This is the issue I am trying to bring peoples awareness to: Consider an example scenario: You have an account, and run up a £1000 overdraft. Say for example £500 of that O/d is charges. First off that means you pay for example 18.5% p.a. interest on the extra £500, (which we all do presently try to account for in our claims) You then take a consolidation loan to repay the £1000, at say 15% p.a. which will be paid by monthly installments from the original account. This means that you are paying an additional 15% p.a. (compounded over the course of the loan) on the initial £500 and also on the extra overdraft interest you've already given them. PLUS... because you are repaying it each month from your account, this could mean, that because of all the extra interest, you are more overdrawn on that account than you should be, and so also end up paying yet another 18.5 % p.a (compounded over the period of the loan) o/d interest from your original account to cover the extra interest you are paying out on the loan. So in short: They give you penalty charges & charge you interest on them. They then charge extra loan interest on these charges and interest. They then charge you extra o/d interest on the extra loan interest. This means they have hit you 3 times over with additional interest (all compounded) on the initial charges. Then of course there is the increased repayment insurance, because the loan is bigger than you really needed... along with the extra interest on the bigger premiums you need pay for the insurance !! .....It's not so obvious that all this is the case, until you start to analyse it this way..... and that's probably just the way they like it !!

I personally think this is an important issue that has been quite overlooked. So, just wanted to revive this thread. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/49648-loans-pay-off-overdrafts.html (perhaps someone from the site team would like to take a peek, and perhaps sort the wheat from the chaff, so to speak) ? My contention: The Banks are getting away with additional "secret" profits, by forcing people to take out loans to repay borrowing, when in many cases, much of the "borrowing" is comprised of charges that have been wrongly applied to an account in the first place !! So in effect, we get clobbered with penalty charges and additional interest on the account they are applied to...... THEN ALSO.. we take out subsequent loans with the bank, under great pressure from them to do so.. or risk facing some dire recovery consequences. These subsequent loans are also often at higher rates, because of poor credit ratings (ratings which are themselves actually attributable to the history of charges). I am now working on some claims of my own, which will include claiming the additional interest incurred through these loans. I have myself been working on some spreadsheets to help calculate this. It calculates the portion of interest upon a loan that can be attributed to the original penalties (and carefully calculates only such elements without trying to claim for anything twice over), and sits in, and ties up nicely with existing spreadsheets. I hope it, or something similar (I am no accountant or speady whizz, so if anyone else is, or has any contributions to make, please do) can start to be incorporated into claims as standard practice. I would appreciate if any Moderators, site helpers, or members with experience of prior claims including loans could contribute. I would also like anyone perhaps contemplating similar actions to contribute. Regards to all PM PS: I would like to just add, that I have tried out my own sheet regards to some loans I was forced to take out. I was really very shocked at just how much additional interest has been paid due to these practices !! So, for anyone who may think the sums are trifling, and perhaps not worth the trouble...think again !!

Thanks Caro, So, IMHO, I think this is both reasonable and do-able. Provided one can perhaps show there was pressure to consolidate,and it was with the same provider, then any extra interest gained by the lender (or perhaps even any interest foregone by borrower) should be claimable. Think I'm going to have a go at this, unless someone here can show strong reasonings to contrary. I think I actually started a thread on this topic a while back, but got little interest or reply. I will seek out the link, and post it here (or start a new one), as I think this is a very overlooked and important aspect regards unfair charge victims compounded losses. Any other comments anyone ? Regards PM

Anyone got any more thoughts on this ? PM

Bankfodder, Have you given/had any more thoughts on this ? Can the contentions regards making them forfeit their additional interest gains applied to the penalised account, be carried forward to also encompass their gains made upon subsequent consolidation loans ? IMHO, the principle and cause of action is identical ? Any more thoughts, or reasonings as to why it may differ ? Regards PM

Received a rather smug "Here is a copy of your agreement, we now consider this matter as resolved, so please now contact us telling us how you wish to pay" letter from IQOR. It did indeed contain an actual photocopy of the original agreement....... which is of course an improperly executed one, as I've posted earlier. So, decided to rain on their parade with the following letter: Dear Ms XXXXXX, Thank you for your recent correspondence, and the enclosed documents. I assert that neither you or your client have any legal grounds to claim the sums you have mentioned in your letter of 11/06/09 (or in fact any other sum). My assertion is supported by the fact that no legally enforceable document actually exists which could possibly give you any basis for such claims. The only document you have provided which may have possibly given rise to any legal basis for claim, does not actually comply with relevant statutory law, so is an improperly executed agreement, and as such it is irredeemably unenforceable. The basis in law for my contentions regards such document are as thus: The agreement contains various sums, which by the definitions contained in sections 11,12 & 13 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA74) fall into distinctly separate categories of credit.
This means the agreement is in clearly definable parts, with each constituting a distinct and separate agreement, and making the whole a “multiple agreement” by definition of section 18 of the CCA74. 
 In such circumstances, each separate part agreement is then required by law to have its’ own totals, schedules and terms, in order to conform with the requirements of section 60 the CCA74 (in the manner and format prescribed by schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (agreements) Regulations 1983). 
 As the document provided fails to correctly set matters out in accordance with the above Act and regulations, then it fails to satisfy the requirements of section 61(1)(a) of the CCA74, i.e. the existence of a document in the prescribed form signed by both parties.
 Therefore, the agreement is improperly executed, and as a consequence could only possibly be enforced on an order of a court (section 65(1) of the CCA74). 
 Further to this, section 127(3) of the CCA74 determines that a court shall not make any enforcement order applied for under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) was not complied with, unless another document complying with regulations under section 60(1), (and itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement) was signed by both parties. As this was not the case, then I contend section 61(1)(a) was not complied with, thus invoking section 127(3), and making the document irredeemably unenforceable. Should you still decide to pursue this matter through the courts; I contend that you would only find that the document upon which your claim relies cannot be enforced, and this could only possibly lead to any such claim being automatically struck out, along with the attendant costs implications.
 I also note your points regards your companies practice of operating home visits.
You presently have no legal basis to continue to pursue or attempt to collect any sums associated with such claims, and under both common law and OFT’ rules no legal right to visit me at my home. 
Any escalation by yourselves (or any third party acting under either you or your clients instruction) in any form of collection or pursuit activity, will be considered as harassment, and duly reported to the appropriate authorities, and also if necessary countered through the courts. Yours Sincerely Photoman

Subscribing. Working on a similar claim myself at moment, although not very advanced with it, as still working on the spreadies. I'm in a more fortunate position than yourself, in so far as this is regards a closed account, I no longer bank with them (Lloyds), and so I'm not under the same threats and pressure as yourself. Thus not worked on tis as pro-actively as yourself. Do intend to step up the game over the next week or so, and will try to contribute and help yourself if poss. One thing you really must check is the terms of your previous charges settlement. Do make sure that the settlement did not include any reference to being a "full and final" settlement in respect of your claim, as this may preclude you from pursuing the related interest accrued on the loan ? PM

Stubie. Any claim you make is based upon the contention that you should not have incurred the charge at the actual time of the charge. Thus your account balance at that point is amended in any calculations. ie: Any additional interest incurred from that point onwards (and up until the time of your claim) which arose (either at the time or subsequently) as a result of the charge, is recoverable. eg: Lets say you incurred a charge in 2006 of £35, and this took you £35 overdrawn. Then, you would have paid overdraft interest upon the sum of £35. Now, lets say this was £2. This means that the bank has taken a total of £37 from you. If another 3, 6, 12, 24 or whatever months later your account became £37 overdrawn, (perhaps this time for legitimate over spending on your behalf). And lets say this time you incurred interest of say £3 on that £37. You contend that the account balance would not have been overdrawn by £37 had you not incurred the earlier charge, and the interest thereon. Thus, that months interest of £3 is also recoverable. ie: the effect is cumulative.

.... I would just like to take this opportunity to say hello to all our "guests" on this thread. Hello to the the respective legal representatives of all the various banks, Hello to the lords and ladies of the HOL, Hello to the members of the OFT Hello to the employees of the "pay as you go" reclaim companies fishing for tips. ... and finally... Hello to the various visiting MP's maybe contemplating claiming back their bank charges... via their expenses claims !!

Lex, Yes, the bank charges issue is about charges for going overdrawn or having payments returned. See the link to the business claims forum in my signature (in my earlier post) for information regards business accounts. In short, Business account holders are being left somewhat in the cold regards the whole OFT business. This is because Business accounts are NOT covered by The UTCCR, and so up until the OFT case have had to rely upon claiming charges being penalties under common law. Unfortunately, the concept of penalties under common law has now been pretty much ruled out by the OFT case, and as they are not covered by or have any statutory protection under the UTCCR or other, are seemingly now left without a cause of action. Some members of CAG are working behind the scenes at trying to find new ways to contend these charges for business claimants, so keep an eye on the business forums for updates and news. All the best Pm

Bankfodder, and all. I agree wholeheartedly that you should also make claim for the additional interest the bank has applied/deprived you of due to the charges. By also accounting for such interest, you often quite quickly reach a point whereby you can actually see that any subsequent "overdraft excess" or "limit breach" that then later gave rise to charges arose solely due to accumulated earlier charges and the interest upon such. I would even suggest considering going even further. Many people are also forced at some point to take consolidation loans with their banks in order to repay "borrowing". .... borrowing that is often solely or mostly originally made up of charges and interest upon such !! The calculations are admittedly a bit more involved and difficult to determine, but for anyone who makes the effort the results can be quite an eye opener !! The chain of events would go something like this: 1/ You incur bank charges. 2/ The bank applies/deprives you of account interest as a result. 3/ The bank then puts you under pressure to take out a consolidation loan, to repay your existing borrowing .... but we contend that this existing borrowing consisted either solely or largely of charges and interest upon your original account. 4/ The consolidation loan then incurs yet more interest. 5/ ALSO...the account you make the loan installments from, then incurs/ is deprived of further interest due to making the monthly loan repayments. 6/ As a result, the account that the installments are made from then goes overdrawn..... often due largely to the loan installments... thus incurring even more charges, and interest. ........ and the whole cycle starts all over again. I am currently working on modifying some of Mindzais sheets to try and create a set of (preferably a single) spreadsheets that would more easily allow the calculation of such a chain of events. I am no mathematician or accountant though, and work on such is slow, so if anyone else more competent is interested in helping me then post up here or get in touch? Such spreadsheets are currently being worked on in "Open Office", which is free to download software from the web, meaning that you wouldn't need to buy any software to use them, and also means they can be universally used on either PC or Mac. PM

Yes, certainly sounds like they are being obstructive. Get him to comply with their request anyhow, and if and when he takes any actions as a result of receiving (or not) the CCA's then keep the letter, and present it as evidence of their obstructive efforts.

I've also been contacted by IQOR (the new name for Legal & Trade) The address on their letters is: 33-34 Winckley square Preston PR1 3EL Their postal address is shambolic, and anybody trying to send recorded letters to them will often be told by the Post Office that it doesn't exist (?). However, if you persist, then it will get to them. (The Post Office clerk will just need to enter the address manually). I've now had a response to a couple of formal complaints letters I sent, and been given the following contact details: It appears that their "Complaints Coordinator" is a lady called: Susan Myerscough So address any communications for her direct attention, and lets make her work for her salary ! The email for the complaints dept is: complaints@iqor.co.uk Her direct phone number is: 01772 832002 Always best not to call these people if you can avoid it, and try to keep all communication in writing for your own records, and also to avoid being coerced over the phone into saying or agreeing to something you may later regret. If you do feel you need to talk to them on the phone, or if your actually being persistently called by them, ask to speak to only this person directly, and.... REMEMBER TO RECORD ANY PHONE CALLS, AND INFORM THEM YOU ARE DOING SO.

.... well, HMRC may very well try to assert such a stance ... but the case of Sempra Metals v HMRC is case law (and a precedent all the way up to the HOL) that actually creates a right to claim Compounded interest upon taxes overpaid to HMRC whilst acting under mistake. Sempra Metals Ltd v. Revenue & Anor [2007] UKHL 34 (18 July 2007) PM

Good answer BF (and I would rep. you if it were possible ). Skippy, That is perfectly correct, in that a "Subject" Access Request is exactly that. It relates to you as a "subject", and has nothing to do with any other affiliation you may have. ....however, they may still try it on. So perhaps worth including a reminder line in the your SAR, if it does not already do so. eg: "I must remind you that a Subject Access Request requires you to disclose ALL information you hold upon me as an individual; irrespective of whether any such information also pertains to any other personal, business or financial associations I may have with any other organisations, companies or individuals"

We have "guests" !!

CROWN LITIGATION SERVICES !!!!!! OMG.. I CANNOT BELIEVE THE BARE FACED CHEEK OF THIS COMPANY !! ...IMHO, I think this could even extend to being "Fraud", and could be worth bringing the Fraud Act 2006 to the attention of companies house ? Fraud Act 2006: 1 Fraud (1) A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed in subsection (2) (which provide for different ways of committing the offence). (2) The sections are— (a) section 2 (fraud by false representation), (b) section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and © section 4 (fraud by abuse of position). (3) A person who is guilty of fraud is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both); (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both). ..... 2 Fraud by false representation (1) A person is in breach of this section if he— (a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and (b) intends, by making the representation— (i) to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss. ...... 5 “Gain” and “loss” ...... (3) “Gain” includes a gain by keeping what one has, as well as a gain by getting what one does not have. (4) “Loss” includes a loss by not getting what one might get, as well as a loss by parting with what one has. ..... 10 Participating in fraudulent business carried on by company etc.: penalty (1) In Schedule 24 to the Companies Act 1985 (punishment of offences), in column 4 of the entry relating to section 458 of that Act, for “7 years” substitute “10 years”. ...... maybe I'll set up a company called; Horowitz Morrison Robinson & Carruthers...... but that's all a bit of a mouthful, so I'll just call it HMRC instead... .... and have one of those funny little gold hats with all the jewels in for my logo.. .... what are they called now.. ... oh yeah.... a crown !! .... and then I'll send out letters to everyone just before April 5th demanding all their personal info, all their bank details, and a full breakdown of all their income and expenditure, along with the inclusion of a very large cheque (made out to HMRC of course).

Keep your hand on your wallet, and count your fingers after shaking hands with them !!

I too am presently dealing with IQOR. This is regards a BOS loan..... which now oddly enough seems to belong to "Capital Bank"... although I never had any dealings with Capital Bank, nor signed anything with them, nor received any notices of assignment, and even had a point where someone called "Cheshire Loans" were claiming rights to it ?? Anyhow, still not had a CCA, and I have now sent them a letter informing them that I would be prepared to issue a CPR 31.16 request for this if need be. So far I've only had only one letter from them. From this I have gleaned the following: The address on their letters is: 33-34 Winckley square Preston PR1 3EL Their postal address is shambolic, and anybody trying to send recorded letters to them will often be told by the Post Office that it doesn't exist (?). However, if you persist, then it will get to them. (The Post Office clerk will just need to enter the address manually). I've now had a response to a couple of formal complaints letters I sent, and been given the following contact details: It appears that their "Complaints Coordinator" is a lady called: Susan Myerscough So address any communications for her direct attention, and lets make her work for her salary ! The email for the complaints dept is: complaints@iqor.co.uk Her own direct phone number is: 01772 832002 BUT... Always best not to call these people if you can avoid it, and try to keep all communication in writing for your own records, and also to avoid being coerced over the phone into saying or agreeing to something you may later regret. If you do feel you need to talk to them on the phone, or if you are actually being persistently called by them, then ask to speak to only this person directly, and.... REMEMBER TO RECORD ANY PHONE CALLS, AND INFORM THEM YOU ARE DOING SO.

Your intimate knowledge of weaponry is a bit scary !! I'm glad I don't owe you any money !!

Archway, I'm sure many can understand your sentiments and passion, but you should edit some of the words you have used before the site team do. The site has strict rules on not using defamatory or libelous remarks in order to protect itself from lawsuits etc. With regards getting training as a debt counselor, I would suggest you maybe contact your local Citizens Advice Bureau ? I'm sure they would be able to give advice and possibly even know of organisations and funded schemes (possibly even government backed) that would provide free training that would work in with your company..... possibly even liaising with your place of work to arrange paid time out to do it ? This is all guesswork, but I'm sure there are options there, or leads they can give if your serious ? PM

Sussed it now !! Was looking at wrong areas !! PM

I've also now been contacted by IQOR (the new name for Legal & Trade) The address on their letters is: 33-34 Winckley square Preston PR1 3EL Their postal address is shambolic, and anybody trying to send recorded letters to them will often be told by the Post Office that it doesn't exist (?). However, if you persist, then it will get to them. (The Post Office clerk will just need to enter the address manually). I've now had a response to a couple of formal complaints letters I sent, and been given the following contact details: It appears that their "Complaints Coordinator" is a lady called: Susan Myerscough So address any communications for her direct attention, and lets make her work for her salary ! The email for the complaints dept is: complaints@iqor.co.uk Her direct phone number is: 01772 832002 Always best not to call these people if you can avoid it, and try to keep all communication in writing for your own records, and also to avoid being coerced over the phone into saying or agreeing to something you may later regret. If you do feel you need to talk to them on the phone, or if your actually being persistently called by them, ask to speak to only this person directly, and.... REMEMBER TO RECORD ANY PHONE CALLS, AND INFORM THEM YOU ARE DOING SO.

I've also now been contacted by IQOR (the new name for Legal & Trade) The address on their letters is: 33-34 Winckley square Preston PR1 3EL Their postal address is shambolic, and anybody trying to send recorded letters to them will often be told by the Post Office that it doesn't exist (?). However, if you persist, then it will get to them. (The Post Office clerk will just need to enter the address manually). I've now had a response to a couple of formal complaints letters I sent, and been given the following contact details: It appears that their "Complaints Coordinator" is a lady called: Susan Myerscough So address any communications for her direct attention, and lets make her work for her salary ! The email for the complaints dept is: complaints@iqor.co.uk Her direct phone number is: 01772 832002 Always best not to call these people if you can avoid it, and try to keep all communication in writing for your own records, and also to avoid being coerced over the phone into saying or agreeing to something you may later regret. If you do feel you need to talk to them on the phone, or if your actually being persistently called by them, ask to speak to only this person directly, and.... REMEMBER TO RECORD ANY PHONE CALLS, AND INFORM THEM YOU ARE DOING SO.

Loopy, I have to dash out shortly for the evening. Will try to have a look at your thread tomorrow if I can, and see if any way can help. Don't get too stressed, these are pretty usual tricks that they pull, and are the kind of things that judges will often make allowance for towards someone like yourself. You will not end up some big scary bill. I suggest you send a Private message to some of the site team, I would suggest someone like PT2357 or Steven-4064. I will also try to highlight one of your last posts. Don't worry, cavalry will be on the way soon !! PM