If you originally asked them for interest and they've paid the charges back without it then you can still justifiably say that they haven't paid your claim and start the Moneyclaim bit. P.

Tell him that the clause that purports to authorise them to make the charge is unlawful as it requires you to indemnify them against your negligence contrary to Sec.4 UCTA 1977. An unlawful clause is unenforcable in it's entirety and, legally, simply does ot exist. It dosen't matter that you have signed if it's unlawful it's void. Also, unless the bank proves to you that the charge actually, and accurately reflects their costs then it's a penalty. Penalty charges are unlawful in English law, simple as that. P.

Ask them what case and where you can find a report/transcipt of it. I'd be very interested in reading that. They can't have been awarded costs if it was small claims, P.

Christmas isn't that far away, you may or may not get anything paid back by then as if they want to drag it out they will do. Don't set your self an unrealistic timetable. You are looking at several weeks if the bank decides to play it right to the wire at each stage. If you need to do a SAR then they can take up to 40 days. You will need to allow 14 days from your prelim to your LBA then a further 14 days before you start proceedings. If they indicate that they will enter a defence they have, I think, 14 days to do that which then buys them another 28 to actually come up with one. If you try and push them to an unrealistic timetable the whole thing could fall apart and you may have to start all over again. Just another thought. Have you ever paid any mortgage redemption charges? If so, go after them too. Zootscoot has a good thread on that. P.

Twinmumagain; Just remember when people say you are a mug that this is most definatelty NOT, NOT, NOT some sort of get rich quick scheme. This is you recovering YOUR money that has ben unlawfully taken from you. If you do it right you WILL win - no one with a properly prepared case has lost yet! Indeed, none have even got as far as a hearing, as far as I am aware. I can undersatand that you are nervous, that's pretty normal. What you need to do is read as much on here as possible. don't just take at everyone else's word that you will win - learn the legal princliples behind the argument and your confidence will grow. There is no substitute for KNOWING what you are talking about and knowing the bank is in the wrong. J.

I would send it to IF. I didn't use one as all my charges were detailed on my web statements as they were all incurred this year. P.

This is my thread on IF. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/intelligent-finance/30731-phantom-intelligent-finance.html P.

Stuaryo, Carriel1975, They will tell you that they intend to defend but will let it run until shortly before the date to enter a defence falls due to tell they they have "decided" not to because of the expense. Of course it's pretty obvious that they never had any intention to defend from the out-set. The second ackowledgement of service (for charges that would never have been applied if they had returned the first ones promptly) arrived yesterday and I have little doubt the story will be much the same again. Personally, I think it's a total abuse of the Court system - and possibly even illegal if they are indicating that will defend every case when in fact never do and ever even have an intention to do so. It's also a waste of their share holders money as they are forking out for the Court fees in every case as well. No they didn't close the account and it's still fully in use. P.

I simply cannot believe that they only hold information for 5 years. Report them to the Information Commissioner. P.

I see there is a discussion on another thread about people getting unsolicited invitations for credit through the post - even to the extent of getting pre-approved offers made. Do people think that there should be a financial services preference service, rather like the telephone and junk mail preference services? This way, you could enter your name and address so that it would be an offence for a company to offer you financial services without you having approached them in? The register would be funded by the industry from a small tarriff applied to all credit agreements and operated through people like Experian and Equifax and need not involve any more hastle than a crdit check does now. .

Did you only request 6 years worth of statements? If your request was for everything they hold on you then they have not complied with your SAR in full. P.

Cheers Zoot. Survey already filled in. Have to set about getting a few more crossed off my list now. P.

It should have no effect on your finances or your ability to get credit - although the bank may decide to close you account. If they were to tell other institutions that you had p*ssed them off and asked them not to give you financial products (ie; they were operating some sort of black-list) they would be on a very slippery slope towards a defamation action I would have thought. Also, they would probably have comited offences under the Data Protection Act. P.

Got letter in the post this morning, the relevent part reads; "......on a purely commercial basis, it will cost the bank money to defend your claim in terms of the legal costs that will be incurred. It is unlikely that the Halifax will be able to recover these costs (even if the bank wins) because your claim will probably be allocated to the small claims tract, in which costs are not generally awarded For this reason, but without admission of liability, the Halifax is willing to reimburse £318.00 in respect of the bank charges incurred your account. The Halifax will also reimburse the £50 in respect of the Court fee." Dead pleased about getting the charges back but I would have quite liked to have beaten them in Court to make the point about their charges. P.

Agree with what everyone else has said - you can't just go inventing stuff to inflate your claim. On top of actually getting your case thrown out you will probably go to prison as well. P.

The common law principles are basically the same as for a personal account. You cannot enforce a penalty. Also the UCTA 1977 says that a peron acting as a consumer cannot be required to indemnify anouther. If you can show that the business was actinng as a consumet then that principle applies as well. You need to read through the FAQ's. P.

You wouldn't believe it but I've just had a couple of coppers at the door in response to my email - how efficient is that!!! End result is that they can see my point but they aren't convinced that it's a criminal matter. I've explained that I think there are very good reasons as to why it is potentially criminal matter and they've gone away to study my letter. P.

(Un)Intelligent Finance have just charged a further £268 to my account and I am boiling with anger!!! They know damn fine that these charges are unlawful and that they are deceiving people into paying them. That being the case, I've just sent these two communications to them and the cops respectively; "Further to our telephone conversations of today. I am shocked and disgusted by your continual levying of unlawful and unjustifiable charges to my account. Your latest round of charges amounts to £268. As I have pointed out to you today, and on previous occasions, these charges are unlawful penalties and, as such, are void in law. I have put this to you on several occasions, including repeatedly on the telephone today. You maintain that they are not unlawful yet you are unwilling provide any evidence to me that refute my arguments or to back up your position. Neither have you ever provided evidence to me that the charges you levy in any way accurately represent losses caused to you by me. I consider that the manner in which you have repeatedly presented these charges to me, and the circumstances under which I have paid them, - namely that they are fair, lawful and accurately compensate you - amounts to a deception on your part and that your taking of them also amounts to theft. That being the case I am today making a formal complaint to the Police relating to offenses I believe you have committed contrary to Sections 1, 15 and 15(a) of the Theft Act 1968." ======================================== "I would like to bring to your attention a matter relating to what I consider to be the criminal misappropriation of funds from my bank account by my bank. You may be aware that banks and other financial institutions employ a regime of fees which they apply to customers accounts in the event of the customer exceeding a pre-arranged credit facility or for failing to maintain a balance sufficient for the payment of a direct debit, standing order or a cheque. My bank applies fees of £30 for being unable to pay a direct debit and £28 for exceeding my overdraft facility. During this year my bank, Intelligent Finance, has debited a total of £586 in such fees from my account. The bank maintains that the fees applied to my account are by way of compensation to them in relation to losses they allegedly incur from the above mentioned failings on my part. It is a well established legal principle that contract clauses that require a party to the contract to pay a disproportionately high amount by way of compensation are to be regarded as penalties for breech of contract and are therefore void as they provide unjust enrichment to the other party. This has been the case since at least 1915. Also, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, at Sec.4, provides that a party to a contract who is acting as a Consumer cannot be required to indemnify another against negligence. It is only recently that I have been made aware of the unlawful nature of these charges and I am now in the process of claiming them back through the Courts. However, I believe that the banks have known about the unlawful nature of these charges for some time. The Office of Fair Trading released a report relating to such charges in April 2006, this concluded that they were being levied contrary to Sec.4 UCTA 1977, and common law. In addition, no bank has ever revealed it's actual costs in relation to this type of charge so it is therefore impossible for a customer to be sure that the charge he is being required to pay does actually compensate for the banks losses. The OFT's investigation was on going for some 2 years, I believe, and the banks were made aware of it during that time. In any event, it has been public knowledge since April 2006 that these charges are unlawful. Prior to this several senior executives of UK financial institutions were called to give evidence before a Parliamentary Select committee in October 2004. My bank has repeatedly levied this type of charge on me and, until recently, I have agreed to them being debited from my account as I believed them to be fair in that they genuinely compensate for actual loss, and were lawful. I now understand that they are not lawful and almost certainly are grossly inflated in relation to the banks actual losses. I have made my position clear to my bank that I believe these charges are unlawful and currently have a Court action in progress to reclaim charges that were levied between January and June this year. The bank refuses to provide me with evidence that these charges genuinely do compensate them for loss that I have allegedly caused to them and refuse to refute the legal arguments I have put to them relating to their unlawful nature. They repeatedly tell me that the charges are fair and lawful yet flatly refuse to provide any evidence of this. However, they continue to levy these charges upon me and new charges have been applied to my account on 30th September 2006, after I have expressly told them that I consider them to be unlawful. I believe that in making these debits my bank has committed offences of deception contrary to Sec.15 of the Theft Act 1968 in that I have been deceived into consenting to the charges through their being presented to me as being fair, lawful and an accurate representation of the banks actual loss. I also believe that they have committed an offense contrary to Sec 15(a) of the same Act, they having obtained a money transfer by deception. In addition, I believe my bank has committed offences of theft under Sec.1 of the aforementioned Act in relation to these charges, in that they have dishonestly appropriated property from me and clearly intended to permanently deprive me of it at the time of the appropriation. This is especially true of those charges made for exceeding my overdraft facility which is entirely avoidable on their part." ========================== P.

You would think that would be the case, but I'm not up on Scots law. In England you fill out a fixtures and fittings form that the buyer is entitled to rely on. P.

English and Welsh law are the same. P.

I've just got an almost identical email from them. Sod them, it's LBA time. P.

I don't think they could anyway because you have a contract with them to pay it off in installments. They can't just change their minds and take whatever they want from you. P.

If the account is closed then their defence will fail as he has no right to the money in it so he hasn't in fact been paid at all. In fact, I don't think money can even be paid into an account that has been closed. P.

Tell them where to go - Microfice is a relevent filing system. Don't pay their extortunate £3, as you will not be able to claim this back. P.

Thinking about this I can't see why they would be allowed to destroy any information on an account that is curently open as they would have to show a full audit trail of how the balance came to what it is today. I bet the Abbey information relates to dormant accounts which are technically still open and have to be left as if someone will walk through the door with a claim to them. P.