This topic was closed on 03/07/19. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

This topic was closed on 03/07/19. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

I'd agree in recommending the Natwest Step Account - however, they do do a credit check. The check is done, but they don't seem to credit score (or if they do, then they accept from very low credit scores - maybe someone more in the know could clarify?). The checks are done, from what I can gather, more to verify identity and confirm you're not bankrupt.

My telephone service (line & calls) is provided by Internet Telecommunications plc (http://www.itplc.com). They charge a late fee of £20, and this is clearly printed on their invoices and in their terms and conditions. I've spoken to them, and they agree that this is a penalty charge, and refuse to provide a break down justifying the charge. I've had several arguments with them regarding the legality, and they simply belittle me, tell me I'm wrong, and that they are fully justified to charge this as it's in the contract I signed, printed clearly on their invoices and has been endorsed by their lawyer. I've explained that whilst this may be the case, case law shows that penalty charges can only be applied by the courts. I've also explained that the contract was not negotiated with myself and the clause that specifies penalty charges is unfair and contrary to common law. Short of starting legal proceedings for just the one charge of £20, what can I do to make this company wake up, do a bit of research and find out that their penalty charges are illegal?

Interesting - I thought it was locked in... However, they didn't state it was interest - they said it was an additional charge added in 2005. They didn't say what for, simply that it was there. In any case, it's settled now, which is the main thing.

I've simply paid up on these - I had to have a quick turn around with proof of payment to the tenant referencing company (Lettors) before the estate agents would accept me as a tenant. All is okay now, and I move next weekend. Both of these were from small silly loans about 4 or so years ago. Any letters, etc regarding them would have been sent whilst I was staying away from home for a while. The larger of the two will definately be made up of charges and ridiculous interest until it got to court. As a side note, when I phoned the creditor to pay the £680 one they said that it was £740 that I owed them. I said that this wasn't what the courts had said, and the CCJ against me was for £680. They tried telling me that it didn't matter what the courts had said, and that they'd added an additional charge back in 2005. I simply stated that the courts had told me that only £680 was due on this debt, and if they wanted payment that's all they were getting. Then, as a "gesture of goodwill" (pah!) they dropped it to £680.20. I paid the extra 20p, but I think it's ridiculous that some jumped up little **** first tried to demand more, and then just so he wasn't completely backing down added a few pence just to try and make him feel big....

All utilities are up to date in anycase - electric is on a meter, gas isn't connected to this property, telephone and sky statements prove they're up-to-date....

I understand totally if there is a dispute of any kind. I just think the landlord, where possible, should have to raise the dispute with the tenant on the day of moving out. I understand that this is occassionally not possible though. For example, if there is damage to the carpet, the landlord should bring this up on the day of moving out - not wait 10 days and then bring it up. It costs for tenants to move out and move on. Deposit for new property, van rental costs, new phone line, moving of Sky, etc, etc. If everything's in order and to the satisfaction of both the tenant and the landlord I just think it's a good idea not to prolong the process. I have a friend who left their property and then took about 8 months retreiving their deposit and had to go through the courts. The landlord tried to say that damage had occured during the tenancy, although it hadn't. I don't anticipate a problem with my landlord, but then I'd rather not risk if I didn't have to. On top of all the hassles of moving, I could do without any extra if I can! I suppose the first step is to actually ask my landlord when to expect the deposit back though!

Don't get me wrong - I can see exactly where you are coming from. But as you have said, it can take a while to check things over - but this being the case, why do landlords always want to take their time at the end of a tenancy, but expect tenants to sign away their lives within 5 minutes flat at the start of a tenancy? I like to think I'm a good tenant - and to say most aren't I think is a bit of a sweeping generalisation. As I said in a previous post, you're always going to have bad tenants and you're always going to have bad landlords.

Okay, fair enough, I was only asking!!!! In my case, I can't see how the landlord is leaving themselves open to anything - there are no goods to check, there is nothing to ensure is working... It's a very basic property! I can understand why if there is more to check that the deposit isn't returned on the day of leaving. That said, that then reverses the situation and leaves the tenant open to unscrupulous landlords as the situation gets reversed.... Unfortunately you're always going to get bad tenants and bad landlords. The landlord at least has a deposit guarantee from the tenant - the tenant has no such luxury. Surely as the tenant has to pay the deposit before moving in and then sign and agree the inventory upon moving in, landlords should (where possible) afford the same priviliges to tenants when the move out? I know and understand that in some circumstances this may not be possible - but in some it is.

I can understand it not being fair if there are things not in order - but if everything is in order and as it was when the tenancy was taken and the landlord agrees this, and has known of my moving out, why is it not fair to expect the deposit back the day I leave? To put things into perspective, this property was completely unfurnished - not even any kitchen white goods. There was no carpet, no curtains, etc. Everything will either be as it was when the tenancy was taken or better.

Hi, I rented my current property in August 2006 and I paid the deposit to the landlord. With the Tenancy Deposit Scheme now in force since April, does this cover my existing deposit or does it only cover new tenancies? If my deposit is covered, I have received no notification of the arrangements from the landlord. I gave the landlord four weeks notice two weeks ago, and move out next weekend. I will be moving out a week early, and obviously am more than willing to lose that month's rent. Is it fair for me, subject to the landlord agreeing that everything's in order, to expect my deposit back the day I move out and hand the keys back? Thanks in advance for help on these matters!

I have applied to rent a house with the OH, and the credit check came back showing I have 2 CCJs that I knew nothing about from 2004. One for £155 and the other for £680. I've been given the case numbers and the court from the estate agents, and they've said that if I can pay them and prove it, then there'll be no problem in letting the house. I'm a bit miffed that I knew nothing about them (so's the OH!). Once I've got the details tomorrow, if I owe I'll pay up. I've got no problems as long as I do owe. That said, I definately didn't receive anything from the courts about these in 2004. I want to apply to the courts to have them set aside because of this. If I pay them off tomorrow/Friday though, can I still do that? From the information I've been reading today applying to set them aside will take a while. If the only way to let the house is to pay them, that's what I'll have to do - but I'd like the option of having them set aside so they don't cause me issues in the future.

This has been my conclusion also after looking at what they seem to be paying up on in the early stages...

Just wondered - I know a DJ called Damo, so thought I'd ask the question...

This has been answered a few weeks ago, IIRC. Basically you're looking for the banks to prove that the decisions not to pay cheques, direct debits, etc were made by individuals and not automatically by computers. If these decisions were made manually you need to know how the decisions were made, by who and the amount of time and work that was taken by an individual to do this. This would prove that manual intervention had taken place (which I really think it wouldn't have), and allow a reasonable pre-estimate of such costs that were incurred in doing so. Even if manual intervention had taken place, I could only see that it would have taken a few minutes. Even if you were to look at it taking five minutes by someone employed at £15 per hour, that only works out at a £2.50 - not £30. That said, it is the belief of many of us that no manual intervention takes place and that it is automated computer systems that simply look at your balance plus any overdraft (or other credit) facility and then makes a decision based on that - and charges you should you not have enough funds available to make the payment.

Damo - are you in Birmingham by any chance?

On Saturday 16th April I received a letter signed on behalf of (PP'd) David L Johnson from Sheffield Customer Services. The letter thanked me for the issues raised in my telephone conversation and assured me that he would be in touch as soon as he'd completed his investigations. I did phone them to enquire after 7 days of sending my first letter, but my actual requests were made in writing by mail, fax and e-mail! I gave them 14 days in my letter before action dated 10th April, so I'll allow 4 days for delivery by mail. This means that they've got until next Friday (28th) before I start action through the county court.

Using some search logic in their banking systems they could get some of their programmers to right a module that: Loops through for a list of names: - Find total charges from six years earlier to date - Refund total charges to account Okay, so this is over-simplifying things. There would still be costs involved for the programmers to write such a module, and there would need to be manual work in approving requests. All that said, if you break the law and get caught then you have to expect to pay in one way or another.

My response, by e-mail:

Reply from Susan Brooks:

The seven days I originally gave expired on Friday. After receiving nothing but the acknowledgment and confirming with telephone banking that no further action had currently been taken (just that the matter was currently being looked into), I sent a "Letter Before Action" to the same contacts as the original letter. This is my letter before action: I also attached my schedule of charges.

Waynus - you have totally, utterly missed the point! Here are the points, plainly and simply: - If you haven't got funds (or enough of an overdraft left) for a DD to be paid from your account, then your bank will not pay it. This means that you haven't actually stolen the bank's money. - In such circumstances, the bank will then penalise you by adding a charge to your account. This charge doesn't equal the bank's costs, and is therefore (by definition of common law) a penalty charge. - It's important to note that if you haven't got the funds to pay a direct debit then the bank won't pay it, and won't allow you to go beyond your agreed overdraft or zero (or sometimes a buffer fund). That said, the will allow you to go beyond such limits when they wish to add their charges. - It doesn't matter if you've signed a contract with the bank or not, it is still subject to the law. As you and I are not above the law, nor is the Prime Minister, a Police Officer or the banks. - It doesn't matter if the banks don't call such charges as we are discussing "penalty charges", previous courts have decreed such. As someone from the north of the country may call things you wear on your legs "pants" and someone from the south may call them "trousers", they are still exactly the same thing. And the final, simple, point is: - Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because someone hadn't got cleared funds to make a direct debit, it doesn't mean that a bank can do whatever they want outside of the law to an account or individual.

I've just applied for a Natwest Step account online. Took all of ten minutes (well, it actually took half an hour - had to try three times - the first two attempts crashed out at selecting the branch stage, but the third time went through without any problems). I've now been accepted in principle, and the application said to wait for the forms to pop through the door. This is my parachute account after I've started chasing HSBC for a refund. I've always had a Solo card and find it useful, and need the ability to setup DDs. I'm not bothered about an overdraft (indeed, I prefer not to have one!). All in all, the account seems the best option for me. I had looked at the Co-op Cashminder account first, but that comes with an Electron card and from what I can gather isn't as widely accepted as Solo.

I'm still trying to find out the answer to this one - I'm looking in other places across the net. I'll post a reply if I find it as I think this could be a useful one!