My understanding is that charges relating to a mortgage (ie) late payments etc / returned DD/ can be reclaimed from Building Society/Banks etc. I am in the process of claiming these charges back from Woolwich aka Barclays dating back to 2003. If this goes to court and Barclays claim the Limitation 6 year argument my answer will be the Limitation Act clock only starts ticking when i found out about the charges being unlawfull (ie) Dec 2012

I'm waiting for Aequitas to tell us otherwise !

An answer to post 23 would be nice !

Can I get out of this contract? The short answer is yes. On Tuesday, BT stated that if a customer can show that they are "significantly disadvantaged" by the change, then they will be permitted to leave their contract even if it still has months left to run. We understand that if a customer states they are "unhappy" with the change, then they will be allowed to leave - and they will not be asked for lots of evidence about how they will suffer from the change. BT is likely to do its best to try to persuade you to stay, perhaps by making a new offer. But if you want to leave, you should be able to. How would I go about leaving? Call BT on their customer service number: 0800 800 150.

Aequitas, I am going to ask what so many have asked, but you never answer: Why are you here? All you have ever done is try to put people off, pour derision and scorn on any of the legal arguments which didn't fit your beliefs, and now crow about how you were right and we were wrong in a none too subtle manner. Have you actually applied that legal knowledge of yours to try and assist people instead of trying to discourage them? Wouldn't THAT be a better use of your time, energy and legal knowledge Aequitas - An answer to the above and my own questions last year would be appreciated.

Because BT have recently changed their Terms & Conditions in relation to Evening & Weekend phone changes your daughter is entitled to cancel her contract with BT.

Slick132 Thanks for your comments. Looks like Barclaycard had their 'act together' in 1983 ! Obtained the documents last year following the usual letter request. I wonder how Barclaycard can provide an enforceable agreement from over 25 years ago yet they have problems with more recent agreements ?

Sorry for the confusion.. Herewith copies of all the documents sent by Barclaycard :- .http://i883.photobucket.com/albums/ac31/brown1950/Save0003.jpg http://i883.photobucket.com/albums/ac31/brown1950/Save0004.jpg http://i883.photobucket.com/albums/ac31/brown1950/Save.jpg http://i883.photobucket.com/albums/ac31/brown1950/Save-1.jpg http://i883.photobucket.com/albums/ac31/brown1950/Save0002.jpg http://i883.photobucket.com/albums/ac31/brown1950/Save0001.jpg The original application goes back to 1983 and is it enforceable ? T & C's supplied are not from 1983 ! Comments would be appreciated.

Thanks for your reply. Yes the copy agreement supplied (same as blank copy) has my signature on ! So would appear my Barclaycard agreement from 1983 is enforceable

Many thanks for your prompt reply. Await advice in due course.

Should be grateful for advice on this Barclaycard agreement from Oct 1983 Is this enforceable ? The T&C's supplied one from 1983 and present, both refer to pin numbers, so obviously Barclaycard have not supplied 1983 T&C On the copy agreement supplied it's dated with both my signature and Barclaycards. Any advice would be appreciated.

Following the forthcoming decision from The Supreme Court I have a feeling this particular thread could get very busy indeed !

No story at all would just like an answer to my question from the person my question was directed at !

I did not say i don't like his posts ! I am just asking a simple question which perhaps he will kindly answer soon.

Aequitas I have ready many of your posts on this forum and i must ask the obvious question ' Why are you registered on CAG ? '

I agree with your comment.Oh for the Thursday night pay packet in cash which never went near a bank !

Another 2 years ?

'Tongue -in-cheek '- letter for higher rate - Court claim will be lower amount. As NastyWest have ignored by earlier letters perhaps the final letter showing the higher amount will bring a reply !

This refers to interest of £679.98 on a 'consolidated loan' taken out in 1996. I will ask for 32.60% but expect settlement at 8%.

To claim back interest paid on £679.98 from Dec1996 - 1st June 2009 = 8% (Statutory) = £1356.31 32.60%(APR) = £38,400.24 Will claim for the higher amount !

Yes i have a claim with NastyWest covering charges for the period 1992-1999 which is presently 'stayed' So basically what i can claim in relation to the 'Consolidation loan' is :- Interest of 679.98 plus 8% interest covering 1996-2009

Oki Doki now understand. Have given NastyWest 10 days to pay 1764.98 plus 8% dating back to Dec96. (Total over 3500) No doubt another court claim is required -which will be stayed.

This is very interesting. Have a claim presently 'stayed' relating to charges dating back to 1992. Recently i discovered a copy of a 'consolidated loan' dated Dec 1996 which under pressure from the 'bank' i had to take out in order to pay off the overdraft which included 'charges' Amount of consolidated loan 1085.00 + interest 679.98 (interest rate 29.50%) total amount payable 1764.98. This i think is a perfect example of what is mentioned above. Letters have been sent to the 'bank' claiming return of 1764.98 plus 8% (no replies) however i will now look at the interest rate of 29.50% dating back to 1996 ! Please correct me if i am not on the right track.

Two Labour peers face suspension Four Labour peers met undercover reporters posing as lobbyists Two Labour peers face suspension from Parliament for six months after being found guilty of misconduct. Ex-trade minister Lord Truscott and Lord Taylor of Blackburn were accused by the Sunday Times of being willing to change laws in exchange for cash. The two men denied the allegations but they now face sanctions following a probe by a House of Lords Committee. Labour's leader in the House of Lords had described the allegations against them as "very serious". Parliamentary vote The Lords Privileges Committee has recommended the two men be suspended from the House for up to six months after an investigation into allegations made against four Labour peers. The final decision on their fate will rest with the House of Lords itself, which will vote on whether to exclude them - possibly as early as next week. Two other Labour peers - the former minister Lord Moonie and Lord Snape - were cleared of wrongdoing, but invited to make apologies to the Lords for showing an "inappropriate attitude" to parliamentary rules banning paid advocacy. The BBC's political correspondent Gillian Hargreaves said it was exceptionally rare for members of the Upper House to be suspended, the last case of its kind being in the 17th Century. The Sunday Times alleged the two peers were prepared to change proposed legislation while it was passing through the Lords in return for money - which would have been in clear breach of parliamentary rules. These rules state that peers should not seek to influence legislation in return for money. The Sunday Times released details of secretly recorded conversations Lord Truscott and Lord Taylor had with their reporters in which they discussed what help they might give them and how parliamentary procedure worked. The two men maintained they had never discussed taking money in return for tabling amendments to legislation. Baroness Royall, Labour leader in the Lords, vowed to get to the bottom of the allegations, the latest in a series of recent scandals to have damaged the integrity of Parliament. The police decided not to mount a criminal investigation into the case earlier this year, citing the difficulty of obtaining evidence among other factors. Are you thinking what I'm thinking ?

Don't worry Barclays are well aware if they took you to Court for repayment of the overdraft (which included charges ) the case would be stayed pending the outcome of the OFT legal case.