Even if funds are not available you can still purchase petrol from ASDA. So it would seem that there is not a check on the available funds at certain stores. Thus, a debit card effectively becomes a credit card. This encourages going over your limit and attracting those excessive charges.

Hi, You can get some banks to notify you by text or email if you are likely to go into the red. However, I noticed recently that a strange thing happened when I had money transferred by online banking into my account the day prior to a debit card payment that I knew was coming off. I checked the balance of my account and it showed the transferred funds and a positive balance. The next day I checked my balance and the amount I had transferred the day before had suddenly been credited the next day according to the records. The debit card payment which had not shown on my balance the previous day had suddenly appeared on the previous day. The result being that the bank could charge me for being overdrawn (£18.00) and then a further £30.00 referral fee. This looks like a fraudulant act to me. I intend to take this matter further. The other thing is that I have noticed my balance varying negatively when no transactions have taken place and then the funds suddenly appear a day or so later. One of the annoying things about digital banking is that quite often a debit card transaction does not show up on the balance for some days whilst others are reflected in the balance available immediately. Does anyone else have any similar experiences?

It would seem that many people (including myself) have been defaulted in circumstances where there was no enforceable CCA in place. Surely, it cannot be possible to default on an unenforceable or non-existant agreement? In the absence of a legally binding agreement how is it possible to breach it? Therefore, should it not be possible to challenge the default on this basis? Probably only through the courts. I know that the ICO do not consider this to be relevant in their view - as far as they are concerned if there is a debt then if you don't pay it back in terms of even a non-existant agreement you deserve to have it recorded on your credit file. They are basing this view on the new 2006 CCA regulations, even though they don't apply to agreements before the inception of the new Act. Is this something that the FOS would have any bearing on?

Hi. No I am much older than that: X2!

I don't see why we need to have such thick layers of management in the public sector anyway. Surely, the best way to run things is to devolve power to the people who actually do the work at the front line? If people want to be managers that's their choice, but why should they expect to be rewarded disproportionately to the rest of the work force? After all, they are merely supporting (?) the people who have to do the real work i.e. doctors, nurses, teachers etc. If we all became managers where would we be? I think it would be interesting to "shadow" these managers over a reasonable period of time and see exactly what it is that they do for their money.

Hi and thanks for the reply. I think that the message that is being sent to the non-management level staff is that they are less important. It is also reflected by the fact that they, management get a productivity bonus of around 10% (this year). The success that is being rewarded is being generated by the teaching staff. There is no bonus for the staff who actually work at the sharp end. Furthermore, the man at the top only spends 50% of his time actually working for the college! I think that all of these factors negate motivation and cause a lot of negative feelings. This is especially the case in what is a publicly funded establishment.

Hi, that may be acceptable in the private sector, but I feel that in a publicly funded college this is discrimination. The fact is that if the teaching or support staff are ill it has a serious and immediate effect on the student. Senior Management are almost invisible in the day-to-day running of the organisation - it is more-or-less self perpetuating. After all, we are not a for-profit company, but a public service. Furthermore, Senior Management who are earning between £60K to £100K are in a much better position to fund their own private health care than the low paid staff. Research carried out by the Civil Service has shown that the lower down the earnings scale you are, the more likely you are to suffer from illness.

I work in a Further Education College. All management from a certain level get Private Medical Health Care provided. As the college is a publicly funded organisation is it fair that only certain staff have these perks? I would have thought that this could be deemed to be discriminatory - surely it would be fairer to either give everone this benefit or none at all?Anyone got any knowledge or ideas regarding this matter?

Hi there. I promised to keep you posted regarding my final case review with the Information Commissioner's Office - well, they have decided to completely ignore their previous "office view" statement relating to irrevocably unenforecable CCAs. They now consider that although no actual CCA could be produced by the creditor; there is still an agreement of some kind and accordingly the default should be recorded with the CRAs! I have written back to the writer as well a the Information Commissioner Richard Thomas, and the Justice Department. So, I'll just have to wait and see what happens next. Anyone else had any luck on this front?

Well done - a nice bit of research. It's amazing that something arranged so informally can have such a major impact on people's lives. Can it be legally challenged? Perhaps on a human rights issue?

Fair point, PT2537. You know a lot more than I do - thankfully.

Hi. yes the R v Modupe case relates to an agreement which is only enforceable by order of the court. Any agreement which falls under S 127 (3) is irrevocably unenforceable.

I'm sorry for the slight loss of sequence in the presentation of the pages. I would like to say that Helen Raftery has been extremely helpful and seems like a really nice lady. However, the problem when comminicating with government agencies is that the "first line" in the filter do not know very much. In order to get anywhere you have to know as much, or more than they do about the law. Ms Raftery, is at the mercy of the so-called legal team that advise her - look at the mis-interpretation of retrospective legislation with regard to the 2006 CCA by the ICO. In all cases of dealing with government agencies e.g. ICO, OFT, FOS,Justice Dept, etc.- I have got nowhere without having a good knowledge of the appropriate legislation/law. To a great extent that knowledge has been provided by the CAG. We really have to get these agencies to become more "public" friendly.

Here is the complete letter from the Information Commissioners Office:

Hi. I hope that my letter helps - I'm still waiting to get a response from the ICO after correcting them regarding their misconception that the 2006 CCA is retrospective. I'll scan all the other pages of the letter including my case reference number as soon as I can get my scanner hooked up again.