To clarify. You sent the letters - they then binned them? Or, you never sent the letters and have binnied them your self? P.

I agree. It's just a matter of getting the police to take note; I've tried, I got so Pee'd off with IF that I emailed the Police and had a couple of cops on the door a hour later. They didn't really want to know though. Like I said above, the ex-chief exec of Lloyds has said that charges are used to fund free banking for the entire population. That's a straight admission of a deception offence to me. P.

The last part (defending a hopeless case) is quite pertinent. I've had two claims, to date, with IF and on both occasions they indicated initially that they would defend and both times didn't on the grounds that it was not cost effective to do so. Why did they idicate the second time that they intended to defend when clearly they had no intention of doing so as the costs would have ben just as much as the first? Of course, we all know why they do this type of thing, they use it as a final intimidation tactic in the hope you will go away. P.

I think you "use" a vehicle on a public road even if you aren't driving it at the time. However, if he didn't put it there then I fail to see how he could be using it. P.

Because it's a penalty charge which is unenforcable. It would make absolutely no difference as, if they ever did get as far as Court, they would loose. What you had, or had not told them, is irrelevant. Not the point though. You owe no duty to act honestly towards someone who is knowingly attempting to collect an unenforcable sum. Precisely but, they should have to prove that the charge is enforcable before they start demanding information off you. There is no reason why they can't go to judicial review to prove that the charge is enforcable and to prove that you have to tell them what they want to know. So why should you have to be honest with them? But, refusing to tell them who the driver was even if you knew is precisely the same thing, wouldn't you agree? So, if you are going to refuse to tell them that, and you don't seem to be saying you should tell them, then why not lie in the first place? What is there to hide if all you are "hiding" from is someone unlawful demand for money? There is no reason why you should have to tell these people anything. It is no business of thiers what you were doing in a certain place at a certain time. Your movements and personal business are your own affair and have nowt to do with anyone else. There may be perfectly good reasons why you don't want others to know why or when you were in a certain place. If they were pursuing a genuinely enforcable debt then it would be a different matter but the debt we are talking about here is totally bogus. And I'd agree, but it's not money that is truly owing. P.

I've got a claim with Cahoot which includes contractual interest at the unauthorised borrowing rate which I've asked for judgement in default on as the bank didn't respond within the required time. I applied for judgement on Thursday (16th) so should hear back any day now. On the issue of claiming interest at the unauthorised rate; this isn't something I will be pursuing with future claims. There was discussion about it on here and the conclusion that was arrived at that was that the unauthorised rate was probably a step too far. However, my claim had already gone in so I just left it as it was. I'm also including contract rate interest on a claim with MBNA the prelim of which was sent on the 13th and also on a claim with BoS the LBA deadline for which expires today or tomorrow so I'll probably start the Court thing on Wednesday. P.

The main leg of your argument is derived from the common Law principle that penalty charges for breach of contract are unlawful. Same as if you were claiming as a private person. The UNCTA 1977 may or may not apply. Depends whether you can show that the business its self was acting as a consumer or not. P.

Didn't the cheif Exec of one of the big banks (Lloyds?) say in interview that charges were used throughout the industry to fund free banking? This sounds to me like pretty good proof that the banks knowingly represented their charges as being compensation for their loss when, in fact, they actually act for profit. Hence, deception offences, theft, etc. Even if you couldn't prove it in relation to past offences all it will take is one case relating to charges being successful at Court and it would stop all future charges dead in their tracks as no bank could ever present them as being genuine compensation for loss even again. P.

You claim everything. You don't wait for the Court stage to claim the interest as it's there to compensate you for not having the use of your money. It's part of your whole claim. The only interest that goes on at the end is Sec.69 interest but you can't claim both, I don't think. J.

This is what I put in mine; "I consider that you have deceived me into paying these charges through presenting them as fair, reasonable and lawful and that your concealment of their true nature has prevented me from reclaiming them until now. I therefore respectfully request that you pay them back with immediate effect. As these charges were debited from my account without my informed consent and, in my opinion, unjustly enrich the bank, I am applying interest to them at the rate mentioned in my contract with the bank, compounded annually. This is your current overdraft rate of 11.8% applied to each charge from the date it was made to 16th September 2006, the date on which I received your final letter detailing such charges. The total owed is £XXXXX" P.

Actually we've mentioned possible offences under the Theft Act before. Sec.1 (theft), Sec.15 (obtaining property by deception) and Sec.15(a) (obtaining a money transfer by dceception). I also think there is a Sec.23 (I think) offence which is making an unwarranted demand for money with menaces (blackmail). P.

You can't base your case on them not turning up. Everything you put in your claim you need to be able to defend at Court if necessary. Ok, the judge probably wouldn't kick the whole thing out - it's still your money, however you may have acted as regards your claim. But, if you have added on a load of extra stuff that he feels is not representative of your losses and is purely there to stiff the bank for as much as possible I'm sure he will find some way to penalise you. P.

I'm with Glenn on this. I have a large claim that I considered spiltting but came to the conclusion that it could end up loking very bad. The argument will be that it wastes the time of the Court and is unfair on the defendant because he has to carry two sets of costs if he loses, has to spend money defending two claims, etc. I also don't think that including charges over 6 years old will jeapordise the balance of your claim at all. They will either be accpeted or not but if the Court decides that they are statute barred it can't apply that to the whole claim. If that were likely to happen then I think you may have good cause for splitting but it won't. J.

I can see many reasons to carry this on, in your case 782 of them to be precise. The letter you recieved will just be a standard form letter that everyone gets. It's designed to elicit exactly the reaction you had to it - not wanting to carry on. You may feel they are winning but really they aren't. If you actually read what that letter is saying it dosen't really amount to hill of beans. They say that they consider the chares fair but still have not actually provided any legal rubuttal as to why you are wrong. Press on. P.

They're lying - or incompetant. Or, more likely, both. P.

Highly unlikely it would be chucked out for that. Besides, you need to apply the Sec.32 argument to show why charges more than 6 years ago should be included. P.

I think the argument is that the "costs" concerned are actually losses flowing directly from the unlawful actions of the banks in making the charge in the first place and so are a legitimate part of your whole claim. It is expenditure you cannot avoid if you want to claim your money back. The analogy would be if someone had taken your car and dumped it at the other end of the Country. You could not avoid having to spend money getting it back so would have a perfectly justifyable claim against the thief. With our claims it is impossible to get our money back at zero expense to us so there must be some reasonable compensation allowed. The prohibition on claiming costs in the SCC is so that one party to an action cannot hire exorbitantly expensive lawyers as a way of intimidating the other into submission. This is especially important in small claims where the figures in question are...well...small, and would be eaten up by legal fees. If it's a genuine loss caused to you then I say claim it. However, you must be sure that you are quite happy to stand up in Court and justify it. The judge may not allow it but if you have been honest and genuine in your request it probably won't affect the rest of your claim. If the judge feels you are yanking his chain though he may well throw the lot out. P.

Well, some letters just about finished to go to, Parkforce - telling them what I think of their unlawful charge; DVLA - saying that I don't consider releasing information to enable someone to pursue an unlawful charge to be reasonable; Trading Standards in Leeds - telling them what I think of these sharks. P.

I suppose you could always take their Reg no, get their details off DVLA and sue them for negligence for whatever costs they have put you to? P.

As far as I'm aware it voids the producer. However, you are dealing with possible criminal scanctions by not producing, so I wouldn't take my word for it if I were you. J.

On the lying side of things. No, it's probably not the best course of action, and you most certainly shouldn't lie to a Court, but there really isn't any compelling reason why you can't say anything you like to a private company or person who is attempting to collect an unenforcable debt. They have no right to demand the money so you have no obligation to be honest with them. There is nothing that actually requires you to tell them who was driving, even if you knew, so that is just lying by another name anyway. P.

I would certainly give it a try. The log you have produced seems reasonable and you wouldn't be doing it if they hadn't charged you in the firstplace. As long as you can show the Court that all this is genuine loss on your part you should get it. You must be prepared to stand up at Court and convince the judge that it reasonable though. I've just sent a prelim to a bank for over £8K of charges that go back 11 years. I've added at the end of the letter a line to the effect that I won't be pursuing any costs in relation to the large amount of time and effort I've been put to in working out the claim (working out the interst on each individual charge took several hours) and researching the law in return for their quick settlement, but that if it came to Court action I would be asking the Court to award a resonable amount to compensate me for this. I think someone mentioned a while ago that a reasonable charge for a ly person to apply would be half the rate for a newly qualified profesional to do the work. P.

Someone will have posted on this subject before. It will also be explained in the FAQ's. Basically, Sec.4 says that a term in a contract that requires a person acting as a consumer to indemnify anouther party is void, unless the person seeking to rely on the clause can show that it is justifed between the parties. It is unlikely that a Court would decide that a consumer is better placed to carry an indemnity for a masive bank, especially, as the contract was pre-drafted and the consumer has not been able to negotiate the terms indivdually. The first line of your attack though copmes from the fact that a charge made by way of a penalty on a contractual pary by another is void in Law as it unjustly enriches the other party - ie; the bank is earning a profit for doing nothing. J.

They would though, wouldn't they. Follow the procedure and prove them wrong. P.

Ok, diving in to this thread but haven't read the whole of it as I'm off out in a few mins. I'm presuming that you were parked in a private car park and overstayed, weren't parked properly, etc? If this is the case you are breaching the contract you accpeted wen you entered the car park. Penalty charges are not enforcable at law in this Country so, personally speaking, I'd just ignore the EDIT Wait 'till they issue a County Court claim then enter your defence as being that the claiminat has not disclosed a cause of action known to Law as a penalty is unenforcable. Then put in a counter claim for any expenses you have been put to. If they then decide to withdraw the claim and write off the ticket then sue them for your expenses anyway. P.