hiya, send them the telephone harassment letter here. Best of luck!

Interesting internal telephone transcripts.

I’m not an expert but we are aware of the Rankone case. (Substitute “i” for “o”). That’s one where his and his missus’ other posts on other sites went as far as alleging forgery had taken place. As we all know it’s been very difficult to get details of that case as it went to the Court of Appeal and although a civil case as it seems as if there are reporting restrictions. Reporting restrictions in a civil case are not unusual – but in a Consumer Credit Case they are unheard of. Now this is pure speculation (but I bet I’m not far from the mark) that as the civil case may have involved allegations of criminal activity by the creditor, then in order to get a fair trial etc admissions of guilt, evidence etc; that may well have been produced in a civil court may be the subject of other action…. The only bit of criminal legislation that may fit the bill as far as consumer credit is concerned is the; Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 (Results within legislation - Statute Law Database 1. The offence of forgery. A person is guilty of forgery if he makes a false instrument, with the intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice 2. The offence of copying a false instrument. It is an offence for a person to make a copy of an instrument which is, and which he knows or believes to be, a false instrument, with the intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to accept it as a copy of a genuine instrument, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice. 3. The offence of using a false instrument. It is an offence for a person to use an instrument which is, and which he knows or believes to be, false, with the intention of inducing somebody to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice. 4. It is an offence for a person to use a copy of an instrument which is, and which he knows or believes to be, a false instrument, with the intention of inducing somebody to accept it as a copy of a genuine instrument, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice 8. Meaning of “instrument”. — (1) Subject to subsection (2) below, in this Part of this Act “instrument” means— (a) any document, whether of a formal or informal character I could go on and on as most of the first part of the Act relates to you – but it is clear that you did not sign what they are suggesting that you did. Trying to persuade you and the Court that you did sign it is a criminal offence. My attack would use your main points as already listed then at the end raise the issue of “false instrument”. That attacks the entire credibility of their position. I think that will be something that the Guardian will be more than interested in. But watch it go very quiet when the reporting restrictions kick in… Oh - I'd let your local paper know about this as they may end up with a national scoop and the agency network they use will mean it will get very national.

Yes we have seen it before, but they are wrong. They'd have to show that the original terms and conditions allowed for the variation at a future point in time, which they can only legitimately do by providing the originals, then showing the latest variations, to rely on them. This is definately a misunderstanding of the regulations.

The OFT has clearly stated that the remit and scope of their case is based solely upon whether or not the terms are unfair as defined under the UTCCR99, and are thus in breach of them. As the definition of "consumer" is actually clearly defined within the UTCCR99, and excludes those acting within the course of their business, then this should itself be adequate indication that the UTCCR99, and thus vis a vis the case itself should have no bearing upon "Business" account claims. The UTCCR clearly states its own scope: "A consumer is an individual not acting for the purposes of his or her business or profession". They can't have their cake AND eat it. You have not been afforded the protection of consumer legislation such as the UTCCR whilst dealing with them as a Business customer upto now. So, they cannot now just use the legislation as grounds for a stay, just by attempting to say that actually your account IS covered by the UTCCR.... just because it now suits them. Remind them that the law is meant to be impartial. You are not asking for some special privileges previously not afforded you. In fact quite the opposite, you are reminding them to remain consistent with regards the lack of legislative protection afforded yourself until now. After all, if the OFT win this case based upon the scope of the legislation, it has been cited this would then apparently quite likely require all Banks to automatically pay out upon all consumer claims. Do you think they will automatically extend the same courtesy to all Business claimants? Not likely. They will claim the UTCCR, and thus the OFT case do not apply ! ! So, by the same measure, why should the courts extend granting the same stay in proceedings for the Banks upon Business claimants just as they have done upon Consumer claimants ? In short. Quote the POC's of the OFT case. ie. solely brought with regards the very consumer specific UTCCR legislation. Quote the definition of consumer as actually contained within the UTCCR itself. This should be adequate indication that the OFT case will have NO bearing either way upon your own. Thus, no grounds for a stay based upon awaiting the outcome of the current OFT case.

lats....just look at all your green spots!! boy i'm so proud of you sis xx

Oh yes well spotted! Now that would change things.

The vast majority of resources on this matter are regarding notice given in periodic tenancies. This is because there is usually no reason to give notice during the fixed term tenancy, as you are not entitled to leave prior to the end of the tenancy anyway, and you can leave at the end of the fixed term without giving notice. Therefore, the question of notice does not come into it, but the question of surrender of the tenancy does(which we are wrongly discussing as notice). The surrender of a tenancy requires the agreement of ALL parties. If you want to confirm, contact PainSmith solicitors EDITED. They should be able to confirm this FOC, and are well respected solicitors in the field. They used to host an excellent document about joint tenancies, of which this was one. Unfortunately they have stopped hosting it on their site for some reason.