The US Government have announced a $1b lawsuit against Bank of America for toxic loans. There have been 8 others this year. Published fines from the FSA show the growing figures following market abuse in the UK. Here is their list from last 10 years. Total amount of fines in 2002 - £7,444,000. Total amount of fines in 2003 - £10,975,000. Total amount of fines in 2004 - £24,769,000. Total amount of fines in 2005 - £16,965,860. Total amount of fines in 2006 - £13,309,143. Total amount of fines in 2007 - £5,341,500. Total amount of fines in 2008 - £22,706,526. Total amount of fines in 2009 - £35,005,522. Total amount of fines in 2010 - £89,121,281.50 Total amount of fines in 2011 - £66,144,839. In 2011 fines were levied against a number of UK Banks and Investment companies,here is a list of some of the biggest fines; 11/01/11 £2,800,000 Royal Bank of Scotland and National Westminister Bank For multiple failings in the way they handled customers' complaints 18/01/11 £7,700,000 Barclays Bank plc For failures in relation to the sale of two funds 26/01/11 £1,127,559 Barclays Capital Securities For failing to protect and segregate on an intra-day basis client money held in sterling market deposits. 18/04/11 £1,400,000 Norwich and Peterborough Building Society For failing to give its customers suitable advice in relation to the sale of Keydata products. 25/05/11 £3,500,000 Bank of Scotland For the mishandling of complaints about retail investment products 21/07/11 £6,895,000 Willis Limited For failings in its anti-bribery and corruption systems and controls. These failings created an unacceptable risk that payments made by Willis Limited to overseas third parties could be used for corrupt purposes. 25/07/11 £630,000 Swift 1st Limited For unfairly treating some customers facing mortgage arrears. 14/09/11 £494,900 Towry Investment Management Limited For compliance failings in respect of management and protection of client money and Towry’s communications with the FSA. 20/09/11 £2,000,000 Michiel Wieger Visser For market abuse 17/10/11 £4,000,000 Rameshkumar Satyanarayan Goenka Financial penalty of US$ 6,517,600 (approx £4 million) plus restitution of US$ 3,103,640 (approx £1.9 million) for engaging in market abuse. 25/10/11 £5,950,000 Credit Suisse (UK) Limited For systems and controls failings in relation to sales by its private bank of structured capital at risk products (SCARPs). 07/11/11 £6,300,000 Coutts & Company For failure to comply with Principle 9 in connection with its sale of the AIG Life Premier Access Bond and Premier Bond, Enhanced Variable Rate Fund. 02/12/11 £10,500,000 HSBC Bank Plc For failings in suitability of investment advice provided by NHFA Limited 05/12/11 £3,500,000 Integrated Financial Arrangements Plc For compliance failings in relation to the FSA’s Client Money rules. 19/12/11 £2,800,000 Combined Insurance Company of America For breaches of Principle 3 and 6 that put customers at risk of receiving unsuitable advice.

April 2011 while i was working in the Far east, i receive a phone call from yet another new Bank manageress, she is not happy with the way i am using my overdraft facility, she reccomends a business loan, stating it would be cheaper. i advise her that i already have a loan in place, she responds that the new loan would refinance the original loan and pay of the overdraft, it seemed fait-accompli so i arrange for the signature sheet of the new loan to be emailed to me, i sign, scan and return the form. In June this year i return back to the UK, my book keeper reccomends i look at PPI, i remove from the files the refinanced loan and to my horror see that it has an APR of 23% against the original loan which was 14.4%. I visit the bank i find i have a new bank manager and he seems as surprised as me at the level of interest that i am being charged, he will investigate and respond back. i also request a settlement figure for the new loan. I receive an email from him saying that it is within the Banks rights to charge thie level of interest on what are considered high risk accounts, i also receive a letter giving the settlement figure and also stating that interest is being charged at 9.51pds per day. On the 22nd July i i send off 3 complaint forms in the same envelope for PPI, the original loan, the refinanced and a further loan from Barclays Mercantile Bank which was for 44k and has additional fees of 11465pds. I am advised by my book keeper and a work colleague that all these loans carry PPI and in total should be enough to pay off the 23% loan. I receive back 2 claim reference numbers, no notification on which policys they refer to, my thinking was that 1 reference number referred to the original/refinanced loan because they are connected and the other reference would be for the 44k loan. On the 14th August i contact the call centre and it became clear that the the 2 supplied references were for the original and refinanced loans, when i query the 44k loan they say they have no records. Over the phone they take details and supply me with a claims reference number. After 40 days i contact the call centre again for an update, i am told it is in fact 40 working days that they work to, when i query the 44k loan they tell me it has been rejected and a letter has been sent giving details as to why, i respond advising him that i have not received any letter he agrees to resend the letter but it will take 7 to 10 days. After 10 days i call them again and they tell me that again they will resend the letter. After a further 10 days i visit my bank and 2 staff from the bank phone the PPI call centre, they could not have been more aticulate or precise about what i want, the agent confirms he will arrange for the rejection letter to be sent but it will take 7 to 10 days, I receive a copy of the settlement letter for the original and re-financed loan not the mystery rejection letter. In sheer desperation on the 19th Septemeber i visit my new bank manageress, i make it clear to her i will not leave the branch until i know why the 44k loan was rejecred, after much coersion from her she is told due to insufficient evidence. She points out to the agent that she has the original contract which clearly states additional fees of 11465 pds, they will not accept a fax copy so she sends through the internal mail. On the 40th working day since i received the claim reference for the 44k loan i contact the call centre only to be told that the case was reopened on the 22nd September when they received the original contract from my Bank Manageress. As stated i want to use the PPI money to pay off the userous loan that Barclays have forced upon me, every day the PPI issue is not resolved costs me 9.51 pds in interest charges. I visit my bank manageress and ask whether the loan can be suspended until this mess is resolved, i also ask why i am considered high risk, apparently it is not possible and i have to continue paying the loan amount and she cannot divulge why i am high risk. In conclusion i have been a Barclays customer for approximately 30 years, for 28 years my accounts have been in good order i am in the process of moving all my accounts to a new bank.

A Retailer v Ms B and Ms K, Oxford County Court, 9 May 2012

I apologise if this is posted in the wrong forum. Further to my last posts I have now had my Capital One debt referred to CapQuest. There was a standing order set up for Capital One for the sum of £1 pound as instructed this is still in place. I have had no telephone conversations with CapQuest, not that they have not stopped trying. I recieved a letter from them this morning stating that Capital One are happy to accept a reduced amount of £1088.41 to be paid in full or over a 3 month period. I am still in no position to pay this amount of and cannot see this changing in the near future. But my belly is full and my bills are all paid so happy days, well not so happy but life goes on as they say

ECJ Gender directive. Background. Draft Directive on Equal Treatment On 2 July 2008, under its ‘Renewed Social Agenda’, the European Commission adopted a non discrimination package including a proposal for a new directive on equal treatment. This proposal prohibits discrimination on grounds of age, disability, sexual orientation and religion or belief outside the employment sphere, in the areas of social protection, including social security and health care; education; and access to and supply of goods and services which are commercially available to the public, including housing and transport. The new directive would come on top of four other directives; one on discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin, both within and outside the labour market; one on discrimination in the labour market; one on equal treatment between men and women as regards access to employment; and one on equal treatment between men and women as regards access to and supply of goods and services. On the 2nd April 2009 the proposed directive was adopted by the European Parliament. The Government Equalities Office ran a 12 week public consultation from 5 May to 28 July in 2009 on the Commission’s Proposal. It has since published a summary of the responses. Negotiations on the Directive are continuing in Europe. Gender Directive Article 5(2) of the Gender Directive allows Member States to permit differences relating to gender in respect of insurance premiums and benefits if gender is a determining risk factor and that can be substantiated by relevant, accurate, and regularly updated actuarial and statistical data. st On 1 March 2011,in its final ruling on the Test Achats case regarding the opt out in Article 5(2) of the Gender Directive2004 the European Court of Justice(ECJ)declared Article 5(2) to be void with effect from 21 December 2012. As of this date, all Member States must consider the provision to be invalid. The ruling applies from December 2012,however its impact on insurance contracts concluded prior to this date and on those that remain in force beyond it is not yet clear. Test Achats, the Belgian Consumer Association, originally brought their case, before the Belgian Constitutional Court in 2009. They argued that the opt out provision in Article 5(2) was contrary to the principle of gender equality as enshrined in primary Community law, and in particular to article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union**. The Belgian Constitutional Court referred the case to the ECJ. The Advocate General gave her opinion to the ECJ on 30 September 2010 that the derogation should be annulled. IMPLICATIONS; Car Insurance,Over a long period,Insurers calculated premiums based on whether a driver was male or female.although statics showed that there was little difference in the amount of accidents occurred between women and men,there is evidence to show that costs to address incidents by women for the Insurers were significantly less. Young and new drivers are expected to be hit the hardest and already face high premiums. Traditionally,drivers with no history gave women an upper hand as they were rated as a lower risk than male drivers. A report from one leading Insurance company in July 2012,has revealed that insurance for a new male driver averaged £1060 more than that of a female in the 17-25 age group. The new ruling means that this mode of decision making will be unlawful. It is expected that young womens policies will rise,whilst young mens will fall slightly,and could see a 10% benefit. Young women meanwhile could face increases of up to 25%. As the December deadline approaches,It is a good idea for those women likely to be affected to sort out policies ASAP. Another way of softening the blow is for drivers to consider telematics (Black Box technology) which give scope for young drivers to prove their abilities as safe drivers,and enjoy discounts as a result. LIFE INSURANCE The ruling is likely to impact on life and health insurance too,since women have longer life expectancy than men. Whilst there is not much information available at the moment,it is accepted that womens premiums are expected to rise,although not by the 25% expected in the case of young womens car insurance premiums.Index linked or guaranteed policies are unlikely to be affected. Variable premiums however,could see an increase or decrease. Some experts are suggesting that those with variable policies should think about switching to a fixed one,but consider that prices could go either way. As always The CAG suggests that you seek independent expert advise before making any decisions. HEALTH INSURANCE Little changes are forecast,since women and men already pay similar rates,although women could see a small drop in payments for Income Protection Policies,which pay out for sickness,with men seeing a slight rise in policy payments. Looking around for a better policy before December is an option for those who think they may benefit.

Why we’re marching Austerity isn’t working Our country faces long-term economic problems. But our political leaders have failed to face up to them. For the next five years or more, unless policies change the economy will not grow, incomes will not rise, and there will be almost no new jobs. If the government keeps on with big spending cuts and austerity we face a lost decade. Even on their own terms government policies are failing. To close the deficit we need a healthy growing economy that generates tax income. But austerity has led to a vicious circle of decline. Instead of just letting the banks go back to business and bonuses as usual, we need policies that promote new and old industries. This new approach would create jobs, especially for young people. It would encourage companies to raise average pay, penalise big bonuses and invest in training and new industries. It would crack down on tax evasion by big companies and the super-rich. It would tackle the growing inequality between the super-rich and everyone else. Rather than deep, rapid spending cuts, we need to reverse our decline and build an economy that works for ordinary families. We need a future that works. Will you join us? http://afuturethatworks.org/why-we-are-marching/

The FOS report that they are currently receiving 1500 PPI related complaints every day. In the August issue of their news they give some examples of cases they have upheld,and also those rejected.Worth a read. http://financialombudsmanservice.newsweaver.co.uk/Newsletter/1nqfti6z0ss1ejplibozya?rss=true

Hi all, it’s been a while because nothing as been happeningon the debt front – I have been paying the ones that have to be paid andignoring the ones that couldn’t do their jobs properly. In march 2007 I stopped paying a Lloyds credit card because allthey could supply was a CCA with no reference numbers on it what so ever,although it did have a signature. I SAR’ed at the same time and nothingdifferent came back. I officially complained and was given a reference number.Lloyds wrote each month saying that they were investigating, these stopped andI have heard nothing since. I did post the CCA at the time and it was agreed that it wasunenforceable, it is on here somewhere. So mid next year it is also statute barred. The account as now been sold to 1st credit, whohave sent through the assignment and offered a 5% discount. A couple ofsolicitors have tried to phone but I just refused to answer their securityquestions. But today an interlink currier as tried a number of times to delivera letter, my thoughts are that it is the SD that they have been threatening. Because it as been a few years and having experience of ajudge that was not interested in anything pertaining to 1974. I need to make sure of my rights. I know Iwill have to write to them stating account in dispute but being so close to the6 years I am reluctant. Yes there is PPI but again if I go this root I amadmitting the account is mine. I really need a good letter that says the account is notmine and you cannot prove by CCA that it is but if it was, it is in dispute asof 5.5 years ago! I have got all the paper work! (DN 2006)

Here is an overview of new mobile phone roaming charge caps with effect from 1st.July 2012 The caps apply for travel within the EU although there will be notifications for non EU Cost of mobile calls per minute will be fixed at 23p (currently 28p) and this will go down to 15p by summer 2014. The maximum operators will be able to charge for recieving a call and sending a txt will be 7p. The cost of using internet will be capped at 56p per MB falling to 16p in 2014. Customers using mobiles outside the EU will remain unaffected by the caps,but operators will be obliged to send warning messages to users approaching £40 or 50 euro of charges.

Follows claims of £40m savings achieved by restructuring. The price reductions affect all passports and services -At a glance; 32 page adult standard down £5.00 to £72.50 ( Fast Track down £9.50 to £103) 48 page adult standard down £5.00 to £85.50 (Fast track down £9.50 to £111) Adult Premium 32p (4 hour service) down £1.50 to £128 Adult Premium 48p (4 hour Premium ) down £1.50 to £137 Child Std down £3 to £46.00 Child Fast track down £9.50 to £87.00 Child Premium (4hours) down £3 to £106.50 http://lifeintheuk.net/index.php/news/price_for_passports_to_be_reduced_from_september/

http://lifeintheuk.net/index.php/news/rules_for_applications_from_overstayers_change_from_1_october_2012/

Almost here, not long to go.

Dear Ell-Enn, I got your details after carrying out some research on the Internet and various forums regarding the same predicament I find myself in, with a Notice of Eviction due on 6th September 2012. Detailed below is the full synopsis: On the 25th of June 2008, I purchased my current residence via an interest only mortgage obtained through Santander Bank. The total property was valued at GBP 387,500 and the mortgage was for GBP 343,000 Monthly payments were consistently paid for 2 1/2 years until I ran into financial trouble as a result of high hospital bills for one of my family members resulting in arrears to the tune of GBP 15,000/- As a result of the arrears, I attended a Court Hearing in early December 2010 in which the judge issued a Suspended Possession Order provided the mortgage payment of GBP 1315 + an additional GBP 100 would be made payable to Santander against the arrears. We, my wife and I, both joint owners of the mortgage continued to make consistent monthly payments of the mortagage + arrears ensuring we were never late or fell behind. Inspite of being made redundant in December of 2011, we continued to make our monthly payments until all our savings dried up. I have not been able to make any additional payments since June 2012 which has only resulted in an increase in arrears. I am now in a situation where I have been issued with this Eviction notice but yet firmly believe I am in a position to repay the arrears and continue to meet my monthly commitments provided I be given an extension on repayment. I have now been offered a position as a UK representative for a USA firm and will commence employment on 1st October 2012, with an annual salary of GBP 35,000/- My wife is in part time employment, works 24 hours a week, and receives an annual salary of GBP 28,000/- > Further to my wife and me, we have two children, one aged 10 and the other > 3, both who are on the "SENCO" (Special Needs Register for Children) as > they are both diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, which is on the Autistic > Spectrum. Furthermore, my mother, a retired Pensioner of 75 years with > lower level Disability, also resides with us. > > Although the notice of eviction is dated the 3rd of July, it was only sent > in the post on the 3rd of August and another copy was personally handed > over to us on 14th August. > > My current mortgage payment is GBP 1215 and this would not include any > additional payments towards the total arrears of GBP 15,000/- > > I have been speaking to all my family members for support and the maximum > I would be able to offer the court/bank in payment towards the arrears > would be a one off payment of GBP 5,000/- with a commitment to repay the > rest over an extended period of time. > > I did try to seek legal advice but was informed that due to the value of > the property I would not qualify for legal aid but the solicitor did > mention to me to research on the "Norgan Calculation" and mention this in > the N244 form. > > I would appreciate your advice on how to proceed. My entire family are > very distraught and are looking at me for solutions. > > Any advice you could provide me would be highly appreciated. > > > Kind Regards, >

avoiding catalogue chaos 2 August 2012 the latest issue of Disability magazine features the ombudsman's money tips on avoiding problems with catalogue credit

Hi All I had a loan from a bank go bad in 2007, and under the threat of a Statutory Demand from the bank's solicitors, I reluctantly agreed to sign a consent and CH1 form to have the amount registered against my home. In emails with the other parties solicitors, it was agreed that the money owed could be reimbursed on the sale of the property. To make it clear, there was no County Court action back in 2007, and I have heard nothing since. Now it's 2012, and not surprisingly, I guess, because I have not sold my home as quickly as might be expected, the bank want their money back! To that end, I have been issued with a Default Notice direct by the bank. As it stands at the moment, the debt is fixed with no interest added since 2007 and simply a charge on my home. The real threat of this Default Notice of course is that if this does go to County Court, then considerable interest might be added. Here's the plan, I would appreciate some advice: 1) Can I put the account "in dispute" by asking to see a copy of the the Agreement, and so buy time by holding off any proposed county court action? 2)Whilst they are sorting out the Agreement, i need to fire something off to them regarding the proposed county court action breaching our arrangement in 2007, let me explain: back in 2007, when I signed the consent and CH1, I specifically appended emails between me and the bank's solictors which make it clear that the charge attaches to the property until I choose to sell, remortgage or pay-off the settlement balance in full. So I am saying that I only signed the consent and CH1 on that basis. Can someone advise what I need to do for 1), as I must act fast! Any input on 2) would be very helpful.

This briefing summarises the consultation paper by section, and provides some initial analysis and comment. The LGA will make its further analysis available to member authorities to assist with the preparation of consultation responses. These are due with DCLG by 24 September 2012. http://www.local.gov.uk/web/guest/briefings-and-responses/-/journal_content/56/10171/3651530/ARTICLE-TEMPLATE

Hi All Wonderful site, so much wealth of information. Short background I had a eviction notice for 5th July 2012, has a hearing on 3rd July 2012, Rooftop did not show up in court. Judge postponed and requested to my advocate that I should write a letter of proposal and solictors letter for the potential buyerand submit to court by tomorrow. I am in the process of preparing a letter but am finding it difficult. Please can anyone help me prepare a letter to the court as I am having problems with the wording. We do want to remain in our property but if the judge says no we do also have a buyer we just don't want to be reposeeseed.

Hi everyone, I'm a new poster, so please be kind - I'm sorry if this is in the wrong place, or has already been covered. I've had a look through the sticky posts, but my understanding is that the legislation on deposit protection changed in April 2012, so they may not be up to date? Anyway, here goes - we have been living in a flat since 2008, and our contract ended on the 17th May this year. Since then, we have been in dispute with the landlord over their proposed deductions, which we believe to be unfair. Recently we decided that we weren't going to be able to resolve this ourselves, and I logged onto the TDS website and entered the details, only to find that our deposit was actually only protected after the tenancy ended - nearly 4 years late! My understanding is that the TDS won't take the case unless the deposit was protected during the tenancy - so it's going to have to be the courts. I'm aware from some googling (and the Shelter website, which is amazing for this sort of thing!) that they are in breach of contract. As I understand it, if we went to court we would be entitled to our deposit back, plus between 1 and 3 times the deposit in compensation. I have a couple of queries though. Firstly, does anyone know how much taking this sort of thing to court costs in court fees? I know we could ultimately claim them back, but we're pretty tight for money at the moment (being over a grand out of pocket). Secondly, how long does it typically take to come to court and be resolved? Thirdly, can the landlord still claim deductions from our deposit in a court situation? And finally, can we represent ourselves or would we need to hire a lawyer? Can anyone help with this? I would very much appreciate it. Thank you!

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?341812-Summer-2012/page2

With Nadel out, Murray stands a great chance, but there are still quite a few 'hurdles' to cross.

England to reach the Final of Euro 2012, with lots of luck.

Information Note Wednesday 4 April 2012 OFGEM LAUNCHES INVESTIGATION INTO ENERGY SALES BY E.ON Ofgem has today opened an investigation to establish whether E.ON is complying with its obligations on energy sales. The investigation is being launched following information which has come to Ofgem’s attention regarding E.ON’s marketing activities. In 2009 and 2010, Ofgem strengthened suppliers’ obligations relating to energy sales. The changes set out that suppliers are required to put in place robust processes to guard against misselling. These obligations include ensuring that any marketing material that suppliers use and information that they provide during telesales and face-to-face marketing are fair, accurate, easy to understand and do not relate to products that are inappropriate for the customer. In addition, suppliers are required to conduct any telesales and face-to-face marketing activities in a fair, transparent, appropriate and professional manner. Ofgem is continuing its investigations into the energy sales practices of Scottish Power, SSE and npower and has recently concluded an investigation into EDF Energy on this issue. -ends- 1. The investigation will examine whether E.ON is complying with standard licence condition 25, which regulates face-to-face and telephone sales activities. The fact that Ofgem has launched an investigation should not in any way be taken as implying that E.ON has breached licence conditions or otherwise broken the law. As part of the investigation process Ofgem will examine any evidence of non- compliance and consider whether there are grounds for exercising enforcement powers. Further information on the investigation process and the potential outcomes can be found in Ofgem’s enforcement guidelines. 2. Live investigations into energy sales Ofgem is continuing its investigations into Scottish Power, SSE, and npower. For the avoidance of doubt, the fact that Ofgem is continuing these investigations should not be taken as a conclusion that any supplier has breached licence conditions or otherwise broken the law. 3. Cases now concluding Ofgem recently concluded its investigation into EDF Energy’s compliance with standard licence condition 25. EDF Energy has proposed to make payments

As English fans cheer securing a victory over their Ukrainian hosts on Tuesday night,any fans making a late decision to fly out and follow England will have little to cheer when they see the prices of flights which have increased massively from usual fares. I decided to take a look at 4 leading carriers with regular routes to Kiev from London. Boryspil is still the biggest airport and is serviced by all the majors except Wizz Air,who have made the smaller Zhulani their Ukraine hub. Boryspil is approximately 40 minutes ride from the centre of Kiev,whils Zhulani is only around 15 minutes. A typical return flight from London Luton to Kiev at this time of the year can usually be booked for between £140-£180 including 32kg baggage.In fact holders of a Wizz Air membership which costs £24.99 can get up to 20% discount on flights booked online. So here is the online price found after England secured their victory,based on staying for the duration of the tournament. Going Out London Luton (LTN) >> Kyiv Zhulyany (IEV) 06/22/12 W6 6001 Depart LTN 4:30 PM Return Flight Coming Back Kyiv Zhulyany (IEV) >> London Luton (LTN) 07/02/12 W6 6002 Depart IEV 10:10 PM Price Summary Service fees Going Out LTN >> IEV (Web) 1 Adult @ 319.49 319.49 GBP Taxes / Fees [details] 20.50 GBP Coming Back IEV >> LTN (Web) 1 Adult @ 329.32 329.32 GBP Taxes / Fees [details] 10.67 GBP Services and Fees Baggage fee 42.00 GBP Taxes 0.00 GBP price excluding booking fee 721.98 GBP Booking fee 14 GBP total price 735.98 GBP

The Prince’s Initiative is a SFEDI Centre of Excellence and we now offer accredited training courses. We believe that workshops are hugely important in the process of starting your own business. Not only are you able to get guidance from an enterprise expert, but you are able to share your ideas, thoughts and troubleshoot within a group of like-minded people. We are building our portfolio of courses and below gives information about each course we offer as well as a calendar of events we are currently running. http://www.prime.org.uk/courses/

Preparing to Run Your Own Business Course This is a level two SFEDI certificate in taking you through the challenging process of planning to start your own business. This course takes place over 8 weeks and involves 3 training days. The training days cover areas such as thinking about money, preparing your marketing plan and researching your market. To be eligible to take part in one of our courses you need to register with The Prince’s Initiative http://www.prime.org.uk/courses/