I had a policy with Ford Insure. As it came to renewal time I phoned around and found a policy much cheaper. I phone Ford Insure to get them to match the offer - they declined. I renewed with the new company. A few months later - yes I was a little slack checking my bank statements - I noticed that Ford Insure had debited my account (£750.00) for the policy renewal. Thinking a simple clerical error I phoned them. I was promptly told that there was an automatic renewal clause on my policy and that if I did not write to cancel it would automatically renew. Further, they would not make a full refund but only refund unexpired premium. (£550.00). I wrote, enclosing the other company insurance schedule asking for a full refund. They replied NO and would only refund the unexpired portion. Now full of confidence from perusing claims from banks I wrote back to them asking a lot of difficult questions ... e.g. *How could they claim to be at risk if I did not know the policy existed. *They contended they would have to pay out 50% in the event of a claim - I asked if they only covered 50% how could they charge a full premium. *I asked how many people had been caught by this clause *I asked how much money was involved *I asked why the automatic renewal was not clearly stated on the renewal form (It was hidden in small print) And more, anyway you get the idea, I demonstrated I was not going to go away and was prepared to take the matter further. I cheque for the full amount arrived by return mail. There you go. If you think you have been unfairly dealt with, challenge and do not take no for an answer.

Well I have now recieved the Notice of allocation. Set for the Woolwich court for March 2007. Just a wait now, it is going to be a long 4 months. If any further offer is to be made I think it will be at the eleventh hour, as this seems to be Cobbets methods. Interesting notes. Judge Backhouse in reviewing the papers issued the following directions: "(1) CPR18 does not apply to small claims. The court nothing that the Claimant has provided to the defendant his account details and a schedule of charges claimed, the court does not think it appropiate to order the Claimant to provide futher information(CPR 27.2(3)). The Claimant is not obliged to answer the defendant's request for Further Information dates 18 October 2006". As you will note from ealier posts I did not answer and return the CPR18 because of advice recieved from the site.

matter settled in full. Donation made to site.

Well, time marches on. Settlement offer received and rejected. I have reached the point now where I would really like to take them on in court because I am confident that I could make an educated and coherent argument for my position. I have worked out that my maximum over limit was £250.00. So if they had not taken the first 5 charges I would never have gone over limit later in the account history. The reality is that 95% of the charges were made because of 5% of the charges having an effect on my account. I was tempted to ask them for more to settle but thought better of it and would be happy to get my money back.

Have now completed the Allocation questionaire 149 (Small claims) .... It came with a notice of transfer to the closest court to me (Woolwich) which is good news, just in case. I have also replied to Cobbetts giving them the basics od account number and complete schedule of my claim. I did not respond to the CPR part 18 request. See what happen next. The costs are now up to £220.00 so when they do settle they have gone backwards by this amount and Cobbetts cost. Strange how sometimes they settle and others they make you jump through the hoops. Seems they test the water every now and again to see how serious some people are. I must state I did panic when the CPR part 18 arrived and I would like to thank those that help, advised and supported.

Thank you. Will do the search straight away. Mark

I am also dealing with Cobbetts and have recieved their defence papers with an attached questionaire. I am stuggling to understand the legalese. They seem to be saying that they want me to show were they have broken the contract with them by showing the contract between RBOS and me. I do not have that ... from years ago. I am wondering what I show do. Any suggestions? See my post under my thread for full drtails.

I have followed the procedures to the letter. RBS has entered a defence. I have received from Corbets (their solicitor) and extensive document asking very detailed and in some instances in my view almost impossible questions for me to answer. I have 10 days to respond. Has anyone reach this point that could help? The document is nine pages, bit too much to reproduce here ... and the questions range from .. The one that worries me is .. 2.3 In relation to each charge please clarify 9A) is it the case of the claimant that same should not have been charged? (b) if yes: please explain why the claimant contends that the same should not have been charged? © If no; is it the case that of the claimant that the same should not have been charged in this amount? (if yes: please explain why the claimant contends that the same should not have been charged in the amount identified the sum the claimant contends should have been charged. (e) if no; please state the claimant's case. it seems like a trap. "In your claim you state that the banks charges are a disproportionate penalty and therefore unenforceable as they are contrary to common law " 4.1 Please specify the clause pursuant to which the charges were applied 4.2 Please specify whether the charges applied were due to breach of contract by the claimant 4.3 Please identify in each case the particular breach of contract(by reference to appropriate term of the contract that the charge related to. I am not sure what they are asking here. Are they asking for me to show where I breached the terms of the contract with RBS? OR are they asking where the common law terms were breached? Clause 6 asks "Please specify the facts relied on by the claimant in support of the contentions and in particular please identify the contractual provisions the claimant alleges by reference to UCTA/the regulations. There is heaps more .... pages of legalese .......................... I understand that all this is probably a smoke screen to test my resolve but I am concerned that in some of the questions I could shoot my self in the foot. If anyone has experience this far would they kindly contact me and offer advice.

Sorry posted in wrong place - shifted the post

I am up to the stage of filing the claim. All correspondance to date has been with the Senior Business Manager at my local branch. Question: Should I file the claim citing that adress or use another address? Thanks for everyones help Mark

Thye have responded - nope to my first letter and ignored my LBA ... so on to action .... any advice?

Well have not ahd a reply to my LBA ,,, so on to the next stage. Any advice? mark

Well there you go. I have noted that RBS and NatWest (really the same comapny) apply different charges in some months for the same offence. Not sure how they work - seem to be very objective rather than applying a set fee. Guess HSBC is the same.

I wrote a spread sheet designed to calculated all this automaticly. It is reasonabley user friendly if you understand the basics of spread sheets. It works by calculating the number of days from the dtae of the charge to the current date. Then it applies the interest rate which you get from your statements (because they change from time to time) and manually insert them. It does not charge interest on interest but I was happy with the result I got and not prepared to go deeper into the calculation. PM your email address and I will send a copy to you.

The interest rate is the rate you were charged on the account - that is if they charge you 1.5% per month (18%pa) then that is what you claim. So a charge of £20 put on your account 100 days ago would be £20 x 0.0493% (daily rate) x 100 days. You need to do this for each charge - excel spread sheet will work it for you quickly. The 8% comes later if it goes to court and you get a judgement.