I had my doubts but this is a very useful tool, nice work.

The act says that they can only ask for such information as they may reasonably require in order to satisfy themselfs as to the identity of the person making the request. If they are sending statements to you at your address, then they are already passing on information which falls under the DPA, therefore it is not reasonable for them then to ask for ID. So the 40 days starts from when you made your request and sent your payment.

I think it comes down to the procedure of each individual company.

You can only claim for interest that was added by the bank, so if it closed in May 2004 then you can only claim interest up to that point, since no interest would have been added after that date.

I would be very surprised if the bank send you a cheque when you have an active account with them, in the 2 cases i've won the money was paid into my account. You could ask for the money as a cheque but the banks have only to show that they have paid you, and they could argue that by paying it into your account you have instant access to the money, whereas a cheque would take time to arrive in the post then it has to clear so in fact they are doing you a favour. I can't see any arguement for getting them to pay you in a way you or I would demand. If you don't want it in your account then the best bet is to close the account and open another.

I can't see why they need it, but I would supply the requested documents, but when you send them just remind them that the clocks still ticking, don't let them think that their 40 days start from when you send the docs back, it started from the date you sent your letter and payment.

I can understand you wanting them to know the effect their actions have had, but they don't care and it will only drag matters out.

You've lost me. If they state in the contract that any breach will result in a charge being applied, what have they concealed? If the agruement is that we didn't know the charges where unlawful, would not a judge ask why, given that we had all the information supplied by the bank quesiton them. Is it enough to say we thought the bank was being honest and wouldn't cheat us? I like most people have always known that the charges were far higher then what it costs the bank, but i didn't know it was unlawful, however given that i knew or at least suspected that they were used to make a profit, was the onus not on me to clarify whether there actions were unlawful. I'm not trying to argue on behalf of the banks just want to be clear in my mind, my charges like most peoples go back more than 6 years.

Could they argue there was no concealment on the ground that you signed the terms and conditions, which contained notification of the charges? Therefore the 6 years starts from that point?

You'll get a letter from the court, it will tell you what Lloyds intend to do. They have acknowledge your claim, your letter will say either. They acknowledge your claim and admit they owe the money They acknowledge your claim and intend to defend part of it They acknowledge your claim and intend to defend all of it. So just sit back wait for the letter and then wait for their defence, because they will state that they intend to defend it all.

I fully understand just how complicated it is, I wasn't trying to say it wasn't my point is lets keep it simple. If your spreadsheet takes the pain out of calculating the interest and is easy to use then great but I fear it will be complicated and that will mean people will not use it and not claim the interest. The only winners will be the banks. I've already asked the question and not had an answer, how much effort would a court expect us to make when calculating the interest, I feel I've taken all reasonable steps, and that a court would deem that to be enough. Spiceskull is right, better to ask for too much back and let the banks reduce it, then ask for too little, because they won't tell you that you aren't claiming enough. I hope your spreadsheet works, and doesn;t muddy the waters of a subject that could and should be a lot more simple.

Spiceskull you seem to be suggesting that people are looking at the interest added to their overdraft and claiming that back. I think what most people are doing (at least i am) is looking at when the charge was added, and then calculating the interest that would have been added to that charge. To try to work out what part of the interest applied to you account relates to charges seems to be an arse about face way of doing things. Maybe I got it wrong, but isn't it just a case of saying they added the charge 'A' number of days ago and i've remained overdrawn, they charge interest at 'B' rate so charge x A x B=how much interest they have added. Although I compound this interest just as the bank would.

The interest is worth the effort, depending on when the charges were applied to your account the interest added to them can be more then the initial charge.

and what about the first 3 years? I'll be interest to see your spreadsheet, i'd also be interested to have a legal viewpoint on this from someone with some legal acknowledge, how far would the courts expect a layperson to go in order to calculate the interest?

If I understand correctly what your saying in method 2 then no your not right. Let me explain. Your saying that you should wait until the total charges reach you overdraft limit, once this is done there can be no agruement from the bank that the overdraft has not been used by you, but by them to cover their charges, at this point you can justify claiming interest. However the bank will have been applying interest to the charges from the day they are applied to your account, if you are not overdrawn at this point then they have not added interest and therefore you can not claim it, but once you go overdrawn even if it's weeks later and it's not the charge itself that puts you overdrawn you can and should start charging interest (you can claim that you have not yet paid the charge and therefore it is part of your overdraqft. Your method means that the banks will get away with taking a lot of interest that they would not have had if they had not added charges to your account. Yes my method will give you a figure that is high and i understnad that you do not want to claim more then you should but if you state "I calculate that you owe" then it is down to them to prove you wrong, and as long as you are prepared to look at their calculations and alter yours if need be then you are acting reasonably. Having said all that if you use your method the banks can not say it's wrong, after all you would not be claiming back everything they took.

I think you are over complicating matters. Lets assume you are already overdrawn or that the charge takes you overdrawn. so... Method 3. The bank will charge you interest on your overdraft, and if part of your overdraft in made up of charges then they will charge you interest on that as well. Now you can only be expected to take reasonable steps in calculating the money you are owed, so it's reasonable to assume that they have charged X amount of interest each month for X number of months therefore they owe you X amount of money. (remember that as the interest is added each month they will then calculate the next months interest based on your new overdraft amount which now include your charge plus any interest added to that charge) Method 3 will produce a figure which is at the very top of what you may be owed, if the bank don't think you are owed this amount ask them what you are owed and how they calculated it, overwise well done you've got a bit more from them then you should have. Don;t deduct any amount that you think they should have charged you, let them tell you what the charge should have been. At the end of the day they have acted unlawfully, and you have taken all reasonable steps to calculate the money owed.

Yes you should. Look at your accounts and see which one has the oldest charges and start with that one. There's no reason that you can't have them all running at once, but it's best to start with one and at least get a few weeks under your belt before starting on the others. So first things first, send of some DPA letters, and work out who's charged you what.

Anything he can do to help, however small, is very much appricated.

So what if they can tally our letters to our threads, what are they going to do about it? Take me to court? I wish

Not quite, lets be fair. There is the cost of the machine, plus running costs, so divide that by the number of letters sent over it life, and then you have the true cost (nearly zero)

I have a similar problem only I've already put my claim in and it's been acknowledge. I've claimed for about £900 less then I should have.

If people are abusing their accounts in the way you describe, and I'm sure that some people do, the banks should first look to see if they have caused or at least been part of the problem, i.e. taking lots of charges. To say you agree with charges when people are abusing their accounts, even when the banks are not at fault in anyway, is very narrow minded and in no way solves the problem. Does it not occure to the banks to take away their cheque books and cards or even close their accounts, in the long run these actions would be a help to people, it would at least stop them getting further into debt, but is that really what the banks want? I don't think anyone would blame the banks if they took this action, but you can't say it's ok to be unlawful, because the account holder has been unlawful.

I think they will ignore you, there is no way they are going to agree a lower amount with you. They will just refund any further charges, as and when you complain.

Could you get him to look at some of the defence's that the banks are submiting. Free of charge of course.

The spread sheet as it is, works out interest for you at 8%, which is what you can charge once the claim goes to court. If you want to work out how much interest the bank has added to the charges, so you can claim it back and include it as part of your main claim (which you should do), then all you need to do is change the formula. If the bank are charging you 17.9% interest. The forumla in colum "I" at the moment is "=(E4*0.00022)*H4" all you need to do is this. 1. work out the daily interest you are being charged (e.g. 8% = (8/365 = 0.00022)) so 17.9% would be (17.9/365 = 0.00049) 2. Replace the 0.00022 figure in the formula with your daily interest rate figure and there you have it. so our new formula would look like this "(E4*0.00049)*H4" If you have a basic calculator like mine then remember to divide your answer by 100 hope this makes sense. Of course if you have been charged interest over a long period then you may want to compound it, so you need to add another formula.