Hi, thanks for your reply, I appreciate you taking the time to do so. I read through that link you provided prior to coming here, and it didn't answer the questions I have asked. The OR can take money for up to 3 years. When you say 'it will be on your record for 10 years', what exactly are you referring to? My Bankruptcy? If such is the case this is not an issue I am overly concerned with, however I was told when I went to the county court that It would only be on my record for 6 years.

So, I finally went bankrupt last week. Went to my local Court, got everything signed and today received a letter from the Official Receiver informing me of when she will be calling to talk things over, and providing me with the 'what happens next' info. It all seems pretty straight forward to me, but there are a couple of things I'd like some advice on First up, how long exactly will the Official receiver be in control of my estate as it were? It seems to me that it should be for only as long as I am Bankrupt, and that once I am discharged, that will be the end of it. But something in the information she provided made it sound like the Official Receiver can still have control even after I am discharged. So how long exactly is this for? When will I finally be completely free to move on with my life, not having someone watching my every move. Secondly, at the moment I am unemployed, but if I get a job, how much is she likely to take from me? I understand that it generally works out to be about 50-70% of disposable income, but the problem is, if I get a job, ALL my wages will be disposable income. Will she really take between £500 and £700 off me every month? If she does, I may as well have not bothered going bankrupt as that would be pretty much the same as my just paying my creditors normally. Thirdly, if I got a job, I would be in a position to meet all my repayments every month as standard, it is only that I have been out of work for 18 months and the charges and interest are astronomically high that, in my mind, I couldn't catch up. Would the OR be likely to advise the court to annul my Bakruptcy if I got a job considering I could probably make all my monthly repayments. Fourth. Would I be better served waiting until I am discharged to take work? Thanks for any advice you can provide. These are questions that have been bothering me, but I don't feel comfortable asking the OR.

As I've repeated often, Im just passing on information from a BoA perspective so people can get inside the BoA 'mind' and understnd their perspective and how they do things. Doesn't it help to 'know what your enemy is thinking'? Anyway, please, read my thread, and use what I've put in their as best as anyone sees fit. I accept that people can be suspicious and demoralized by banks, and can be unwilling or unable to see anything past the bad (of which there is plenty, I won't deny that) So I'll not enter into discussions about it. If my thread is useful, please use it, if not, then good luck to everyone who goes up against BoA.

Groovy, I never knew that. Good job too really, I would have been telling everyone to send one and probably have got myself the sack

love it.

Thats a fair call, and I certainly can't fault your reasoning. Rory is spot on here. AS long as you have made it openly known to them that calls are unwelcome, then logging and recording is the way to go. By the by, one thing that DOES work with BoA, if you can record harrasing phone calls, get the name of the grunt you are speaking to, department, line manager etc, even speak to manager if you can, then make a copy of the call and send it to them with a note that you are sending to OFCOM and FOS, and they back down sharpish. BoA work under the assumption that anyone who is saying 'I am recording, I will report you' is bluffng and have no idea what they are talking about. A copy of the tape shows them that you DO know and you ARE willing to go that distance.

Who do you think you are sir? I come here to try and help people by providing information based on what I know from my time working in BoA. If you would take the tiem to read my posts, it would be clear that I am neitehr a BoA employee nor a troll. Just because you and others here seem to have a negative stigma toward speaking to BoA does not mean that you are correct sir, and my difference of perspective does by no means make me a troll. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't this forum a place where we come to share our collective knowledge to assist in our difficulties and disputes with the banks and othe financial institutions? I am here to openly show you how BoA think and work so anyone who is delaing with BoA knows what to expect. In what way does this make me a troll, sir? Because my knowledge and experience from being on the other side differ from what you believe to be the case? Well I am sorry, I didn't realise a prerequisite of being on this forum was to only post things which tie in with what you believe to be true. So if you will be so kind as to tell me everything you know, I will endeavour in the future to make sure I only post what is right according to you.

Does the SAR cost of £10 mean they MUST send you every statement they hold?

You are exactly right. this was pretty much why I opted to leave. BoA have this desire to be the most respected, and their method is to confound customers into thinking they're getting a better deal form BoA than they are anywhere else. We were actually told that as long as we were resepcted and admired more than our rivals, that was the most important thing. Again, ther methods are down to appearences. They cling to their level of compliance to regulations because it make them appear above board. They train their staff to care and take an interest in customers because happy customers are more profitable. And yes, they even DO care if you have financial difficulties and do honour what they put in place with you because, in their eyes, even if they are taking money from someone who is struggling, at least they appear to be caring. ITs all about appearneces to BoA. AS for the thousands who dislike BoA? To them that is acceptable, they see those people as being 'bad eggs' and portray them as such. Banker_Rhymes. Would care to just come out and say whatever it is your trying to say? It sounds to me like you are accusing me of being a troll. Is this case? And if it is, why? Because I have a different perspective from you, because I can play the devils advocate and telly ou how BoA see things and do things, despite your reservations? Just because you don't like what I have to say, does not make me a troll sir.

Please man, don't do this. Your disregarding everything Im telling you based on what? Bad experiences? I really don't want to argue about this. BoA are fine to talk to as long as you maintain control of the conversation and get confirmation in writing of everything said.

Oh no, its always worthwhile if the outcome is worth the journey. Just be aware that it can be a difficult ride wth BoA. Your first step is to find out all the charges you want to claim back. BoA only hold statements for 6 up to 6 years prevous, if your looking longer than that, and you don't have the statements yourself, they could be very dfficult to reclaim. If they are no more than 6 years, then BoA have the statements, but not to immediate recovery, they take time to dig out from wherever they are kept. (I actually don't know where they are kept). Thing to note, BoA charge £4 for every statment you want reproduced. I don't know if anyone has found a way to get copies of them without charge, Id never heard of it happening.

I don't blame anyone for not trusting banks. Il say it again, I left BoA because I know their S&P's are unfair. the BoA approach is this 'Give the outward view that we are doing the right thing for the customer, then screw them over as best we can'. Talking to BoA is great for people who need a footing, because the grunts are good people and they DO want to help as much as they can. Believe it or not, a lot of them DO genuinely care when soemone gets into trouble. But the company only want customers to feel like they're being treated well so they can have an easier time of taking your money. What always irritated me with BoA is that grunts work the collections department, and they need permission to even scratch their own noses from a manager, so you hitting them with 'no calls, only writing' and sputing law at them is an effort in futility. They have no idea what your talking about. (Some DO, but these are just the people who are genuinely keyed up about these things). To the grunts, what FSA says is law, because thats what they are trained to know. Often it is the case that FSA support is enough. Arguing the toss with them only puts customers across as 'acting smarter than they are' (a verbatim quote from a manager who was there when I first started), and unfortunately that is what they are trained to believe. Grunts are made to belieev that customers just don't understand and they have to spout T&C's and FSA regs at them until satisfied. Don't know about anyone else, but that for me is a perfect example of irony if ever there was one. Never blame the grunts, its not their fault. If their attitude sucks, feel free to give them hell about it, the bosses do. Again it comes down to wanting that image of 'customer first'. Sniping and yelling at custoemrs does not go down well in BoA.

Ayeayeaye. I'd really rather not get into an argument about this. Im sure you have good cause to not trust MBNA. But there are a few things important to note. First, up until a year ago, BoA standards and practices were not in place in the company. Harrasment, lies et al were common place, as it is with all dca's. In the past year BoA have been bringing their own S&P's into the company, and the way things work has been changing. ITs not by any means perfect, god no its not that, but, BoA staff CAN be trusted. If you call them and arrange something with them, they will honour it. In the past they did only what was good for them. That was an MBNA practice. BoA hates negative publicity so is making the changes necessary for good publicity to be the norm. And one of the things that has changed is 'fair treatment' of its customers. And yes I do say that with tongue firmly in cheek, however, compared to past practices, things have changed for the 'better'. Yes mistakes DO happen, grunts DO screw up (fairly frequently), but they are not out to decieve you or cheat you, which, frankly, when it was still running as MBNA, that is exactly what they did. I can only reiterate, talking to them can help, beause the grunts on the phone want to help. MBNA perspective was 'get what we can however we can' BoA is 'get what we can, however is best for the customer'. The difference is simply that even when they are taking money you struggle to afford, you are content knowing that you have set up an agreement that you are happy with. and they DO honour it. But again, I will say, mistakes do happen, people do screw up, so always get paper trail an transcripts of what was agreed. As I said above, you can ask for complete transcripts of notes made on any call you make to BoA. So if you are to call, for any reason, get those transcripts sent out to you so if they do screw up, its one more paper trail. But again, remember, in talking to them onthe phone, BoA will always try to get something out of you, that is the downside. If you want what you want without having to negotiate an agreement where you also pay something to BoA, then don't call. My main piece od avice for anyone who is mailing correspondance with BoA is to call them anyway, and tell the grunt to make a note on your file to say that you are sending a letter. How much you tell them about the letter is down to you, but if you make this one call at least, then again, records of BoA's knowledge of the letter is on your file. MBNA BoA have been known in the past to 'not know' about a letter sent to them, and to be fair, unless its registered mail (which I would recommend) A simple 'lost in the post' excuse would suffice. Remember your accounts with BoA, the files are yours and you have a right to see them. You also have a right to have notes added to them whenever you ask. So calling and telling them to make a note of everything you are doing is always a good idea as it is a 2nd permanent trail, along wth the paper one.

And just as respectfully, I would ask you to appreciate where Im coming from on this. BoA has millions of customers, and believe me, I've sat through enough calls and enough meetings where this and similar subjects have come up. Compared to the number of unsuccesful attempts there have been, believe me, Slim to none is the case. I won't tell you its not possible, it is, and Im here to give as much insight into how BoA work for people who are going up against them. But I won't sit here and tell you its guarenteed, when it is not. I just want to help people get any extra edge I can. We've all been at the bad end of unscrupulous bussiness practices from banks and dca's, so I figure any insight I can bring will be worthwhile. As I've said before, I don't agree with BoA practices which is why I left. OK, as for the 'why do BoA think uk law doesn't apply to them'. Heh, Im not too sure what to say to this. BoA don't hold uk law in contempt, they work with it no differently to other banks or credit card companies or dca's. What they DO do, is make sure that everything they do is OK by regulatory bodies such as FSA, which I can tell you, it is. So again, its really an issue with FSA. Not trying to swerve blame or fault away from BoA, far from it, BoA have plenty of fault, but this idea that BoA openly ignores UK law because they feel they are not obliged to obey it, is false. Or at least, it is false to the extent of them being any worse than other banks. Really, this is an accusation which should be levelled at all banks, dca's ccc's equally. My question has never been 'why does the bank do this' its always been 'how can a bank get away with this'. For me, that is the rub. They are allowed to get away with these things because regulatory bodies tell them its ok. Why? Why can they do this if they are wrong?

Thats a question I can't answer for sure. However I can give you an educated guess. What is likely to be the case is that, when BoA bought out MBNA, they retained the MBNA image and name rights. Now Im no expert on how Business brands and logos and names etc can be used, but I DO know that BoA have continued to masquerade as MBNA because people in UK recognize the MBNA brand. In essence, whilst MBNA as a company, a seperate entity does not exist any more, as a BRAND, which is to say, as an image of a company, it does. And in that respect your case with them can be presented as being against MBNA as that is the face they currently present. Im also not a banana of any kind, but it seems to me that if court action against a company had to be in the 'parent' name, then many companies would never go to court as they are only single divisions of larger franchises and conglomerates. Basically, its BoA you are going up against, but they are still using the MBNA brand. Also check your official docs regarding this. the actual name for this company in uk is Bank of America Europe Card Services, whether that name appears or not I obviously don't know.