I will presume to reply for Ida - the the Act she(?) is referring to is the specific Act for Scotland where prescription and limitation over an obligation (in this instance a debt or alledged debt) is 5 years whereas In Engerland it's 6 years - link below to the Act - see Section 6, Paragraph 1. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1973/cukpga_19730052_en_2#pt1-pb2-l1g6

I would tend to go to RBS in the first instance as they should hopefully still have some form of record but you never know - and I wouldn't bother with Lowells just now as the fact that they seem to be referring back to RBS to get the info on your alledged payment of Jan 2005 makes me belief that they may be trying it on - why don't they produce what evidence they have of the supposed payment to you direct? These are only my thoughts on what you have written so don't treat them as "gospel". Good Luck & keep at it.

Hi Craigie, as Lowells are "accusing" you of having made a payment on the account back in January 2005 then it is up to them to prove it but in the meantime you could submit a Subject Access Request (SAR) to RBS for all their records & statements on the account, it will cost you £10 but it will perhaps give you a clearer picture of what RBS hold on you as regards this account. It's my belief that RBS are just chasing & tidying up all "dodgy" accounts in which they might be able to scare peeps, through the use of DCAs, into paying up on these accounts. Best for you to try & pre-empt them (Lowells & RBS) by having as much information & documentary evidence to refute any spurious claims against you. The saying that "knowledge is power" really does hold true in cases like this so get as much documentary evidence as you can to defend yourself. It can be time consuming & wearisome but it's worth it in the end. Since july 2006, when RBS unilaterally closed my current account without prior notice & refused me an interview to explain why, I have fought them on the excessive overdraft charges, a loan application error & PPI payments & have received £6447 back from them. In my experience RBS does not know what it's doing. As in my previous post, I was served with a Sherif Court Citation for a mortgage of which I knew nothing about because my name was vaguely similar to the supposed defaulter. I say "suppose"d as RBS Mortgage Centre in Greenock told me the mortgage account was not in default. And whilst I was negociating on a payback sum with the RBS's DCA over a genuine loan, I received a letter from RBS Credit Management Service chasing me up for the whole amount of the loan. On phoning them, against my rules really, the chappy there knew nothing about the DCA in Glasgow I was dealing with. I think I am now out off the woods regarding RBS but as you have experienced, one never knows. Anyway that's the best I can offer you at the moment but don't lose heart. If needs be you can resort to the FOS. Link to SAR template. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=2881681

I can only back up the above as in bold - I had a letter, last month, from one of RBS's legal rotwiellers threatening me with court action over 2 debts that I purportedly owe RBS, one of which is genuine, if I didn't reply within 14 days whch I duly did by return post but due to industrial dispute at the Royal Mail, my letter was not received by them until well after the 14 days deadline so I have been duly served with a Sheriff Court Citation, which is actually worthless as I have been charged with failing to pay a debt which is not mine & is in fact a mortgage account, which RBS have told me, albiet by phone, is not strictly in my name, as in John is different from Jonathan, and is not even in arrears. Unfortunately I did not have my letter to the DCA sent Recorded Delivery altho my follow up letter to them asking, nay demanding the Court Citation to be retracted & cancelled has been sent Rec Dev. Anyway the moral of the above is always send any correspondance of a legal matter by Recorded Delivery and it is also useful, if possible to copy, paste and send an email of the complete text of the letter to the recipient & ask for a receipt (in email click on Tools, then Options, then Receipts then check the "Request a read receipt etc") then you're fairly fool proof against any claims of correspondance not being received. PS Apoligies(?) to any rotwieller owners as they are quite nice animals really, the dogs that is altho some owners do lack some of the better qualities of the human race.

Unless somebody has more knowledge than myself, or there actually is a website or whatever where a transcript or even resume of the previous day or even days' proceedings of the case can be found, then I find it shamefully that there is no such facility for the general public to access a record of the prodeedings and be kept up to date on what is surely a popular "trial".

When RBS (and the BBA in general) insist that "we believe that these charges [default charges] are fair, reasonable and transparent." Such a supreme example of Orwellian doublethink would put Dr Goebels, Joe Stalin and "Comical Ali" to shame.

Below is link to FOS announcemnt - everyone should read FAQs complaints about bank charges For those without Adobe thingy or too lazy to click on the link, below is text of FOS FAQs consumer factsheet on … 1 unauthorised overdraft charges The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) is taking a "test case" to the High Court – to get answers to important legal questions about bank charges for unauthorised overdrafts. The Financial Ombudsman Service and the courts have received very large numbers of complaints from consumers about these charges. We have decided to suspend work on these cases – while we wait to hear the outcome of the High Court "test case". This factsheet explains what the "test case" means for consumers – who may be at various stages of complaining about these charges. 1. "I haven’t complained yet about unauthorised overdraft charges on my account – am I too late now?" The High Court "test case" on unauthorised overdraft charges does not mean that you are now too late to complain. But until the outcome of this important legal action is known, banks are putting complaints about these charges on hold. This means that decisions won’t be made on these complaints for some time. The Financial Services Authority (FSA), the regulator for financial services, has agreed that banks can suspend their work on complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges – while the "test case" is running. But in return, the FSA has set strict conditions that banks must follow – including requiring them to keep customers who have complained about bank charges up-to-date with developments. Once the legal proceedings are finished and the law is clarified, banks will have to apply the High Court decision to all the complaints they put on hold over this period. If you want to register your complaint with your bank at this stage – but don’t know who to complain to – get in touch with us. We’ll contact the right person at the bank for you, telling them you have a complaint that they will need to deal with – once the legal proceedings are finished. Our contact details are at the bottom of this factsheet. 2. "my bank’s still dealing with my complaint about charges. What happens now?" The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has agreed that banks can suspend their work on complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges – while the High Court "test case" is running. Because of the important legal issues that are being decided, this legal action is likely to take some time. But the FSA has set strict conditions that banks must follow, if they put complaints on hold over this period – including requiring banks to keep customers who have complained about bank charges up-to-date with developments. Once the law has been clarified by this important "test case", banks will have to apply the High Court decision to all the complaints they have put on hold. 3. "I’m not happy with my bank’s response to my complaint about charges. Can the ombudsman get involved?" The Financial Ombudsman Service is not able to deal with any new complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges – while we wait for the High Court to answer the important legal questions in this area. You should let your bank know, if you’re not happy with how it has responded to your complaint about bank charges. Your bank will keep your complaint on hold – until it can deal with it in line with what the High Court decides. This may take some time – but your bank should keep you up-to-date with developments. After the High Court "test case" – if you remain unhappy with your bank’s response at that stage – you will then be able to refer the complaint to the ombudsman service. 4. "my complaint about bank charges is already with the ombudsman service. What happens now?" We need to know the outcome of this important High Court case, before we can make decisions on individual complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges. This means that where we have already started looking at individual complaints, we will not be able to continue work on the cases – until the High Court has answered the key legal questions in this area. But we will continue to co-ordinate settlements offered by banks – in cases where there is already an offer on the table from the bank that the consumer would like to accept. And in cases that we put on hold – while we wait for the key legal questions to be answered – we will write to the consumers involved, to keep them up-to-date with developments. We will review these cases in the light of the High Court decision. In some cases (usually where consumers complained to us before they gave their bank the chance to deal with their complaint) we have referred complaints to the bank involved, for them to put through their own complaints process. In these cases, the bank will put the complaint on hold – until it can deal with the case in line with what the High Court decides. This may take some time – but your bank should keep you up-to-date with developments. 5. "I complained about unauthorised overdraft charges – and my bank has now made me an offer. Should I accept it – or wait and see what happens?" If your bank has already offered you a settlement to resolve your complaint – and the offer is still open to you – you need to decide whether to: accept the offer – in which case your complaint will be settled for good. You won’t be able to complain later about the bank charges covered by the settlement – whatever the outcome might be of the High Court "test case" on bank charges. or reject the offer. This means that the current offer will no longer be open to you. But your complaint will be reviewed – when the High Court makes its decision on bank charges. No one can say at this stage what this decision will be. If you’re not sure on what basis your bank has made you an offer, you should contact your bank for details. 2 6. "I’ve already accepted an offer from my bank – following my complaint about charges. Is this now the end of the matter?" If you’ve already accepted an offer from your bank, this means your complaint will almost certainly be settled for good. The case won’t be re-opened. You can’t complain again about the bank charges covered by the settlement – whatever the outcome might be of the High Court "test case" on bank charges. 7. "why is the ombudsman service putting its work on bank charges on hold?" The law is one of the things that the ombudsman service has to take into account when making decisions on individual cases. As the important High Court "test case" on bank charges is expected to clarify the law, we have decided not to continue our work on complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges – until the outcome of this "test case" is known. 8. "what about complaints that involve other banking-related problems, as well as bank charges?" It should usually be possible to deal with all the parts of the complaint except the part that relates specifically to whether bank charges are lawful or not. So it’s likely that only the bank charges issue would be put on hold – while we wait for the High Court to answer the important legal questions in this area. You would be able to accept a settlement for the other parts of the complaint, without affecting your right to have your complaint about bank charges looked at again – when the legal proceedings are at an end. phone 0845 080 1800 (office hours) Financial Ombudsman Service This factsheet for consumers is only a general guide. It is not legal guidance. We look at each case on its own individual facts and merits. We will always give you the chance to query anything you don't understand or agree with. © Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd, July 2007 3

Just received an email from FOS - everyone claiming should read the this OFT and banks etc going to High Court - see link FAQs complaints about bank charges Below is text of email ombudsman agrees that High Court "test case" is necessary - to settle legal uncertainty on unauthorised overdraft charges 26 July 2007 In light of the agreement announced today between the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and a number of representative banks - to take a "test case" to the High Court about unauthorised overdraft charges - the ombudsman service has confirmed it will put on hold its own work on complaints about these charges, pending the outcome of the legal proceedings. The law is one of the issues that the ombudsman has to take into account when making decisions on individual cases - and this important "test case" involving OFT and the banks is expected to give vital clarity on the key issues of law involved in disputes about unauthorised overdraft charges. Responding to the news about the proposed High Court "test case", Tony Boorman, principal ombudsman, said today: "This year the ombudsman service has been dealing with tens of thousands of enquiries and complaints about bank charges - and county courts across the UK have similarly been coping with significant volumes of bank-charge claims." "In the cases that the ombudsman service has settled so far, all disputed unauthorised overdraft charges have been repaid - but on a voluntary "goodwill" basis, without the ombudsman reaching the stage of investigating the merits of the legal issues. Meanwhile, cases heard in the county courts have so far resulted in a range of outcomes - with inconsistent and unpredictable judgments and no clear legal precedent being set." "So it's in the interests of everyone involved - consumers with current accounts, the courts, the banks and other current-account providers - that the High Court "test case" announced today should settle the legal uncertainties relating to the level, fairness and lawfulness of unauthorised overdraft charges." "We agree that it's also in the general interest for the ombudsman service to suspend its own work on complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges, while waiting for the High Court to make a decision on the significant legal issues involved." It is expected that the decision by the ombudsman service to suspend further work on complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges will be reflected by a similar response by the county courts. For the county courts and the ombudsman service, the High Court "test case" should mean that very significant volumes of cases can be managed in a fair, cost-effective and orderly way. The ombudsman service's decision to put complaints on hold - while the key legal questions are answered - does not affect consumers' ability to bring complaints to the ombudsman about other banking-related problems, including financial difficulty or hardship. To help with the fair and orderly management of consumer complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges, the Financial Services Authority (FSA) has announced today that banks and other current-account providers can also put cases on hold, pending the "test case" decision. Once the law has been clarified, it should then be possible for these cases to be settled in line with what the High Court decides. There is more information about how today's "test case" announcement affects complaints to the ombudsman service in the ombudsman's consumer factsheet on unauthorised overdraft charges: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/faq/bank-charges.html

No worries, I am amazed how hassle free my claim was compared with the trials and tribulations that some peeps have gone/are going thru - in fact I actually got about 4% more than I claimed for so whether I had not claimed for everything I could and RBS added those I don't know but I will take it:-)

Not in my experience as regards claiming my charges back, first asked for them on 10th May and was paid full amount of my claim on 4th July after initially being offered about 73% on 4th June, just under 8 weeks. I do have another complaint with RBS which will be a year old on 1st Aug but that is now with FOS. If you've been waiting 10 weeks I would proceed to FOS altho they are also inundated with stuff but get your claim off to them:- our complaints procedure and how to complain and let Sandy know by letter backed up by email if you want.

You can't really go to FOS until you have a final letter from the bank or unless they (i.e., the bank) are over the 8 week limit in dealing with your case. I'd hold back a week or 2 yet.

I have been in dispute with my bank for several months now and they are still adding interest on to my account. Is this correct? For some reason or other I'm of the belief that the account should be "frozen" until the matter (in the hands of the FOS) is resolved. Am I right? And is there any regulation of any sort on this subject someone can direct me to? I have searched various sites for some info on this but have drawn a blank. Any help would be appreciated.

No worries - just glad to be of service:)

Nell - I have sent the actual Charges bit separately and I think photocopies should suffice after all it is only back-up to prove that the actual charges were part of the T&Cs when you opened the account - if the bank want to dispute them, let them produce their principal document and compare the two.

Yes you can claim "REFERRAL CHGs" - you can't claim your account monthly fees which are generally just referred to as CHG but most other things you can claim.