Does the fact that the signer for the CC put the wrong date under their signature (they dated it for 2005 rather than 2006) invalidate the CCA? Their date clearly pre-dates the customers signature by a year. Does anyone know?

Sorry just saw this and had to bump it. RBS have a business model for Bank Charges that is so close to the crime of extortion in Scotland that its not funny. Their greed has been their downfall. I think the good times might be well and truly over for them. **Owned** Oh and I hope you enjoy your profit sharing this year.

that's all well and good, but if the data subject can show that the data is innaccurate - for example with a letter from the data controller acknolwedgeing there is no CCA- there should be no difficulty with them amending their data accordingly.

Anyone? Bueller? I guess I'm beating my own drum on this one.

read this: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/scotland/71013-urgent-attention-please-read-8.html#post677989

***title should read 'criminal', instead of 'illegal'*** I posted this before in the Campaign section (this thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/24118-take-campaign-unlawful-illegal-3.html) , but it received scant reply. I think, and i hope, that this was because, the issue I raised related to Scotland and there are a lot less of us on here who are subject to Scottish Law than English Law. I thought i'd post it again in the Scottish section, to see if anyone has any comments. The post was about whether or not the application of unlawful charges might constitute a criminal act: Quote: I've looked a little bit more into this issue. Here's an excerpt from Sir Gerald Gordon's "bible" on the Criminal Law in Scotland (3rd Ed. Vol II pp 250-251): "When can money be lawfully demanded under threat? Lord Thomson indicated in Silverstein (v HMA 1949 JC 160) that to demand money under threat was criminal unless the threat used was regarded as legitimate. This is to some extent circular- threats are criminal unless they are legitimate- but it serves to emphasise that the use of threats to obtain money is generally criminal, and will be so regarded unless it can be shown that in the particular case it was legitimate. Some Scots judges have gone further than this and suggested that any threat by A that unless B pays him money he will act to B's detriment constitutes the crime of extortion [three cases are referenced here] This, however, goes too far, and it is neccessary to consider in what circumsctnes money can be legitimately demanded under threat. Generally speaking, one may say that if either the threat or demand is in itself illegitimate, there will extortion [emphasis added]; if both are legitimate in themselves the use of the threat to enforce the demand may not be criminal, provided that the threat and the demand are linked in a way recognised by law as appropriate....it is not extortion to threaten to sue for a due debt if it is not paid. ... Legal Process. Legal Process is a recognised form of pressure, but there are circumstances in which a threat by A to sue B may amount to extortion. It is suggested that it is extortion for A to threaten to sue B for a non-existent debt unless B pays £x, whether or not A is entitled to £x from B [emphasis added]. A threat of legal process is legitimate only where the threatened action is directly related to a legitimate demand." It appears that it is also important to establish that the Banks knew that their demands were extortionate. In view of the fact that English registered Banking institutions are making demands for money against persons domiciled in Scotland, and Scottish registered Institutions are making threat from Scotland against individual in all parts of the UK, in respect of unlawful (or illegitimate) charges, I would argue that these action falls within the definition of the crime of extortion in Scotland, provided by Sir Gerald Gordon and are prosecutable as criminal acts under the Common Law. In case you've never heard of him, here is a link to an article about Sir Gerald Gordon in the Scotsman Newspaper a few weeks ago: Scotsman.com Living - Judge, sheriff, teacher, author: honouring Sir Gerald Gordon's lifetime achievement All we need to do now is find a willing complainer and persuade the Lord Advocate in Scotland that the Banks are committing extortion, and that it is in the public interest to prosecute them.

I sent my prelim letter (rec. del.) to RBS for repayment of late payment charges (plus interest of 8%) on the 16th of February (sent it to Southend on Sea.) The account is a closed account. No response at all was received from RBS so I followed that up with a LBA (rec. del.) on 6th March 2007. [A letter sent to Mint Credit Card operations at the same address, on the same day, in respect of a closed account with them, was acknowledged and reponded to and following a LBA to MINT they have indicated that they will now cough up in full, with interest.] However, no response was received from RBS (even though they and MINT are effectively the same company and so far I haven't had time to lodge the claim. I called them today to try and speak to someone about the lack of ANY response. I thought that as at least one part of their operations (i.e MINT) had seen the light and are paying out at the LBA stage that, the RBS side would acting in a similar manner and there had just been a slight oversight or a backlog in respect of my claim. However, I spoke to a most unhelpful member of staff who advised me to write in again. I spelt out that i had already given them five weeks in which to respond and they had failed even to acknolwedge my complaint which I had detailed in two letters and that this was a courtesy call in order to allow them to avoid a court action. She said there was no note of my account on their system, as it is closed, and she couldn't even tell me if my letters had been recieved or if they were being dealt with in any way. She said that there was no one i could speak to about the matter and there was nothing she could do for me at all. I didn't expect my money back at the first hurdle but I am VERY ****ed off at RBS for COMPLETELY ignoring my letters. It beggars belief that one side of their operations can be so proactive in dealing with requests for reimbursement of penalty charges while the other side is a shambles. So a small claims action it is then. First date I can get to the court to lodge my small claim is on Thursday (29th). I wonder if the RBS will be able to find my account details when the summons arrives? As well filing a claim, I think I'll write to the FOS regarding the fact they have completely ignored my complaint altogether. I take the address for the small claim is their Edinburgh registered address?

Thanks Caro. I called the FOS today and the chap on the phone said that you can ask for interest on the charges, (he never indicated at what rate, so i suppose it's as much as you feel you can justify), but there are no guarantees that you will get it back from the bank. He confirmed that the FOS is happy to consider request for repayment of interest on top of the charges.

Is it possible to claim for interest from the Banks via the FOS?

I've been reading a few of the posts on here (and other similar forums) and it's clear there is a degree of confusion surrounding the issue of how to avoid being in the postion of having to pay the Bank's legal costs should an action to reclaim charges fail (OK, this hasn't happened often, but the possibility of it is still real and can be quite off putting). Obviously the best course of action is to lodge a small claims action (under £750) and in order to do this people have split larger claims in to amounts under the £750 and making seperate claims. This course of action was initially successful, although now seems to becoming unstuck in certain Sheriff Courts and certain banks are aware of this. In view of this i think it is important to point out that, IMO, where a claim is made and an element of interest is claimed at the outset (not judical interest), such as contractual interest from the date of the application of charge, the interest amount should not be included as applying when working out whether or not the total amount is under the £750 small claim threshold. For small claims: Small Claims (Scotland) Order 1988 "The Lord Advocate, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by sections 35(2) and 36B(1) and (2) of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971, and of all other powers enabling him in that behalf, hereby makes the following Order, a draft of which has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament: This Order may be cited as the Small Claims (Scotland) Order 1988 and shall come into force on 30th November 1988. The form of summary cause process, to be known as a “small claim”, shall be used for the purposes of summary cause proceedings of one or other of the following descriptions, namely – (a)actions for payment of money not exceeding £750 in amount (exclusive of interest and expenses), other than actions in respect of aliment and interim aliment and actions of defamation; (b)actions ad factum praestandum and actions for the recovery of possession of moveable property where in any such action ad factum praestandum or for recovery there is included, as an alternative to the claim, a claim for payment of a sum not exceeding £750 (exclusive of interest and expenses). For the purpose of article 2, actions ad factum praestandum include actions for delivery and actions for implement but do not include actions for count, reckoning and payment." IMO this Order means that as long as the charges which you are reclaiming are themselves below the £750 figure, this will qualify as a small claim. Any amount relative to contractual interest (which in some cases exceed the actual charges themselves) can still be claimed on the small claim without the need to apply under a Summary Cause or Ordinary Cause. I am aware of at least one small claim (detailed on another forum) which proceeded to (a Sheriff) Court which was for £730 of charges and nearly £2000 of interest. The matter was settled in full by the Bank and the person reserved the right to raise a second and subsequent action for other outstanding unlawful charges applied to the account (although whether this second claim falls foul of the issues discussed earlier in this thread, remains to be seen.) The same applies for meeting the £1500 threshold for Summary Cause. For Summary Cause: Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971 "Summary causes 35. – (1) The definition of “summary cause” contained in paragraph (i) of section 3 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1907 shall cease to have effect, and for the purposes of the procedure and practice in civil proceedings in the sheriff court there shall be a form of process, to be known as a “summary cause”, which shall be used for the purposes of all civil proceedings brought in that court, being proceedings of one or other of the following descriptions, namely – 1 (a) actions for payment of money not exceeding £1,500 in amount (exclusive of interest and expenses);" I hope this helps. Incidentally, those of you who have posted indicating that you have had second claims struck out by the Court, was this because you had initially claimed (in your prelim letter and LBA) for the WHOLE amount, but split the claim at the court action stage, or had you actually split the amounts claimed for at the prelim/LBA stage as well?

Everything you have done so far seems at odds with the very good and very clear advice available on this website (which a lot of people have taken a lot of their own time to provide). If you really want to know what you should be doing, read the FAQS which you were asked to do when you joined up.

Hi I sent away for my six years worth of statements and received them a few weeks ago. I totalled up my charges, which were in excess of £750. I decided that I wanted to charge them 8% daily interest from the date of application of each charge (which i think is reasonable interest for them having my money all that time) on top of the actual charges and this took the overall total I was claiming for to over £1200. In order to keep my claim under the small claims limit I decided to split the claim in two, and sent a request for repayment of charges with interest for amount under just £750 (for the peroid approximatley 2001 -2003), with a view to starting a second and subsequent claim after this first one is settled (for the peroid approximatley 2004 -2006.) I sent the preliminary letter just over 14 days ago and have received today an offer from RBS which amounts to the charges i have claimed for (but not the interest). TBH I am not that bothered about the interest, but included it as a bargaining tool, which appears to have worked. I just want the matter settled ASAP. Whilst I am inclined to accept the offer, I now understand that certain Sheriff Court's have frowned upon the making of second and subsequent claims and are throwing them out. What I would like to know is, if I settle the first claim at an early stage (having not went as far as raising a court action) would I fall foul of the Sheriff Court (or the FOS) if i raise a second claim which does go to Court (and the bank try to use the "second claim defence" which some banks now seem to have latched onto)? I am toying with idea of just rejecting the current offer for the first claim, and advising the RBS that I am claiming for a higher amount (over £1200) for the full six year period and allowing them a further 14 before i send a LBA if they don't cough up an amount acceptable to me. Does this seem sensible? I realise that this tips me into Summary Cause route, but if push comes to shove, and they fail to pay up, I can just go down the FOS route to avoid any uneccessary worries. So what do i do? Continue with my two seperate claims? Or merge them into one and reset my timescales appropriately? Any views?

Might be best to try and ask this question in the 'Scotland' section. If you have to go through with it, make sure you alert local and national media so they can capture this for posterity.

I've looked a little bit more into this issue. Here's an excerpt from Sir Gerald Gordon's "bible" on the Criminal Law in Scotland (3rd Ed. Vol II pp 250-251): "When can money be lawfully demanded under threat? Lord Thomson indicated in Silverstein (v HMA 1949 JC 160) that to demand money under threat was criminal unless the threat used was regarded as legitimate. This is to some extent circular- threats are criminal unless they are legitimate- but it serves to emphasise that the use of threats to obtain money is generally criminal, and will be so regarded unless it can be shown that in the particular case it was legitimate. Some Scots judges have gone further than this and suggested that any threat by A that unless B pays him money he will act to B's detriment constitutes the crime of extortion [three cases are referenced here] This, however, goes too far, and it is neccessary to consider in what circumsctnes money can be legitimately demanded under threat. Generally speaking, one may say that if either the threat or demand is in itself illegitimate, there will extortion [emphasis added]; if both are legitimate in themselves the use of the threat to enforce the demand may not be criminal, provided that the threat and the demand are linked in a way recognised by law as appropriate....it is not extortion to threaten to sue for a due debt if it is not paid. ... Legal Process. Legal Process is a recognised form of pressure, but there are circumstances in which a threat by A to sue B may amount to extortion. It is suggested that it is extortion for A to threaten to sue B for a non-existent debt unless B pays £x, whether or not A is entitled to £x from B [emphasis added]. A threat of legal process is legitimate only where the threatened action is directly related to a legitimate demand." It appears that it is also important to establish that the Banks knew that their demands were extortionate. In view of the fact that English registered Banking institutions are making demands for money against persons domiciled in Scotland, and Scottish registered Institutions are making threat from Scotland against individual in all parts of the UK, in respect of unlawful (or illegitimate) charges, I would argue that these action falls within the definition of the crime of extortion in Scotland, provided by Sir Gerald Gordon and are prosecutable as criminal acts under the Common Law. In case you've never heard of him, here is a link to an article about Sir Gerald Gordon in today's Scotsman Newspaper: Scotsman.com Living - Judge, sheriff, teacher, author: honouring Sir Gerald Gordon's lifetime achievement All we need to do now is find a willing complainer and persuade the Lord Advocate in Scotland that the Banks are committing extortion, and that it is in the public interest to prosecute them.

read this thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/nationwide/30855-debt_mountain-nationwide.html?highlight=morpeth. This poster was based in Scotland but took an English based institution to court in England. he used the Court (Morpeth) nearest to him over the border. If you do this, it means you can use the 6 year rule and the limit is £5 grand.