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

This topic was closed on 03/06/19. 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 their. 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

This topic was closed on 03/06/19. 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 their. 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

This topic was closed on 03/06/19. 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 their. 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

This topic was closed on 03/05/19. 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 their. 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

Thank you for taking the time to reply Welshcakes - much appreicated. I'm waiting for their reply to my compaint so I'll update here in case anyone else is interested.

I had £1000 in a Barclays 'Instant Savings' account for the last year and noticed I'd only been paid £0.59 interest. I opened this account in 1999 and the interest rate was 4.5%. When I asked where the interest was they said the 'Instant Savings' account had been withdrawn 4 years ago and it now only paid 0.15%! I asked them why they hadn't written to me or upgraded my account but they said adverts were put in the national press and that was all they were required to do. After all the con jobs Barclays have pulled on me (rip-off bank charges, unrequested additions account upgrades, unrequested PPI added to loan) I guess I shouldn't be surprised but I actually am. Has anyone else had experience of this? Any thoughts welcome

I've recently got a property pack for the house we're trying to buy and my conveyencer got a report from a company called ChancelCheck. The report says that my house is 'located within the historical boundary of a parish which continues to have a potential chancel repair liability based upon historical parish boundary data...' They then proceed to try and sell me some insurance against any possible bill from the local church for repairs! Has anyone heard of this and is it for real or just another way to sell insurance to the paranoid? It seems a bit extraordinary that in 2006 the church could demand money from the community.

Just thought I'd conclude in case anyone is in the same situation that the Letting Agency consulted their lawyers and realised they were wrong (!) Thanks for all the advice people

If you phone the regular customer services number you can make the DPA request over the phone. That seemed to work fine for me, I had my statements back within the week. Good luck

Thanks very much for the input everyone, I'll certainly be having a look for any similar clause in our contract Spiceskull. Our Landlords must beleive a similar condition is in place.

"The Tenants shall have the right to terminate the tenancy at the end of the first six month period by giving to the Landlords not less than two months notice in writing to that effect..." My landlords are saying that means at 6 months I can give them 2 months notice and move out after 8 months but to me it seems clear that I can give notice at 4 months and move out after 6. Does anyone have any thoughts or advice please?

Five News are leading on the OFT announcement in their news at 1730.

That's a different article, this is the one being refered to:- Daily Mail Saturday April 1st 2006 BANKS MUST STOP £750m CREDIT AND OVERDRAFT RIP-OFF By Sean Poulter Consumer Affairs Correspondent The big banks are to be ordered to slash charges on credit cards and overdrafts in a move that will end a rip-off totalling more than £750 million a year. The Office of Fair Trading has decided the charges, which run from £20 to £39 at a time, amount to an unfair penalty on millions of Britons. The watchdog is expected to introduce a cap whcih could bring them down to £15 or even £10. The OFT has concluded that the charges are unfair under the Consumer Contract Regulations 1999, coupled with case law dating back to 1914. These state that charges must be proportionate rather than used as a penalty to punish delinquent customers or a ruse to boost profits. The OFT has been spurred into action by complaints from angry consumers and the fact that finance giants have imposed dramatic increases in these charges. Over the last two years, credit card late payment fees and those covering overdrafts and bounced cheques have gone up by 40%. However, it appears the tide of rising charges is finally about to be turned. City analysts estimate the cap on fees would cost RBS-Natwest, Barclays, Lloyds-TSB, HSBC and Halifax-Bank of Scotland a total of £750million if it is set at £15, £1.2billion at £10 and £1.65billion at £5. Clare Whyley, of the National Consumer Council, described the current charges as 'completely unreasonable'. She said: 'They are a penalty and a punishment, rather than a true reflection of the bank's costs. That is not acceptable. 'These charges should have come down because of the increased automation in the banking system, but in fact they have gone the other way. We would be really pleased to see a system where charges are a true reflection of costs.' Miss Whyley said the big five banks, which delivered record profits of more than £31billion last year, are not in a position to plead poverty. She added: 'The charges hit people when they are at their most vulnerable. Someone might only go £1 overdrawn, but they are then hit with a fee of more than £30.' Consumer group Which? said: 'The reality is that these bank charges are illegal and unenforceable.' It is to name and shame high-charging banks by slapping 'Asbos' - Anti-Social Banking Orders - on the worst offenders and claimed the banks are 'scared to death' at the prospect of having to cut charges. The move by the OFT comes as individuals are using the same law to win refunds totalling thousands of pounds at time. The big banks are on the back foot. Over the last few months they have been offering refunds to angry customers rather than attempting to defend the punishing charges in the courts. The OFT has been investigating the rip-off charges for 18 months. It will announce a final verdict on Wednesday with a view to forcing the banks to slash fees, either through the courts or the Competition Commission. The process could take anything from a few months to a year. The banks have rejected claims that charges are 'excessive'. They say they reflect costs and can be easily avoided if customers manage their accounts properly. They have threatened to challenge any cap in the courts. Insiders suggest they will attempt to introduce other charges, such as an annual fee on credit cards or higher interest rates, to cover any reduction in penalty fees.

Daily Mail Saturday April 1st 2006 BANKS MUST STOP £750m CREDIT AND OVERDRAFT RIP-OFF By Sean Poulter Consumer Affairs Correspondent The big banks are to be ordered to slash charges on credit cards and overdrafts in a move that will end a rip-off totalling more than £750 million a year. The Office of Fair Trading has decided the charges, which run from £20 to £39 at a time, amount to an unfair penalty on millions of Britons. The watchdog is expected to introduce a cap whcih could bring them down to £15 or even £10. The OFT has concluded that the charges are unfair under the Consumer Contract Regulations 1999, coupled with case law dating back to 1914. These state that charges must be proportionate rather than used as a penalty to punish delinquent customers or a ruse to boost profits. The OFT has been spurred into action by complaints from angry consumers and the fact that finance giants have imposed dramatic increases in these charges. Over the last two years, credit card late payment fees and those covering overdrafts and bounced cheques have gone up by 40%. However, it appears the tide of rising charges is finally about to be turned. City analysts estimate the cap on fees would cost RBS-Natwest, Barclays, Lloyds-TSB, HSBC and Halifax-Bank of Scotland a total of £750million if it is set at £15, £1.2billion at £10 and £1.65billion at £5. Clare Whyley, of the National Consumer Council, described the current charges as 'completely unreasonable'. She said: 'They are a penalty and a punishment, rather than a true reflection of the bank's costs. That is not acceptable. 'These charges should have come down because of the increased automation in the banking system, but in fact they have gone the other way. We would be really pleased to see a system where charges are a true reflection of costs.' Miss Whyley said the big five banks, which delivered record profits of more than £31billion last year, are not in a position to plead poverty. She added: 'The charges hit people when they are at their most vulnerable. Someone might only go £1 overdrawn, but they are then hit with a fee of more than £30.' Consumer group Which? said: 'The reality is that these bank charges are illegal and unenforceable.' It is to name and shame high-charging banks by slapping 'Asbos' - Anti-Social Banking Orders - on the worst offenders and claimed the banks are 'scared to death' at the prospect of having to cut charges. The move by the OFT comes as individuals are using the same law to win refunds totalling thousands of pounds at time. The big banks are on the back foot. Over the last few months they have been offering refunds to angry customers rather than attempting to defend the punishing charges in the courts. The OFT has been investigating the rip-off charges for 18 months. It will announce a final verdict on Wednesday with a view to forcing the banks to slash fees, either through the courts or the Competition Commission. The process could take anything from a few months to a year. The banks have rejected claims that charges are 'excessive'. They say they reflect costs and can be easily avoided if customers manage their accounts properly. They have threatened to challenge any cap in the courts. Insiders suggest they will attempt to introduce other charges, such as an annual fee on credit cards or higher interest rates, to cover any reduction in penalty fees.