You can check out to see if the firm is a reputable company. If its a law firm check out the Law Society register. If its a claim management company there is also a register. There is nothing wrong per se with hiring someone to do this for you indeed they may well be able to get more compensation than you would be able to yourself especially if they do specialise in this area. Its worth making an enquiry and maybe also seeking out other firms that could help and whether they offer more favourable terms or see if it is something you feel you are able to take on yourself. Best to look at all angles before committing yourself and always read the small print

It would be a different matter if the banks continued to charge after the charges were found unlawful in civil law, but as yet the banks still contend they believe the charges are lawful so this may not satisfy the requirement of dishonesty given the burden of proof in criminal law. Also the OFT has not decided the charges are unlawful. They believe they are but only a court can rule on this.

Way to go Dougal!!!!

OFT Newsletter on personal bank account work

It sounds like a no win no fee arrangement. Generally they take a large percentage of any compensation and they may ask you to take out an insurance policy in the event you don't win.

Two threads merged to help keep track of your progress

Possible remedies are either specific performance of the contract (they must supply the prints at the agreed price) or damages (they must pay the replacement cost) under s.51 & s.52 Sale of Goods Act: Results within legislation - Statute Law Database

You may find this of interest: Online price mistakes The Kodak Case - e-Business - Webmaster Education

Contracts for advancing credit to consumers must be made in writing and comply with the prescribed terms set out in the Consumer Credit Act. Unfortunately verbal agreements made in this context are therefore not enforceable.

Good luck!

Send Lloyds a final letter pointing out that you believe you are in financial hardship giving details of why. Point out they are obliged to continue to process claims involving hardship under the FSA waiver conditions. If they write back and refuse then make a complaint with the FOS. All the best Zoot

Hi Fightingback, I've moved your post to create your own thread The courts have not been to sympathetic with regards to lifting stays on the grounds of hardship. You may well be better off going via the FOS. How far have you got with your claim? Do you have your statements yet?

Indeed it does! Lets hope things get resolved sooner rather than later. Good luck!

Also be careful if the total comes over £5k as this will put you in the fast track so you might want to keep them separate. Good luck

Good luck

It'll be worth it in the end! Good luck

Yes you can claim it back. Follow the normal process in the step by step instructions.

Excellent Let us know how it went

We have a whole forum dedicated to mortgages here

Likely Time Scales The test case is essntially divided into two rounds. The first looks at the legal question of whether the UTCCRs apply or whether the charges are capable in law of amounting to a penalty. The second is a question of fact whether the charges are actually unfair or penalties by looking at the costs of the banks in dealing with a customers breach. The test case starting on 16th is only looking at the first issue. The trial is expected to last three weeks with judgment expected to be handed down in May. Once judgment has been handed down there will be an inevitable appeal by the losing party(ies). Leave may be granted by the High court. If leave is denied by the High Court then an application to appeal can be made to either the Court of Appeal or House of Lords if they use the leapfrog procedure. There will be a further few weeks to see if leave has been granted by the appeal court. If leave is refused that is it for the first round. If leave is granted then it will be a further wait for the appeal court. The OFT has said any appeal will be fast tracked (not in the sense of fast track in the county court) but even then you're looking at a minimum of 6 mths being optimistic 12 months more likely. If it goes to Court of Appeal there is then a further appeal to the House of Lords possible. If a preliminary ruling from Europe is required this will delay things also. If the banks win on this first stage then end of story. If the OFT is successful, then on to round two to decide whether charges are actually unfair or amount to a penalty. This is the stage where there may be a compromise agreement. If the legal issues are resolved in our favour then its almost certain that the charges are disproportionate or penalties. Its also a question of fact rather than a question of law so is not likely to be subject to an appeal. So the second stage should be shorter than the first.

No its not a stupid question. I'm sure many people will be asking much the same thing over the coming weeks and months The test case is essntially divided into two rounds. The first looks at the legal question of whether the UTCCRs apply or whether the charges are capable in law of amounting to a penalty. The second is a question of fact whether the charges are actually unfair or penalties by looking at the costs of the banks in dealing with a customers breach. The test case starting on 16th is only looking at the first issue Once judgment has been handed down there will be an inevitable appeal by the losing party(ies). Leave may be granted by the High court. If leave is denied by the High Court then an application to appeal can be made to either the Court of Appeal or House of Lords if they use the leapfrog procedure. There will be a further few weeks to see if leave has been granted by the appeal court. If leave is refused that is it for the first round. If leave is granted then it will be a further wait for the appeal court. The OFT has said any appeal will be fast tracked (not in the sense of fast track in the county court) but even then you're looking at a minimum of 6mths being optimistic 12 months more likely. If it goes to Court of Appeal there is then a further appeal to the House of Lords possible. If a preliminary ruling from Europe is required this will delay things also. If the banks win on this first stage then end of story. If the OFT is successful, then on to round two to decide whether charges are actually unfair or amount to a penalty. This is the stage where there may be a compromise agreement. If the legal issues are resolved in our favour then its almost certain that the charges are disproportionate or penalties. Its also a question of fact rather than a question of law so is not likely to be subject to an appeal. So the second stage should be shorter than the first. It may well be that stays could be lifted after the first round, but nothing is certain at this stage

S.2 of the 2006 Act does not come into force until April 2008. The 2006 Act amends certain provisions of the 74 Act all the provisions which are unchanged are still effective the 74 Act is still enforce. Take a look here for an action plan on harrassment: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collectors-debt-collection/99376-telephone-harassment-action-plan.html

Yes ask them to produce evidence of your agreement to ppi and if they can't produce any evidence claim it all back.

Hi Dundee, I've moved your post to create your own thread Good luck with your claim

Excellent