The breakdown covers a particular charge amount, e.g. £20 or £35 and all charges of this amount come within this breakdown. The bank has not had to justify EVERY instance of charging and the FOS has not asked them to do this. They say the bank has provided breakdowns for all charge tariff's but will not send me this info. So I am assuming the bank has given a breakdown for £15 and £20 and £25 and £30 and £35 and £40. Maybe at court I can ask for this and argue that they need to provide a breakdown of every charging instance. Also to note is that the bank has provided an ESTIMATE of the costs and not an actual breakdown and the FOS say this is enough to justify the charges. The FOS hasn't said why the mortgage is covered under MCOB rules or is regulated but that it is and the bank hasn't, as far as I am aware, disputed this. Then there's litigation referral fees and account monitoring fees the bank AND the solicitor have been applying almost every month. The FOS say these are OK as the bank and solicitor would need to monitor the account whilst in arrears. The bank has made me pay arrears as part of repossession hearings but now say all such charges were capitalised but I don't have any evidence of this. All I was ever told was that legal fees are being capitalised, usually 6 months after arrears were cleared.

My mortgage is from 1999 and I have been attempting to get arrears charges and other excessive fees refunded, with no success at all. The FOS say they are fair because the bank has provided a breakdown. The FOS agree it is a regulated mortgage and FSA MCOB rules apply. The bank has not disputed this. Another angle that some members have voiced is s.140A of the CCA 1974 on Unfair Relationships which *seems* to apply to ANY credit agreement.

Yeah, probably .... Should I deduct the 'penalty interest', default charges and PPI plus associated interest on these from the balance to see what it 'might' be, when they can finally find an agreement? They've asked me to 'please pay now because we've supplied the documents you requested'.

they've sent me a list of transactions going back to 2002 when they purchased the account. they started adding 'penalty interest' the following month and this was stopped while I was paying. they starting adding 'penalty interest' again when i stopped paying in 2007 and this carries on up to present. they're adding 1% a month which is around 12.75% APR ..... the 'agreement' is again the reply card from the car issuer which refers to terms and conditions etc and has 'subject to approval' at the bottom. This is half an A4. Nothing else has been sent, especially anything referring to any interest the creditor can charge. the principle amount they bought includes default charges/PPI which the original creditor would not refund to me so their offer was never accepted.

the charging order IS the restriction .... which is a 'charge' against the equity in your property and it clearly states the creditor must be INFORMED of any sale .... not that they should be paid from any sale. the 'charge' from a mortgage provider has different wording.

Thanks. There was an article on here (from a DCA i think) which made the point that a restriction (following a charging order) on a joint property is totally useless for a creditor because the sellers can inform and then sell, thus fulfilling their obligation to inform only.

as far as i know, you only need to inform them of the sale, it's then up to them to follow this through. If the sale is complete, then they can ask you for the money or take it through court. a good conveyancer will inform them a day or so before the sale, thus not giving them enough time to respond before it. This is not unlawful but a use of the restriction in much the same way they use it.

Citi insist they 'recalled' (repurchased) the account in January 2007, June 2009, September 2010 and December 2010 ...... I've only ever had one Notice of Assignment from Cabot in January 2003 when they bought it from Citi. Nothing from Cabot to Citi. Cabot now have 2 accounts for the 1 Citi account, each with a different balance. Payments were last made to Cabot in Jan 2007 after it was first assigned in Jan 2003. Payments were last made to Citi over 6 years when they again assigned it to Cabot, who agree this second assignment is statute barred.

I stopped paying around Jan 2007 after my s.78 request. Original creditor was Providian.

Well, she did say 'dont worry about the balance, we can work that out' .... And yes, it contains default charges and PPI from the original lender. Cabot say they haven't applied any charges, only interest at 1%.

I received a NoA many years ago, prob 2002 when they bought it and stopped paying after the s.78 request, which is STILL outstanding (does it ever expire?). I've asked them for a list of transactions, which the lady said will be sent to me from 2002 - present plus the reply card 'credit agreement' as proof they can charge interest. I made it clear to her that, since the conversation is being recorded (she said), i do not acknowledge the debt or balance in any way until it is proven.

Cabot have written to me again after nearly 4 years. They've offered a 30% discount on the account which is now £2,588 from £1,200 in 2007. I asked why the balance has increased and am told it's due to the 1% interest they apply every month and that's it much lower than the original interest rate from the credit card provider (am I meant to be grateful to them?). I asked under what agreement can they charge me any interest and am told under the same agreement I had with the lender. I told them they haven't supplied this after my request in January 2007 made under s.78 CCA and the £1 fee, which they returned for their own reasons. I'm then told the 'agreement' was the reply card application form they sent to me in 2007 because it had the words 'this is an agreement regulated by CCA 1974'. Any advice?

I've had a response from the FOS and it's the same as before, i.e. charges are fair under the circumstances and the bank has provided a breakdown. However, this time they say the contract has also been assessed for PIL and as it is clear I understand why the charges are incurred, there is no doubt that it is in PIL. Thus Reg 6 of UTCCR precludes any assessment under Reg 5 and the 'service' by the bank is the admin of the account whilst in arrears. I don't believe the contract has been properly assessed for PIL but only that I know why the charges are incurred. But what I said was I don't know why they are so high, why the litigation referral fees are so high and why the bank applies monitoring fees while the account is at the solicitors, incurring me double fees. Again they say the FSA fines against other lenders are not relevant. This is totally the opposite of what others get from the FOS.

I can't find (in search) any of my threads from October 2010 onwards. And i can't find (in search) any of my posts after 2007. Though the threads and posts are still on here. I can get to them from my emails.

I've had a response from the FOS and it's the same as before, i.e. charges are fair under the circumstances and the bank has provided a breakdown. However, this time they say the contract has also been assessed for PIL and as it is clear I understand why the charges are incurred, there is no doubt that it is in PIL. Thus Reg 6 of UTCCR precludes any assessment under Reg 5 and the 'service' by the bank is the admin of the account whilst in arrears. I don't believe the contract has been properly assessed for PIL but only that I know why the charges are incurred. But what I said was I don't know why they are so high, why the litigation referral fees are so high and why the bank applies monitoring fees while the account is at the solicitors, incurring me double fees. Again they say the FSA fines against other lenders are not relevant. This is totally the opposite of what others get from the FOS.

If you have legal cover use the insurer's solicitors, this is what it's for. But not always good. If you don't, then use your own solicitor or one from a claims management company. Make sure it's on a 'no win no fee' basis and that they get after event insurance (they get to keep the referral commission as well) in case you lose. This way, there's no expense to you. As you were shunted from the back and liability is admitted, there's no issues and any decent solicitor should accept the claim on a 'no win no fee' basis. Potentially you could be asked to pay their disbursements but this is unlikely and what the after event insurance is for. These solicitors work harder than an insurer's as that's how they get paid. If you have suffered genuine 'whiplash' injuries then make a claim, this is your legal right. If the govt don't want people claiming for these injuries, they will legislate it out. Otherwise it's only for the benefit of insurance companies when you don't claim.

What and where is this? I'd like to try it.

I got charged around £1500 per possession proceeding and this was capitalised onto the mortgage balance. They haven't capitalised any legal fees from the last possession proceedings and i guess the bank and sols want to charge for work being done as part of my FOS complaint. Otherwise it's been 3 years since the last order ....

i've taken a barrister's opinion on a case against the insurer or developer. in their opinion, i cannot sue either for any loss because i don't have a contract with them BUT the policy is a contract between the two. This is because the developer paid the insurer to indemnify the property they built. plus i cannot take action because the 6 year limit is over. so i've been sold a house with a policy that is meant to but does not benefit me and i cannot take action on something that lasts 10 years but limitation is 6. the barrister cannot see how any insurer would want to pay the home owner when they have no contract with them. So what is a 10 year building guarantee for? i'm confused as it's clear that insurers DO pay out to home owners under this guarantee and my insurer is not denying cover, only that the damage is not covered.

The lender refused any refund or to discuss the matter further following their final response. The comments are from 2 FOS adjudicators. The first person left soon after their decision (which I did not get a copy of) so a second person reviewed the file and made their own recommendations. It's going to the ombudsman now but do they ever change an adjudicator's decision? I've not had any changed ever and i got many unreasonable decisions on credit card reclaims and actually lost my full refunds (and interest) as a result, even though all were paid in full settled accounts. To answer your questions: 1. The FOS won't tell me what the bank's breakdown of costs consist of. In fact, they won't send me any info and ask me to do a DSAR. I've argued that the bank not only applies the arrears charge, they also charge cumulative interest on this and all previous charges (if not paid), thus making much more than their actual costs could ever be. 2. I agree with you, but this is what the FOS say. 3. I agree with you, but this is what the FOS say. 4. I've queried why reg 5(1) of UTCCR does not apply but the FOS's comment is taken from the Supreme Court ruling on personal overdrafts or they may consider the arrears charges to be a subject matter and consideration for a service to which I agreed under the T's and C's. I don't know why they say this. I've replied that in order to preclude an assessment under reg 6(2) the contract must be in plain english as per reg 7(1). Whether they'll now assess the contract i don't know, but i won't hold my breath for it. 5. I can use s.140A of CCA because my mortgage is not regulated as it's from before 2004 and is a 'credit agreement', i.e. a secured loan. Or so i've read on here. 6. I agree with you, but this is what the FOS say. 7. I agree with you, but this is what the FOS say. 8. I agree with you, but this is what the FOS say. 9. No comment. Others may have received refunds on arrears charges (even through the FOS) but this is how my case has gone.

A proper complaint regarding the default charges was made in Dec 2009. We can now make a new complaint regarding PPI. My relative has always been self employed so this may have been mis-sold. Or argue on these two as part of their claim and ask for a full refund plus interest etc. The claim is for around £3,800.

update .... the FOS Adjudicator has concluded that: 1. The developer breached the 'requirements' of their policy agreement, specifically a term relating to preventing condensation/mould building up around the house. 2. Zurich should pay my claim for the remaining 'heads of claim'. This is the extensive condensation/damp and mould around the house. 3. Zurich should repay me the excess they took off from their last payments. 4. Zurich should pay me compensation of £300 for distress and inconvenience as they have handled the claim in a terrible manner. Zurich has not accepted the recommendations and have escalated the complaint to an Ombudsman. I'm told it's a 15 month wait. Zurich agree that: 1. There are 'defects' which have resulted in the damage 2. That they cannot rely on the exclusion clauses against this. 3. That they made an error in taking the excess. But Zurich say that the damage is not 'major' as defined in the policy though it fits the criteria of 'damage caused by a defect' and they will not pay anything, not the claim or the excess or the compensation. I don't really get what the insurer is doing and seem to be playing with words. The Adjudicator also stated that the loss adjuster had not carried out their investigation properly and not referred to the 'requirements' of the policy and their report should be ignored. That's what i've been saying all along

the FOS first said they don't investigate arrears charges as they're a market rate and applied the Supreme Court decision. with a review, they've looked at arrears charges as part of an overall 'fairness' assessment and say these cannot be challenged under reg 5(1) of UTCCR as reg 6(2) precludes an assessment under price. I've argued that to use this preclusion the contract first needs to be assessed for plain english (PIL), which they haven't done. but the spoiler for all my arguments is that the FOS say the bank has provided a breakdown of each of the different amounts they've been charging me, i.e. for £20, £25 or £30, £35 etc. How the bank has done this i don't know but they won't send me this breakdown. the FOS say the solicitor's actions, such making me pay arrears and legal fees as part of the arrears balance to be cleared in proceedings or applying their own unfair charges, cannot be looked at as it's a matter for their regulator. But i say they should look into it as the solicitors were/are acting as agents of the bank, who is ultimately responsible for their actions. and on securitisaton the FOS say it's something they can't look at as it's up to the bank how they administer the account and a commercial judgement.

with a recent review, the charges are fair because: 1. the bank has provided a breakdown 2. i agreed to the T's and C's 3. the bank applied them because of my conduct of the account (i missed payments) 4. reg 5 and 6 of the UTCCR do not apply as i can't challenge the charges on price 5. i cannot use s.140 of CCA (unfair relationship) because that's for the court 6. the FSA fines on other lenders are not relevant as they haven't fined my lender 7. the test case on personal account overdraft charges said all such charges are fair 8. they're set at a market rate 9. initially they said they do not investigate arrears mortgage charges but later said they look at the charges as part of the 'fair treatment' assessment. and much more, but the above are the main points. so how are others getting their arrears charges back through the fos?

I'm helping a relative with a HSBC credit card claim by the bank. We made a request for a copy of the agreement and refund of default charges in December 2009 but the bank refused. They issued in Jan 2011 but due to moving house this was returned and re-issued in April 2011. In March 2011, my relative was going through some family issues and DG Solicitors were chasing him again for the account. He asked them to hold actions for 3 months. They accepted and confirmed all action will be held until mid June 2011. But the request letter and court claim crossed one another and the claim got issued. So even though the bank has held actions until mid June, me relative is still having to deal with the court case, so the hold is a bit pointless. The POC had the standard "we claim under a regulated CCA agreement and a default notice was sent etc" but nothing else. So we entered an "embarrassed defence" and asked for a copy of the documents mentioned in the POC (agreement, default letter etc) and that the whole balance is disputed because the bank has provided no proper agreement and it includes unfair default charges, PPI etc. The solicitors have again confirmed that their client cannot locate the agreement but this makes no difference and the balance is valid and due and the default charges are fair. They've sent statements going back 4.5 years (not 6 as they say) and a current credit card request form with the name and address written by hand (as a reconstruction?). No other information is completed. And they've sent some terms and conditions. They've referred to CPR 31.6 and 31.7 and asked why and how the information we requested (agreement, default notice, breakdown of balance etc) is relevant to the claim. They confirm that a request for judgement won't be entered and that actions are on hold until mid June. But since i've entered a defence, don't they have to respond to that? The court say that if the defendant does not respond to this within 28 days, the claim will be stayed and the defendant will need to apply for a lifting of this (and i assume pass the costs on to us?). But why don't the court throw out the claim? How should we respond?