Send them another letter stating that you are dissapointed to see that they have not complied with your request and that you wish to offer them a further 7 days from reciept of "This" letter in which to provide the requested information, before you go ahead and report them to the ICO. The Information Commisioners Office is responsible for enforcing the Data Protection Act. You can find more details on doing this at www.ico.gov.uk.

That sounds to me like what they are saying is that they have paid you what you asked for from 20 July 2000, but are saying that your chance to claim back charges that date back further than that has passed due to time restrictions. I think they are saying that although they do not admit liability and do not admit that they are oblidged to pay the charges back, they have made arrangements to pay you back anyway. They maybe haven't actually paid you yet, but they obviously are going to. What that entire statement says in simple terms is as follows... The charges that date before 20 July 2000 are outwith the time limit for you to claim back, but although they do not admit to breaking the law in making the charges, they have paid you back the charges and cost of lodging your small claim. They maybe haven't actually given you the money yet, but if you get on to the bank, i would say it sounds like you have won. Well done.

The banks won't wriggle out of this hole at all, eventually the OFT will be put under enough public pressure to force banks to set the charges at an amount the courts will deem fair and acceptable then there will eventually come an end to the courts taking our side. We are arguing that the actual and or liquidated losses the bank are put to is the cost of a computer generated letter and thats about it, but in fact the bank spends millions upon millions every year updating their computer systems, and on staff training for example, they could argue that this cost is partially for the benefit of the process in which our charges come about. The exact amount is unprovable which is why the losses could be described as "liquidated" At the moment, because they are not a true reflection of their costs at thirty odd quid a pop, they are actually being deemed "penalties" which is why they are unenforcable at common law. I Think the banks will eventually be forced to drop the charge to a figure thats under a fiver say, in which case the courts would start to look upon their defense more favourably. No matter what happens though, OUR claims will not be affected by this, if they abolished charges tommorow, the charges we are challenging would still be deemed unlawful. The OFT making credit cards drop their charges to 12 pounds does not protect CCs from the public taking action, it just means the OFT won't intervene if they keep charges within that limit. The charge of 12 is still unlawful for the same reason as a charge of 30 pounds. If put under pressure the OFT will be forced to make the charges a reasonable amount. £2 would be acceptable as far as I'm concerned (although obviously I'd prefer £0) and I think if the banks made their charges this sort of figure the courts would probably deem it a "reasonable and genuine pre-estimate of loss" Personally I think regarding credit card charges, the OFT have failed us, although whistle blowing is perhaps a little more complex than we imagine I still think everyone should write to the financial ombudsman to express their dissapointments. The Financial Ombudsman Service South Quay Plaza 183 Marsh Wall London E14 9SR Good luck to everyone claiming.

It would not be frowned upon whatsoever. You are quite within your rights to use an English address. You Need an English Postal address but this does not mean you have to live in England, it's a simple question of Jurisdiction. An English court can hold jurisdiction over your case if your bank fits any of the jurisdiction criteria. This would include "HOLDS PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR CONDUCTS BUSINESS IN" etc blah de blah. There are several reasons why this issue could matter. In general, most people will want to raise proceedings at their local court. It is much easier to attend hearings at your local court. However, if your claim for bank charges is in excess of £750 (the small claims limit in Scotland) or £2,000 (the small claims limit in Northern Ireland), then the ability to sue in England & Wales may be attractive as the small claims limit in England & Wales is £5,000. Using the small claims procedure is important because it is the only court procedure that caps legal expenses in the event of loss. In other words, the small claims procedure enables you to raise litigation without the fear of massive legal expenses in the event of failure.The rules on where you can raise proceedings - known as 'jurisdiction' - are set out in the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, as amended by the Civil Juridiction and Judgments Order 2001. Schedule 4 of the 1982 Act (as amended) regulates the court's jurisdiction over consumer contracts. This includes a consumer's bank or building society account.Importantly, para 8 of schedule 4 provides that a customer is entitled to sue their bank where they live (where they are 'domiciled') or where the bank is domiciled - the relevant parts of Schedule 4 are reproduced below. In contrast, a bank can only sue you (as a consumer) where you live.So, for example, if you bank with the Royal Bank of Scotland but live in London, you can raise a small claims action either in London or Edinburgh. Alternatively, if you live in Glasgow, but bank with the NatWest, you can raise a small claims action either in Glasgow or London. Likewise if you live in Aberdeen and bank with the Halifax plc, you can raise a small claims action either in Aberdeen or Halifax (cf. the Bank of Scotland's 'domicile' is Edinburgh; however, many other bank & credit card companies will have their registered office in England). A company 's domicile is usually established from where it has its 'seat', that is usually its 'registered office' or the place where its central management and control is exercised: section 42, 1982 Act. Thus some consumers may have a choice where to sue.Where proceedings arise from the operation of a particular branch, agency or establishment, proceedings can be raised where that 'branch, agency or establishment' is situated - from section 44 of the 1982 Act.It is understood that the England & Wales Money Claim Online service requires a claimant to have an address in England or Wales, and therefore, if you are raising proceedings in England you would have to forward your claim to a particular County Court by post. While raising proceedings in England will entitle you to sue for a maximum of £5,000 under English small claims procedure, if the claim is defended you must be prepared to travel to England to present your defence. Accordingly, you should think very carefully about this issue, weighing up all of the pros and cons. Can my bank's terms & conditions determine where proceedings are raised? Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 (see below) allows parties (the bank & you, the customer) to agree that one part of the UK has 'exclusive jurisdiction'. That is known as 'prorogation' of jurisdiction. In other words, that proceedings must be raised either in England, Scotland or Northern Ireland. In general, paragraph 9 can only apply if both you and your bank were domiciled in the same part of the UK when the account was opened (i.e. either both in England/Wales, or both in Scotland, or both in NI) and the contract contains a clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction to one part of the UK. You should therefore check your bank's terms and conditions. A clause which states: "If your address is in Scotland, Scottish law applies to the contract between you and us. If you live elsewhere, English Law applies between you and us" (Abbey National plc T&Cs) or "This agreement is governed by the law in Scotland" (Bank of Scotland/HBOS T&Cs) is unlikely to confer exclusive jurisdiction. Firstly, such clauses do not deal with exclusive jurisdiction - they simply deal with the application of common law rules. The courts have held that such clauses do not go far enough to confer exclusive jurisdiction. For example, in the case of McGowan v. Summit at Lloyds 2002 SC 638, 2002 SLT 1258, an insurance policy contained a clause which said: 'this Document shall be governed by the laws of England, whose courts shall have jurisdiction in any dispute arising hereunder'. An action was raised in Scotland and Lloyds defence was the case was incompetent as the Scottish courts had no jurisdiction in light of the clause. However, the Inner House of the Court of Session (Scotland's highest court) held (applying the English case of S&W Berisford plc v. New Hampshire Insurance Co Ltd [1990] 2 QB 631) that the clause did not create exclusive jurisdiction in England, and only created concurrent jurisdiction i.e. proceedings could be raised in either Scotland or England in terms of the clause and the 1982 Act. In the English High Court case of S&W Berisford plc (cited above) a clause in an insurance policy stated that 'This insurance is subject to English jurisdiction'. Justice Hobhouse (as he then was) held that those words 'were inept' to create an exclusive jurisdiction clause. I have checked my bank's terms & conditions are there appears to be an exclusive jurisdiction clause for Scotland/NI? If this appears to be the case (and your bank is domiciled in England) you may wish to consider arguing that this clause is an unfair term of contract in terms of UTCC Regulations 1999. Paragraph 1(q) of Schedule 2 to the 1999 Regulations provides as follows: SCHEDULE 2 INDICATIVE AND NON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF TERMS WHICH MAY BE REGARDED AS UNFAIR 1(q) excluding or hindering the consumer's right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy, particularly by requiring the consumer to take disputes exclusively to arbitration not covered by legal provisions, unduly restricting the evidence available to him or imposing on him a burden of proof which, according to the applicable law, should lie with another party to the contract. > CIVIL JURISDICTION AND JUDGMENTS ACT 1982 AS AMENDED SCHEDULE 4 AS AMENDED BY CIVIL JURISDICTION AND JUDGMENTS ORDER 2001 Jurisdiction over consumer contracts 7. - (1) In matters relating to a contract concluded by a person, the consumer, for a purpose which can be regarded as being outside his trade or profession, jurisdiction shall be determined by this rule and rules 8 and 9, without prejudice to rule 3(e) and (h)(ii), if - (a) it is a contract for the sale of goods on instalment credit terms; or (b) it is a contract for a loan repayable by instalments, or for any other form of credit, made to finance the sale of goods; or © in all other cases, the contract has been concluded with a person who pursues commercial or professional activities in the part of the United Kingdom in which the consumer is domiciled or, by any means, directs such activities to that part or to other parts of the United Kingdom including that part, and the contract falls within the scope of such activities. (2) This rule shall not apply to a contract of transport other than a contract which, for an inclusive price, provides for a combination of travel and accommodation, or to a contract of insurance. 8. - (1) A consumer may bring proceedings against the other party to a contract either in the courts of the part of the United Kingdom in which that party is domiciled or in the courts of the part of the United Kingdom in which the consumer is domiciled. (2) Proceedings may be brought against a consumer by the other party to the contract only in the courts of the part of the United Kingdom in which the consumer is domiciled. (3) The provisions of this rule shall not affect the right to bring a counter-claim in the court in which, in accordance with this rule and rules 7 and 9, the original claim is pending. 9. The provisions of rules 7 and 8 may be departed from only by an agreement - (a) which is entered into after the dispute has arisen; or (b) which allows the consumer to bring proceedings in courts other than those indicated in those rules; or © which is entered into by the consumer and the other party to the contract, both of whom are at the time of conclusion of the contract domiciled or habitually resident in the same part of the United Kingdom, and which confers jurisdiction on the courts of that part, provided that such an agreement is not contrary to the law of that part.

If you enter into a dialogue with the bank at this stage, they will know you are doing it because you are unsure of what the outcome is going to be. Be persistent and hold your ground. Not as much help for you when you're in Scotland eh? I've found the CAG help and advice invaluable but there is not so much SURE FIRE INFO when it comes to Scots law. Good luck. TOGETHER WE WILL HAVE OUR GLORY DAY.

The twenty year claim limit can be complicated, you can claim 5 years worth of charges in Scotland from the time you "become aware" diligence is the keyword here. Personally I think you should press ahead because the bank knows they will probably lose and for the sake of a sum of money that is a drop in the ocean to them, the "Losing" is potentially more damaging from a reputation point of view than writing off a comparitive "meagre" sum of money. They`ll hold onto your cash as long as they possibly can but they don't want to go to court.

Royal mail are nearly as crooked as the banks. Send all mailings recorded and cc. at least one address every letter as well as your banks registered address. TOGETHER WE SHALL HAVE OUR GLORY DAY

Gr8 post powell, and genius sayclectric give them the trading standards number instead of your own. I AM LOVING THAT IDEA! SAYNOTO0870.COM - Non-Geographical Alternative Telephone Numbers

Good luck Richie. And everyone else.

Bad news for any RBs Group (inc Natwest and others) credit card holders WORSE NEWS FOR BANKS! WE ARE COMIN TA GET YA! Its not up to the consumer to prove anything at all, it's up to the bank to prove that the charges are not unlawful and put simply this cannot be done. If the amount of the banks charge varied depending on the seriousness of the breach of contract ie. The more the account was short by the heavier the banks charge it may be deemed a "liquidate damages clause" in which case if challenged, the bank is legally obliged to provide evidence of the actual financial loss or liquidate damage they experience as a result of the customers breach. (Or prove that the charge represents a genuine pre estimate of loss.) ha ha ha. They can't do this. If a first class stamp and a sheet of A4 costs the halifax 39 quid, I really wish I supplied their stationery. Since the charge is not linked to the costs incurred it would be deemed a "penalty clause" which would mean that the charge was unenforcable at common law. However I hear that what your saying is actually that the organ grinder has told all his poisonous little monkeys to refuse to refund our charges when we ask nicely in the hope that we don't bother. What they are actually doing is making it more expensive for them in the long run only if people don't give up. WE WON'T! but most people wouldn't bother if they thought they were really going to have to go to court. It's quite intimidating for some, although personally I'll get more satisfaction out of winning if they do make this happen.) TOGETHER WE WILL HAVE OUR GLORY DAY.

Dave Gray also of SCOTLAND Hi all. I am new to the site, and am also making a claim against Halifax Plc. I have just sent my first request for repayment of charges to the value of £1489 I used the template spreadsheet for Scotland thanks to user Vampiress for that. I understand that you cant actually add the interest until it has to go to court, but I let them know how much I would be claiming should they decide not to cooperate. I have however claimed for a refund of overdraft interest that has been applied as a result of the unlawful charges. This has came to £102.58, so pending advice from my solicitor it might be best for me to use the Summary cause court if he thinks this is plausible, filing a total claim for £1500 (Summary cause court maximum) and writing off theextra interest. Re. the Scottish small claims court, the beauty of the small claims court is that court fees are capped, incase you should lose. I don't think that is the case with summary cause court so my advice would be to make sure you are completely sure you ARE going to win if you decide to go through the summary cause court. I have heard some people suggest filing more than one claim through Scottish small claims, but I'm not convinced you can do that, surely that would defeat the object of the £750 limit the Small claims court has set. Does anyone else have experience of this? Should it become necessary, I can access an England postal address, and I would be more than happy to travel to Court in England, I'm just determined to beat the bank. Theres more at stake than money, it's about principle. Banks just like to play tough till the last minute because the majority of people are going to give up when the bank eventually grinds you down. Being in a position of responsibility many of us are tempted to trust our bank when they are so insistent we are wrong. I hope it doesn't have to go to court. What I hear is happening in most cases is that they will wait till you have actually instigated court action before paying out at the last possible oppurtunity avoiding court. Generally speaking, in most cases your bank won't want to actually go to court because it does there reputation no good when they lose. Good luck everyone.