This topic was closed on 03/07/19. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

In the late 1990s (1997ish) we moved house as part of a relocation deal and the timing happened to be that our mortgage application was handled by a broker whilst we were on holiday. We had signed for a 95% mortgage and went on our way. Whilst away we received a message that there was a problem with our application and so we called in. We were told that the valuer from the mortgage company had considered the property over-valued and so declined the mortgage. As a result, the broker had arranged a 'work around' and had gotten us a cashback mortgage which would incur a slightly higher rate of +1% for 5 years. In order to keep the move on track, and being assured that it was the cheapest way to resolve the issue we agreed. Although we were led to believe at the time that the cashback amount would be repayable if we settled our mortgage early, we were also told that the cashback repayment would reduce for each year completed at the higher interest rate. After 3 years we needed to move on and duely agreed a sale. It was only once all was settled by the solicitor that we found that the entire cashback amount had been claimed by Abbey National. Our solicitor at the time suggested that it was normal and so didnt see any benefit in spending his time at his normal rate investigating further. This still feels very unjust and in the current climate of banks/building societies being held to account for previous unfair actions, i wonder if anyone else on here has experienced anything similar and had any joy in getting redress?

The basis of most mis-selling complaints is that we were told what they wanted us to hear verbally, got us to sign agreements and we were not made fully aware of the details at the point of sale. By buying into an account online you are not being mid-sold something unless you can prove some advertising/person at the bank mis-led you into thinking travel insurance was included.

Thanks The refund of fees is obviously different to the spreadsheet due to them refunding the difference between gold and classic rather than full Gold as I have used some benefits (and therefore demonstrated awareness of the benefits). The other refund is way out (25% of what I calculated), but they haven't put in the letter how they arrived at this figure. The only clue I had was in the telephone conversation where she said they went back and refunded OD usage and unauthorised borrowing where these events were directly attributable to the fees being taken. I've had more of a detailed look through that link again and I'll send a letter asking them to look at it again - more for evidence of what I'd requested for the FOS than anything else. They've already invited me to take it to FOS if I'm not happy, but I've no evidence of what I'd asked them to do - their reply letters are quite carefully worded to just respond to the bits they wanted to respond to - surprise!

You mean the link to the thread you didn't get round to posting (see above) ? I'm not having a go, most/all of your previous replies have been helpful. Tbh I just couldn't find a specific post in the haystack of useful information on this site and was discussing another matter with the bank when the topic came up. I opened my account pre-1997. I only have evidence going back to 2000 and the bank only to 2001. We AGREED to the refund of the difference in the absence of any hard evidence either way regarding 'mis-selling 'and my subsequent use of a number of benefits of packaged accounts. My query remains, has anyone successfully requested Lloyds to recalculate their account based on lower (or no) account fees being applied to their account?

So far, so good. I phoned Lloyds and enquired about my packaged account. They didn't agree on all points, but to be fair, they were helpful and whilst they didn't refund all packaged account charges, they did compromise in the absence of any proof either way and refund the difference between what I had paid and what I would have paid for the lowest package for the 'benefits' I had used since I became aware of them in 2009 and originally asked for my account to be downgraded (request declined). I then asked for that lower amount to be applied to my account at the time the payments were taken as I had evidence that the inflated price had, by compound, taken me into and over my overdraft limit on occasion. Lloyds have refused this, instead refunding just the charges where the account fee specifically took me over my limit Was I making an unreasonable request? Has anyone else successfully requested Lloyds to do this? Let me know. Thanks.

Thanks. I'll kick the process off and see where it leads.

I was asking to change to the cheapest account I believed they had available at the time - they declined my request due to poor history.

Really from day 1? Wouldn't the 6 year limit be in play? Had a read through that post and Salthouse the process looks quite lengthy, it's definitely helpful. Thank you.

It's bothered me for some time that I pay for a packaged account with Lloyds. I've had more than my fair share of financial problems and one of the few plus points on my credit score is that I've had my bank account for a long time. I was investigating "free" accounts and came across a number of sites claiming that packaged accounts may have been mis-sold, hence my visit here. I originally signed up to a Gold account in the late 90s because I had asked for an overdraft increase (£2,000) and was told this was the way to get it. I hadn't realised the full "benefits" of the package (probably still don't) although I did use the breakdown service a few times around 2005/6. In 2009, after a period of unemployment and temp employment I went back to University to retrain as a teacher. As the account I had was more expensive than a "student account" and the overdraft was long gone, I applied to Lloyds to change the account to a student account but was told that because I hadn't got the best financial history (returned payments etc during unemployment period) they couldn't change my account. I was, therefore, trapped into continue to paying the £12pm. Do I pursue this for the original mis-selling, or just from the 2009 point where I was trapped into the paying the increased amount? Is there a 6 year limit on this?

After a month or so living with family, we got to visit our new house to measure for carpets a week before getting the keys. Having duely taken all available measurements we walked into our local scs store to sort us out. After having a brief 'we normally send an estimator round, but as you've got the measurements, if you're happy to go ahead, so are we...' chat, the guy set to work arranging the jigsaw in his head so that we could keep waste (and cost) to a minimum. So far, so good. We paid - still going well. Then phone calls start. 'we won't be able to fit on the day we agreed, it'll be the day after'. I offered to cancel the order and suddenly they could do it on the day! Next phone call. I didn't realise you were over the Severn Bridge. You'll have to add bridge toll to the money you still need to pay the fitters - Ummmm, no, you had my address, deal with it. On the day, the boys arrive. 'You have got our money haven't you?' - yes, good morning to you, hope you had a safe journey, I do have the money agreed, I just need the carpet to be laid first. Guys worked hard, with minimal fuss. I got on with some jobs, going back regularly to check on them. Got a call late afternoon to go back as they'd finished and wanted payment. Got to the property, boys loading van, paid guy holding the paperwork whilst being told all the waste was my problem and then he proceeded to tell me about the 'issue'! All rooms were done except for the hall way. It was the right length but because one room had been cut out of the whole roll, it had left too big a gap at the bottom of the stairs (2feet) so they were taking it back to the store to 'sort it out'. Didn't receive a call within 3 days so I called the. 'oh yes sir, you have a problem don't you. Your measurements weren't right'. Nothing wrong with my meamusements we both have a copy of them. 'but you missed one measurement off' Ummmm, yes, ok, but you didn't ask me for it when you were juggling it in your head. 'i did, I asked you if you could lie down in that space and you said yes'. Now apart from not remembering that part of the conversation at all (and it not really being the most accurate form of measurement) I could actually lie in that space, I'm 5'10 and the space is 6'2 - certainly not a 2 foot difference. Either way, trust is broken, guy starts being arrogant because he does this job all of the time and couldn't possibly have made a mistake, and so I ask to speak to store manager. SM is not in, but he'll call me! 4 days later I rang to see if SM was in - he got the admin to phone and tell me he'd call the next day once he'd spoken to sales person - I said that I'd be at the store at 9am the next day to speak to them both, and all of a sudden he was ok to speak to me. We went through the detail above and told him I was a reasonable person, I had missed a measurement, but was certainly not going to accept full responsibility and top up scs profits by ordering yet another piece of carpet. I was unclear whether it was a mis-measure, whether it had been cut incorrectly, whether the wrong room had been taken out if it, or whether it was a good honest mistake. They had the carpet, so I couldn't check. I agreed to pay cost price just to get the matter resolved, and move on. An estimator came out, I paid - so far, so good! 2 weeks later, still no carpet! Phoned store who said they could do any day convenient for me (as long as it was Wednesday - certainly not the Friday I needed). Took wed off, arranged to work Friday instead. Weds came, got text that fitters had been over booked and couldn't make it - could they come Fri instead? Grrr. Yes come Friday. ok see you at 7:30am! Got kids up and out to school to get another text, stuck in traffic going to another job first, see you later afternoon. By 2pm it was fitted, and all of the waste left again - including the original that didn't fit! I've unrolled all 4 pieces left and NONE of them are an 'L' shape which would have fitted the shape of the hallway, with or without a 2feet gap at the bottom of the stairs! This leaves me wondering if the problem wasn't actually that the measurements were wrong, but that the fitters actually got a bit trigger happy and cut too much off the roll. I've now got a house that's carpeted,but it still annoys me that I've had such a poor customer experience and paid extra to rectify a problem with measurements, and now I'm not even sure that the measurements were even the issue! Not sure what I can do, if anything, but atleast people who have read this will be able to make their own judgement about whether to use Scs or not!

Good work! didn't want to dial in case it was a [problem] and a whole redirect thing ended up costing lots more. As it happens, I just went back to the scene of the 'crime' and took a photo of the sign in the area which states that the fine for non-display of a ticket is £50 - so this thing is unenforceable any way. Looking forward to receiving any follow up from the LA

lol, it doesn't say. What I typed into the original message was the entirety of the notice. I do know that the car park is a Local Authority car park, but they do outsource the pay and display and enforcement. I would assume it's the private company, but no way of proving either way

My wife parked in a LA car park and as the 2 machines weren't working and she just needed to "pop into the shop" she did just that and came back to a ticket. Nothing weird about that but... This was more of a home made ticket! Nice bright yellow box with "Penalty Charge Notice" and "Do not ignore" on the front and on the back, all handwritten... Reg £130 fine for further details or to make any other complaints or inquiries Please contact 0800731732 ticket issues under traffic section 69 WARDENID: PC10D75 I know there is nothing illegal about handwriting (or possibly even spelling/tense mistakes), but what's the current wisdom on these things? Wait for a letter? Thanks all

Case closed - account brought back within council administration and all additional fees for the last 2 years removed. For future reference, if anyone has any dealings which involve a "Levy", check it carefully against Schedule 7 of the Distress for Rent legislation, and feel free to dispute it through the court (doesn;t cost anything except the time writing a letter) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1988/2050/schedule/2/crossheading/7/made Mine was found to be lacking the names of directors/partners, the name of the bailiff, an accurate breakdown of the LO and fees, and despite listing a Consumer Credit Licence, they managed to be quoting one that expired in 2009, not their current one. In other words, not worth the paper it was written on.

I'm sure site members or more experienced members will be along shortly, but for now (and I've been through similar this year). 1) Do not take anything the bailiff says as "the truth" - they have a habit of using language to suit themselves and typically to harrass you into handing over cash regardless of whether you can afford it or not 2) The bailiff so far has no other powers other than to knock on your door - he can't take anything, force his way in, put you in prison, or anything else Right, regardless of your personal arrangements with your husband, you are likely to BOTH be liable for your CT, so your best bet, if you can, is to move the vehicle away from your property. It is far too easy a target for the bailiffs if it is obviously parked on your drive - they will act first and ask questions later (or wait for you to ask questions, is more to the point). If the bailiff has been unable to contact you after 2 visits, he is likely to levy against your car in a bid to make you hand over more cash than you can afford. Try and avoid speaking to the bailiff (no law says you have to) just speak to the council, but if you feel the need, tell them that you are paying the council direct, that you are not refusing to pay your council tax, and that they will not gain peaceful entry. Contact the council and start making payments you can afford - make them regularly. The council may tell you that you must pay through the bailiff - this is NOT the case, and the council cannot refuse to take payments. If they try, simply use their online system. These are just your first steps, as I said, others will be along shortly to advise on other actions you need to take.

I got a nice letter from the Council today, stating that they have investigated my most recent complaint... 1) The bailiff claims to have made another 2 visits - phantom 2) They agree the the charge was not in line with the CT regulations, so removed the attendance + (as a gesture of goodwill) removed 1st and 2nd visit fees 3) There have been 3 recent "mistakes" on this account (all of them in the bailiff's favour!!!) so the council are bringing the account back in house - result! I still intend making the bailiff's life very difficult though... I have already complained to the OFT who are holding my complaint on file for the next time he applies for a CCL I would like to raise a complaint at his registering court - he has 1) Made phatom visits - obviously difficult to prove, but I have been home on atleast 3 of these occassions 2) Charged fees not in accordance with legislation - twice applying a £150 attendance fee to my account without levy OR leaving a letter 3) Threatend to take the car (even though kids were in there) - then lied about it 4) Issued a Levy which is not in accordance with Schedule 7 of the Distress for Rent Rules - no name, no list of directors, incorrect values 5) Misrepresented his powers in the header of a letter What are my options/risks here?

Thanks all OB, I have received the advice to complain to the OFT on a few occassions - and on each occassion the cagger has given me their opinion of what the flavour of the complaint should be. This has always been helpful and well received. However, this document was so easy to read that knowledge of its existence would have promoted a bit more self help/empowerment and potentially made my individual complaints made more complete, so I thought i'd share it here. I understand I am not promoting anything new, and never thought I was, but it has been helpful to me to be able to read through the doc and word my most recent complaint more appropriately - referencing statements as necessary from this document added credibility.

Under the advice of the good members of CAG, I recently made an enquiry of the OFT and received a response which made be of help to others. A bit of background for those who are not aware - in order to carry out Bailiff activities, Bailiffs (or their companies) need to hold a consumer credit licence. To hold such a licence, the holder needs to prove that they are "fit" to hold a licence and this is tested via a "Section 25" test. If their fitness is called into doubt, the OFT can investigate and potentially remove the licence. SO, they sent me a link to a document which will make interesting reading for anyone who has received communication from, or who have dealt with, a bailiff http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/OFT664Rev.pdf misrepresenting your powers, misrepresenting outcomes, not being clear on charges, adding charges not legislated for, failiing to accept a reasonable offer of payment, etc etc ALL REASON FOR COMPLAINT AND REGARDED AS UNFAIR PRACTICE enquiries@oft.gsi.gov.uk is the email address you'll be wanting. They will not give you advice, but they will take your complaint against any licence holder and either investigate, or keep it on record pending an application to renew a licence.

yes PT, I did ask the nice man if any of the threats were genuine options for the council - there was a bit of delay before he agreed that the letter may have misrepresented the powers of the bailiff. This one is going all the way!

LOL, I found that R&C had repeated the "illegal" actions of #22 (adding £150 to my account for "breach of agreement"). I contacted the council (a week ago) who apologied and got the fees removed, along with the 1st and 2nd visit fees, and a promise of a letter directly from R&C confirming that the charges had been removed. I replied that as it was the 2nd time it had occured this year I wanted it fully investigated because I was taking whoever was responsible to court for trying to defraud me. Today I received a letter from R&C headed "Take Formal Notice" offering to apply for my committal to prison, bankruptcy, or charging order! Let's just say that the nice man at the council has probably had easier conversations this week!

sent as written (by email) and have received an acknowledgement promising a response within 28 days - will keep you informed

The other option is to challenge the validity of the levy (currently in the process of doing this myself). Firstly, grab a copy of the Notice of Seizure and Walking Possession agreement. Check it against this http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1988/2050/schedule/2/made (scroll down to form 7) If the name of the bailiff isn't printed, if the names of all directors are not listed, if the phone number is not included, if all fees are not itemised etc etc, a letter to the magistrate who issued your liability order can get the Notice of Seizure thrown out as an "irregular levy" Further reading of this and the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (as amended) Section 45 (available on the same site) will, as the others who have responded have already said, lead you to identify that there are other reasons for it being irregular too - like the amount levied not covering the amount of the debt by a long way (indicating that the levy was carried out simply to increase the charges applied by the bailiffs). Finally, bailiffs are required by local authorities to sign up to a code of conduct which includes not forcing debtors into payment schedules which they are obviously unable to adhere to. If they insist on doing this, a formal complaint to the council should get any further action put on hold

In addition to working on a letter to the Magistrates Court asking them to rule the "Notice of Seizure" received as "irregular" due to it not having the Name of the Bailiff, the Names of all pertners/directors, or the correct amounts for amounts owing etc (incompetent muppets), those who have followed this thread will know that I received a less than satisfactory response from the LGO who suggested that because the outcome would have been the same, in didn't really matter who engaged the individuals concerned as long as they were in fact certificated. I pen'd this response to them and would appreciate some considered views as to whether this anything I should also be including... --- Letter Starter --- Dear Sirs I am writing to request a review of the final decision reached by Kxx Bxxxx in response to my complaint (your ref xxxxxxxxxxxxxx). Whilst I may not agree, and be disappointed with her findings, I am willing to accept the majority. The one area I cannot let rest and would like to challenge, is her response in paragraph 8. I have asked South Gloucestershire Council on several occasions to confirm the authority of Mr M and Mr C to act in the capacity of bailiff for the council. Ms Bxxxx has correctly identified that the reason for the original query is the misalignment of the “employer” listed on their certificate and the name of the company whom they claim to represent, but this was not only to query the validity of their certificate in this case, but also their authority to act on behalf of the council. I believe she has failed to recognise the significance of the situation, including the impact on my account, and the importance of having the council investigate this properly. If the bailiff is found not to be an employee of R & C, and therefore not authorised to act on behalf of the council, any actions of the bailiff (regardless of their certification) and associated charges would be unenforceable. In addition, by having the named individuals continue to operate in this capacity, South Gloucestershire Council would be knowingly overseeing a breach of 1) their own contract with R & C. and The Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) Order 1996, which states that “A contractor shall not make any arrangement for the exercise, whether in whole or in part, by any other person of any function which he has been authorized to exercise by the authority, unless that person has been authorized to exercise the function concerned under a further authorization given by the authority by virtue of this Order.” South Gloucestershire Council (Mr M Dxxxxx) has responded to a Freedom of Information Request on 12 February 2012 confirming that R & C are not permitted to outsource the enforcement actions assigned to them from South Gloucestershire Council, unless the debtor (myself) lives outside of the South Gloucestershire area (which I don’t). 2) the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (as amended) Section 45 which states, “The person levying distress on behalf of an authority shall carry with him the written authorisation of the authority”, which obviously cannot occur if authority is given to R & C. rather than their outsourced partners. 3) The Data Protection Act 1998, by passing my personal data on to a 3rd party who has no rightful involvement in the action being taken. Hopefully having this spelled out so clearly, you will now understand my insistence that this is investigated properly. In the final response from Kxx Bxxxxx, paragraph 8 states that the "council has advised that the bailiffs the complainant dealt with were employed by that company" (i.e. R & C.). However, Appendix D of her provisional view (dated 12th June 1012), shows that you have received the letter addressed to myself from South Gloucestershire Council, dated 6 March 2012, (they included it as Appendix 12 to you) in which they state "A number of Bailiffs, which includes Mr Cxxxxx are self employed..." and "R & C are located in Leicestershire however; they have a base in Bristol (UKRS) managed by Mr Jxxx Cxxxx" - in fact, Mr Cxxxx is not only managing the office/company, he is also a Director of the company. This is as clear a case of outsourcing as it is possible to identify. Regardless of Ms Bxxxx’ assertion that the outcome/charges would have been the same had there not been a query over the employment arrangement of the bailiffs concerned, the fact is that the same legal system which demands that I pay my Council Tax or face the consequences, also dictates the form and process of the response required to remedy my non-compliance, and in this case these have not been followed. I do not expect my council, and their governing bodies, to oversee clear breaches of the regulations and contracts, and to overlook these breaches in order to protect the revenue streams of those with whom they seem to have such comfortable arrangements. By entering into outsourcing agreements, South Gloucestershire Council cannot assume that they are outsourcing the responsibility for ensuring that legislation and guidance is being adhered to. I look forward to receiving your considered response. --- End of Letter --- will send it later today, so any input appreciated

Thank you!