Was it absolutely necessary to ask this question on the forum? Surely a direct approach to the company would have gained a response more quickly. I am neither an advocate nor a detractor of these kinds of holiday companies but "you pays your money" as they say..... If your questions, suitable worded and directed to the company do not get a sensible response, contact the trade bodies they belong to, then if still not happy, come back here. You seem to be showboating for your own glory and that's not what this site is about.

Of course you do realise that the person who receives and initially reviews your letters will have a pile of similar correspondence on his/her desk every morning. If they seem less than caring, its probably because they are! To them you are just another piece of paper and warrant no more, or less attention than any other. The main thing to realise is that there are an awful lot of these claims and yours is only important to you. Keep that in mind and the whole process might become less stressful. Just keep a focus on making your claim seem more important than the others and you're more likely to get your just desserts before the next guy. It may seems selfish, but your other option is join the queue and wait your turn..........

write a letter to the bank's chief executive asking how an item in their safe custody could be released to a third party? At this point there's no point in describing the contents, as the main point is one of processes and security. Once you have a meaningful answer to your first question you can move to the amount of loss. The biggest hurdle you will face is in proving that the contents were actually in their care. most banks simply record safe custody as "one large envelope" or "one locked box, contents unknown" and most advise taking out insurance for the full value of the deposit. The fact that you have taken the precaution of depositing the family silver or whatever with a bank should reduce the premiums but the bank's own insurance WILL NOT COVER UNDISCLOSED ITEMS and for pretty obvious reasons. the main reason for writing to the CEO is to get your complaint elevated to the status of an "ExecutiveComplaint" which will be handled by a separate department, usually staffed by more senior people.

can't see that being the only reason. It falls foul of "treating customers fairly" legislation. There has to more to it than that. Whilst its true that too many searches has an impact, we're talking 8 or more in a six month period. That would give the impression that you were hunting around for credit and being refused. What you describe doesn't seem excessive at all.

I sympathise with your situation which seems wholly unfair. Like you I would have thought that their refusal to offer another mortgage neutralised their claim for an ERC as you were trying to port the existing product. I think you need to know why they won't lend on your new house, is a loan to value issue, income multiplier or back credit risk? Without this information it is difficult to comment with any accuracy. I think the unfair contracts act may not help in this case as the erc is designed to recompense losses made by a lender if the product is cancelled prematurely and the reason for this is usually because the borrower has derived benefit from taking the specific product initially. It may be that it was a fixed rate offering protection against interest rate rises, a tracker which saved you money compared to other rates or other benefits. The main reason for ERCs is to dissuade borrowers from jumping ship but in your case you don't want to leave so it might weaken their position in this particular mortgage. See if you can find out why they won't lend and perhaps someone on here can offer more assistance?

If you still have an old Maestro card with RBS contact your branch and ask if you have been sent, or are due to be sent a replacement Visa Debit card. Everyone will get one in due course as the bank's previous agreement with MasterCard who underwrote the Maestro scheme will end soon. You should also note that the purchase of any foreign currency outside of the RBS network, results in a cash handling charge which retailers are allowed to charge under the Visa scheme. The fee has a max of £4.50 unless you use ATMs abroad, in which case it £5.00. I found this out when I went to Thomas Cook in Glasgow to buy Euros and the helpful member of staff advised me to nip outside and get cash from the ATM to avoid the extra fee. I checked with my bank and they advised that the cards are sent out pre-activated to avoid problems for the user........ There is an upside to the changeover, under Visa, purchasers receive much better protection than they did with Maestro, so if your retailer goes bust, especially travel firms we should be better off. Shame Ryanair still charge for them though, but what do you expect from them?

You shouldn't call people trolls just because they don't agree with you and for the record I happen to think that the Royal Mail and Parcelforce are two of the country's worst run companies - I wouldn't work for either of them for any amount of money.

1 - No 2 - No 3 - No

It is tonight, I can't sleep and there's sod all on TV

No, just logic and common sense For the record, I'm not now, nor have I ever been employed by Parcelforce or Royal Mail. You would not believe what I actually do for a living....

I won't be holding my breath waiting for a postal worker being prosecuted and I would love to hear what the Police say when you call in to report one. Still glad to see you're still with us, its been a bit dull without your input. Do you think if I ask nicely Parcelforce would pay me commission?

Gee thanks, you're far too kind!

So clearing customs and collecting duty on behalf of HMRC isn't a service? Nobody makes anyone use Parcelforce, there's plenty of choice out there, so why make a fuss about what they do? Vote with your feet and choose another carrier. Still it keeps this forum thread going, doesn't it?

You're probably right. The difference is that most car parking tickets don't involve the car being held to "ransom" until the fee is paid. I just think its a massive amount of words, time and stress to escape paying £8.00

Far from trying to defend a "dubious income stream" I'm merely injecting some common sense into what seems like a manic pursuit of the impossible dream of not paying for a service, freely entered into, knowing it had a price. As has been said numerous times before on here, there are other couriers out there and they all charge higher fees - take your pick, or feel free to get stressed and get high blood pressure. Personally I've got better things to do than rage against the machine for something so trivial. If you want to pick a fight, at least find something worthwhile to attack

For goodness sake Neoconair, get a life! There have to be more important things in life than debating whether or not Parcelforce are allowed to charge a fee for doing their job. They think they can, you think they can't. If you don't like it, use someone else, there's plenty of choice but of course they all charge more. Regarding their right to detain parcels, think about it, why would they release parcels on a promise of payment later? Its the only bargaining chip they hold. Its only common sense that they would want to keep them, surely that's obvious? Don't be a martyr to your principles - get out and enjoy the summer weather!

you do realise that they will still pay the cheque into their account? This adds a certain piquancy to the tale as they will willingly ignore the letter telling them not to, on the basis that they have won. The reward for you is knowing that their hopes will have been raised at the thought of getting one over on you only to find later that they haven't! (tee hee!)

Neat idea but Judges, especially Senior Judges, don't fall into any of these categories, being independent of Parliament and not answerable to it. There are numerous instances where Judges have thrown out cases brought by the CPP on behalf of the Home Secretary on points of law. Some of which resulted in laws being revised to make them more workable.

I think it would be doubtful as treason is specifically a crime defined as "disloyalty to the monarch with the intention of undermining their authority" which would be hard to square against those specifically empowered to act on behalf of the monarch in deciding matters of law.

if my schoolboy maths are correct it looks like 11.5% which is roughly what any punter would pay in a high street bank right now. Of course the balance (and interest) will continue to increase if they keep paying only £2/month

A quick calculation shows the ERC to be charged at approx. 7.7%, which kinda suggests the fee is reducing. If, as you say it was 10% for a 10 year fixed rate, then 10% in 2007, 9% in 2008, 8% in 2009 and 7% in 2010 is par for the course on these things. The higher initial rate probably comes from the lack of no arrangement fee. To be fair, this isn't a fine, its part of a fixed rate contract where they guarantee not to change the rate for ten years and you agree to pay their early repayment charges if you want to break the agreement. Having said that, the rate doesn't seem to be particularly competitive, but that may reflect the prevailing conditions at the time and rates have fallen quite sharply since then. I'd be inclined to meet with them face to face and explain your situation in a calm and deliberate way and ask for their advice. Please be really cautious about firms who claim they can help (and charge handsomely for the service) as this contract is very unlikely to be flawed. Because the principle of early repayment charges is well founded and because HSBC's reputation is largely intact, there is a really strong possibility that this charge will need to be paid. I'm loathe to defend them in this scenario but the only way I can see out of this would be if the paperwork was defective, in not making the charges explicit and not explaining them clearly. Hope this helps?

At first sight a 10% ERC seems way over the top, so I would be asking for a copy of the original agreement. several banks have higher rates but they tend to be on a decreasing basis, 5% in year one, 4% in year 2 etc. I haven't heard of a 10% rate, but if it does exist, I think a fixed 10% is very, very greedy. You really need to see the original offer document (or your copy) to check this out before you can take the next step.

It will be interesting to see how this develops as the misunderstandings about banking days pop up once again. It seems you have a bigger issue with FOS than with the bank. In the end the bank can argue that they were following your instructions and I'm sure their terms and conditions will mention something about ensuring you have sufficient funds in your account to cover payments etc. My understanding of banking law is that banks may not delay presentation of a cheque, nor any regular payment if the cheque, d/d mandate etc are correctly written. The new faster payment scheme now means that standing orders cannot be cancelled if within 24 hours of payment either. The simple truth is that the main Scottish clearing banks use most of the English bank holidays as the greater number of branches are south of the border. Its a massive anomaly, but we're stuck with it. You may be morally right here, but with one of the new government's priorities being to stabilise the economy, getting bank shares up to a saleable value will be a key aim, so any ruling destined to open flood gates to a massive number of bank refunds is going to be hard to come by.

Last time I checked my payslip I wasn't working for Parcelforce - in fact I never have! I'm just curious to know why you think that they should carry out this work for free when DHL and others charge so much more? Insulting others only devalues your worthless argument - get real!

I can't quite work out if you're complaining about the "unfair charges" or lack of flexibility to accommodate your disability. I'm sure you realise that they are two very different issues which both have merit, but which require different remedies. Not having access to buildings is a DDA issue, paying for centralised services at your own door is not. Although I'm sympathetic to your condition, Parcelforce seem to have been trying to be helpful in suggesting someone collect the parcel on your behalf and its a little unfair to ask them to change their operational methods in this instance. Quite apart from the risk assessment required to facilitate such changes, there are insurance aspects to cash handling and Union permissions to be obtained. Their operational model will be designed to cater for the majority at low cost, whilst other companies may offer more specialised and flexible services at increased cost. There's plenty of choice out there.