Hey Slick, I'm good thanks, you? I'm fairly certain that the bloke I spoke to isn't working for the banks, but I guess it was the first time I met him. So much suspicion! I did mention that I thought it was all extremely corrupt ultimately; one trainee agreed completely, the guy that told me the other stuff (about the mortgage etc) made his case and then said the most telling thing he said all night which was "fairness comes last in a court of law". Sad but true. Anyway, he seemed to think that my claim (over £6K) is enough for Barclays to try for costs; I guess we'll see one day. I'd be interested to see if anyone else has heard of judges staying cases for another 12 months whilst they wait for the OFT's next move. That's what I was told yesterday by the court in Plymouth (I've elaborated in the H.O.L Decision thread). Cheers, KA.

Plymouth. That'll be from my post a few up (or maybe over the page!). Essentially, I went to Plymouth County Court today as I needed to see whether I let them know I moved two years ago (I'm very current me!) and the lady behind the counter told me, after she checked with he supervisor, that the judge that they deal with (not sure on his title, sorry) had decided to stay the cases for a further 12 months pending the OFT's next move. As I mentioned, she said she thought it was "far from over". I was a little surprised to be honest.

Surely if the courts follow suit and stay the claims for a futher 12 months as they have down here, that would negate the 23rd date? Or is that too simplistic of me?

Cheers to those who have replied to my earlier post; I have to say, it got me a little worried. I figured even if I did end up paying costs I could sort something with Barclays based on a fair amount per month - it was the mortgage bit that worried me the most as I don't want to affect my girlfriend with this! I need to check which track my case is on as I was just on the cusp of the limit for small claims/fast track (that's how I remember it anyway). For those who worried about me not enjoying the party because of it, fear not! It was the knowledge that I had to get up the next morning and run 11 miles that ruined it for me! Wasn't the first argument really strong?! Strength of argument doesn't seem to matter based on the last ruling It is interesting though; I went down to the Court at lunchtime as I wasn't sure whether I'd notified them that I'd moved. They have stayed all cases for another 12 months as the courts are aware that the OFT are taking the claim higher. That's what I was told by the counter clerk anyway. Not sure what that means but it may add some hope. She said she thought it was far from over.

Hi everyone, I posted this in my thread but figured it would be useful for all to see - it may have been covered already, apologies if so... ...I was out for a mates birthday on Friday and got chatting to a lawyer (not my normal company, honest!). Anyway, we chatted about my situation (case stayed, waiting for more information) and he explained that as a lawyer he would expect banks to try for all expenses related to each case. He said they would have a definite case and that they could be looking for some serious money (he reckoned up to around £3,000 for my case). When I asked whether I would be expected to pay this all back in one go (I don't have £3K just laying around) he said that would be up to the banks and I, but he also said that I could end up having the costs stuck onto my mortgage. I explained that my mortgage wasn't with Barclays, he said that didn't matter! I just wanted to put this out there and see what people thought about it all? Thanks, Luke.

Hi everyone, Long time since I posted in here; shocking really! Anyway, I was out on Friday and got chatting to a lawyer at my mate's birthday party. I explained my situation and he was fairly certain that the banks will try their hardest to get costs paid from those of us who have already begun court action. I just wondered what people thought about that and, if that is the likely outcome, how these things will end up being paid? He suggested my costs could be something like £3,000 based on the size of my claim which I obviously don't have just sitting around. He even suggested that Barclays may well be able to add it to my mortgage! I explained that my mortgage isn't with Barclays, apparently that's not a problem as they can still do it. Cheers, KA

Given that the banks appealed however many times (it may only have been once actually, it just seems like more!), does that mean the consumers are allowed to appeal to? I've always been wary of this ever since I asked the judge during my court case whether it was fair that I wasn't allowed to continue my claim given the OFT investigation but the banks would are still allowed to charge people the fees that were being investigated (surely both should be stopped whilst it is found out whether they are fair or not?) and the judge just replied "That's a good question, maybe you should ask it?". I thought I just had. That's when it really started to bug me to be honest. What a kick in the nuts.

As a slight aside to all of this, anyone else think we should make them all work on Monday? That'll show 'em!

Ah, ok, good! So in that case then it must mean they feel confident that they have sufficient evidence in their defence so far to justify the appeal as do the HOL which seems to indicate that they both think previous cases have missed something very important? In which case, is that not a bit of a put down by the HOL to the judges who have made the previous rulings? Or, have the HOL said "ok, we'll look into whether you have grounds for appeal but you have two weeks to tell us what it is you think previous cases have missed out and only when we see this will we be able to grant your appeal or not"? If that is the case surely they're on to a hiding to nothing as they would have identified this as key evidence at each and every opportunity would they not and it would have therefore been given consideration by a number of people who have all found the same? Just out of interest, how many appeals can one case have? Say for example I was accused of murder and was found guilty, could I just appeal and appeal and appeal? I thought you could only appeal if new evidence came to light? Cheers!

Ah ok, thanks for that! So in that case it must just be an appeal to be allowed to appeal? Or am I wrong there too? May be I didn't understand you at all bookworm!

Bookworm - yes, I completely understand what you're saying but I have no idea what the answer is, sorry! If it is that they have new evidence etc then it'll very interesting to see what that is. As far as I am aware, the only new evidence that could be really significant would be the banks detailing how they calculate these charges in the first place but is that really going to happen?

No worries yourbank - you don't know how proud I am at the moment, I've never been right on the internet before! You're right about the bank's submission though - will it be public and will we get to read it or do we just have to reply on what gets reported in the press? Cheers!

Ah ha, we clash again yourbank! Have a look at this definition I found... Going by that, I don't really see how asking how many or which people have connections with banks is libelous? If the statement read as something that clearly outlined that the poster was 100% certain that the only reason that this had happened was because X, Y and Z were looking after their own interests then that would be libelous (or certainly verging on it) but the poster is just asking a question so I don't see how it is even close to being libelous? I'm sure you can let me know though I really want this to be correct but I am afraid I still haven't seen anything to calm my cynicism. Yet!

Yeah, I know that and I know legally it has no sway but surely everyone can actually see through it?! Surely! It's just a little frustrating that banks will claim it's goodwill when no organisation with the aim of making profits that are as big as possible would actually dish out millions (from when this all started) unless they had to? I honestly don't believe the banks are sitting there saying: "Hey you know, I'm not sure these charges are fair..." "Oh really, wow. Thats interesting. Go on." "Well, it seems they have to be a fair representation of the cost to us and I'm not sure they are. And look, Vinnystoolbox and others are suffering financial hardship - lets just give them some of this back as a gesture yeah?" "Hmm, do we have to?" "No, we don't have to. It would be nice though wouldn't it?" "You know, it really would. Fetch the cheque book and my good pen; I've some signing to do" And they all lived happily ever after... As a complete aside to this, I hope you don't think I have any beef with you yourbank? I'm aware it may look that way in the other thread but it was never on my agenda.

Congratulations Vinnystoolbox! I have to say I'm shocked that they've done this but that shouldn't take away from the fact that you've got your cash so nice one! It still amazes me that this isn't really classed as evidence that the banks know they're wrong as surely no one is naive enough to believe that they really are paying back charges because they actually care about you as a customer or person?! If they didn't expect the worst they would sit tight and let you rot (so to speak). Or may be I'm just being paranoid?

I'm guessing from your user name you have a more indepth knowledge with all of this than me. My experience of banks is that of a customer pure and simple so I accept that I have to bow to your greater experience on this if I am right. And as I said in my post, I welcome this as I can learn more and start to build a full picture of things, so thanks for taking the time to answer me directly. The main point I was making was that I have no doubt that sometimes people in power make decisions that will benefit their own regardless of whether it is the correct, moral decision. Whether that power is as a football referee, a parent, a policeman, Senior Managment etc doesn't alter the fact that sometimes it happens. I don't think that can be argued with really. My point about Fred Goodwin was that whilst legally he may be right to cliam his incredible pension due to his contract, morally I think he is on dodgy ground. But that's my opinion only. I doubt I am alone in this however. I don't want to hijack this thread though as that isn't fair on other users so may be it's best we agree to disagree? By the way, I love the in quote answers idea so I hope you don't mind me knicking it! Cheers.

Well that's one way to look at it. Alternatively you could say that your view is "total and utter rubbish" and is in fact naivety at its worst. But then I guess it comes down to something along the lines of "you say potato..." Do you really not think that people look after their own in times of hardship and do you really believe the banks are learning from their mistakes? If they have, could you explain how the fact that I have lived in three houses in the last three and a half years meant that Barclays found a credit check too difficult to do when I was speaking about a short term loan for around £3k and yet they told me it would be no problem to sort me £20k if I wanted it?! Forgive me if I'm being cynical but the banks have hardly covered themselves in glory have they? PS Sorry, I meant to add that I'm not blaming all of this on you yourbank, far from it, it's good to have differing opinions. I just re-read it and it seemed imply that to me so sorry if it looked like that to you too.

Hmmm, don't know what happened there! See below.

That's the bit that worries me though. Someone has already mentioned Fred Goodwin and how he's been allowed to get away with what he's been doing. All it takes now is a couple of old drinking buddies who's Daddies used to share a dorm at Footlights and the whole thing's screwed. I'm fairly confident this sum it all up perfectly... YouTube - University Challenge - The Young Ones "Yes you're almost there, can you give me anymore?" "Certainly, will £50 do?" "Absolutely spot on..."

I know, it's not as easy as "ah well, I'll wait until you're profitable and then I'll get my money back" as a) nationalisation is an issue as you highlight and therefore any money would essentially be tax payers money (I assume staff will still get bonuses?) and b) would I really trust a bank to say "well look at that, in April 2011 we're going to post a profit so we'd best look at paying back those customers we owe the bank charges to," as their track record on being ethical isn't exactly amazing is it?! I somehow think some very clever accounting would come into play. It's tough, so I suppose I have to look at what my girlfriend said when I was talking to her about it... ...the banks took that money from me wrongly and therefore it is rightfully mine and not something that I am claiming purely because it's in a contract (although, you could argue that I'm claiming it because it's NOT actually in a contract!). I wish I was in a position whereby I could write the money off and split it all between CAG and some charities so that whilst it may be the tax payers paying me the cash ultimately, at least they may be able to benefit from it in the long run should they ever need the services of whoever I give it to. Who knows, it may happen, there's a lottery tomorrow night after all!

I see what you're saying, if you're going to declare debts and get a helping hand to pay them off you may as well chuck it all in and then start from scratch. My only problem with that is whether it sits well that I can complain about an ex CEO getting £650,000 a year pension after the tax payers have bailed the bank he did his best to bankrupt, but then in the same breath accept the bank paying out on my claim and using the same means (ie the tax payers money). I don't think that's right really, why should everyone else pay for the failings of one or two individuals (figuratively speaking)? I know it's easy for me to say as I'm very fortunate to have a decent income and stable job (and I promise I really do appreciate how fortunate I am and that there are many others in completely different circumstances to me) but I think I would be happy to wait for payment until I know it's coming from the bank's profits rather than the bail out money, should my claim be found successful of course. May be they should arrange an appointment with us and we can discuss their options to ensure that their debts to us are managed correctly? After all, practice what you preace and all that! Cheers, KA. PS It's nice to be back!

Absolutely. The poor buggers have a few billion burning holes in their pockets at the moment no doubt! Cheers for all of your advice. I'm going to send my letter with your ammendments at the end just to see what happens. Of course, this could all go wrong and they could look at how I've run my account over the last few years and close it! About two years ago I called to complain that they charged me £30 for being £3 overdrawn and the bloke on the phone told me I was "lucky to find someone to put up with me". Still, nothing ventured, nothing gained! Thanks for all your help as always - and Maz, good luck too! Cheers, KA

Cheers Maz, pinch away!

Maz, that's ridiculous and I can only imagine it's very, very wrong. I will take up your offer - in fact, here's my letter! Sorry it's so long, any alterations will be gratefully received, thanks! "Dear Sir, RE: Meeting with Barclays Personal Account Manager I am writing to you to inform you of a meeting I had with xxxxxxxxxx (Personal Account Manager, Barclays Bank xxxxxxxxxxxxx) at xxxxx on Saturday xxxxxxx 2008. I appreciate that I am sending this letter almost a month after the meeting, but this just serves to prove how angry this meeting made me. I have thought about the meeting everyday since and finally decided to write this letter after having spoken to a number of people about the issues raised. I was telephoned by xxxxxxx during the week previous to the meeting and asked whether I would like to come into the branch and discuss overdraft charges. I currently have a claim outstanding against Barclays Bank to reclaim my overdraft charges which has been put on hold pending the Office of Fair Trading investigation. When xxxxxxx called me and invited me in I naturally assumed that it was to discuss this case and, keen to sort an amicable solution to the claim (as per the instructions of the Judge presiding over the case), I agreed to the meeting. On the day, xxxxxxxxxxx, I arrived at the bank at xxxxxx only to find xxxxxxx had telephoned me to see where I was, something that I found a little unusual given that I was only one minute late. As I approached the desk, xxxxxxxx offered me a chair whilst saying: “Oh well, you were nearly on time babe,” I have to say, I found this more than a little unprofessional. When I explained why I was late, she replied saying: “Never mind babe, you’re here now”. Again, this struck me as unprofessional but I took it as a sign of friendliness and thought nothing more of it. Unfortunately, I was referred to as ‘babe’ the whole way through the meeting and I have to say that I began to find it very uncomfortable towards the end. After about two minutes of chatting about my account, it became apparent to me that this meeting was nothing more than a sales pitch. xxxxxxxxx was desperate for me to change my account to one that would cost me more money, no doubt fuelled by the promise of commission. Further to this, she pressed me to “upgrade” my joint account which, as I explained on a number of occasions, is by its very nature a joint account held by me and my girlfriend. I will not do anything to this account (save for paying in money) without talking it through with my girlfriend first – I think you’ll agree that this is best practice. Not only did xxxxxxxx encourage me to “upgrade” our joint account, she also tried to get me to increase our overdraft and use it to pay off my personal overdraft. When I once again explained that it is a joint account and therefore not for me to make decisions on alone, xxxxxxxx said to me: “Oh, so you’re still with your girlfriend then yeah?” Not only did I find this question completely irrelevant and unprofessional, I was amazed at how long it took for my message about how our joint account operates to sink in, especially as I was dealing with someone who is apparently an expert in personal banking. Up until this point I was a little disappointed with the direction that xxxxxxxx was taking the meeting, however I certainly wasn’t shocked or surprised especially given the way I was originally signed up to my Additions account some years ago (for the record, I was never asked about signing up I just received an information pack through my door letting me know that I had a new type of account). It was her next sales pitch that left me angry, shocked and questioning whether I had made the right decision. xxxxxxxxxx pointed out that I am eligible for a Barclay Card. I told her that this was not a route that I wanted to go down. I was given a Barclay Card some 12 years earlier when I started university and it ended up causing me no end of grief and cost me a lot of money. I recently paid that card off and do not wish to take out another one. I explained this to xxxxxxxxx and she eventually looked me straight in the eyes and said: “Either you take out this Barclay Card and pay off your overdraft or Barclays will close your account”. I was stunned by this. I can honestly say that when I agreed to the meeting the last thing I expected was to be sitting, chatting to a professional personal banker who was threatening to close my account if I didn’t take out a Barclay Card. If there was ever a classic case of aggressive commercial behaviour then I think you would have to agree that this would be it. I can only assume that xxxxxxxxx made this statement as a reflection of her personal beliefs as I cannot imagine Barclays Bank would promote such an attitude, especially when you consider the level of bad press you received after the BBC’s Whistle Blower programme and not least when you consider Section 7 of the CPUT Regulations 2008: “Aggressive commercial practices 7.—(1) A commercial practice is aggressive if, in its factual context, taking account of all of its features and circumstances— (a) it significantly impairs or is likely significantly to impair the average consumer’s freedom of choice or conduct in relation to the product concerned through the use of harassment, coercion or undue influence; and (b) it thereby causes or is likely to cause him to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise. (2) In determining whether a commercial practice uses harassment, coercion or undue influence account shall be taken of— (a) its timing, location, nature or persistence; (b) the use of threatening or abusive language or behaviour; © the exploitation by the trader of any specific misfortune or circumstance of such gravity as to impair the consumer’s judgment, of which the trader is aware, to influence the consumer’s decision with regard to the product; (d) any onerous or disproportionate non-contractual barrier imposed by the trader where a consumer wishes to exercise rights under the contract, including rights to terminate a contract or to switch to another product or another trader; and (e) any threat to take any action which cannot legally be taken. (3) In this regulation— (a) “coercion” includes the use of physical force; and (b) “undue influence” means exploiting a position of power in relation to the consumer so as to apply pressure, even without using or threatening to use physical force, in a way which significantly limits the consumer’s ability to make an informed decision.” As soon as she realised that this tactic would not work one me, and that she was not going to be able to sell me anything, xxxxxxxxxx lost all interest in the meeting and it was swiftly drawn to a close. I left, still amazed by her comment about my account and the Barclay Card application. It has taken me some time to decide to write this letter but it’s the fact that I have not stopped thinking about this since the meeting that finally persuaded me that I had to let you know about what happened. I can laugh off being referred to as ‘babe’ for the whole meeting however unprofessional it is. I can even cope with a poorly disguised sales pitch and having to repeat myself about the joint account. What I am absolutely appalled at is being threatened into taking out a Barclay Card. I am lucky as I am a strong person and I am relatively savvy when it comes to banking matters, what worries me is how many people would have ended up bowing to the pressure and would have taken out the card, further spiralling themselves into debt. I trust you can see that this is highly inappropriate behaviour and that something needs to be done to ensure that it does not happen again. I look forward to hearing from you in due course. Yours sincerely" Like I say, any changes would be great! Thanks, KA.

Cheers Bookworm. I was doing the washing up last night chatting to the cat about it (!) and I realised how much it had bothered me - the meeting took place on the Saturday of the bank holiday so it was almost a month ago - and yet I'm still thinking about it and talking to my very well informed cat about it all! I decided I would write them a letter then, you've just confirmed this with me though. I also forgot to mention that I asked if I could opt out of the new buffer and charges set up that they have and whether she could process that for me at that time. She said no and that it had to be done in writing. I asked her to organise resending me the letter in case I couldn't find it and she said she couldn't and that she would give me a number to ring. She gave me the normal telephone banking number! I called them over something completely different and the bloke I spoke to was very helpful. He told me she was wrong to do what she did and what she said was wrong too - he also said that only branches can organise resending letters but he was able to opt me out of the new set up there and then and she would have been able to do it just as easily as he had on the day of the meeting. Yet more stuff to mention in my letter. I need to find the name of the lady I saw but I will do that and write a letter. I may stick it up here and get some advice if that's ok? With regards to the new question, it's all still looking good then? Cheers, KA.