Hi Caro, I first sent a S.A.R. in 2007 which, although at the time was to pursue bank charges, specifically asked for loan account information. for the last five years I have had every pile of nonsense from them, some contradictory, while trying to get the original credit agreement: they are not obliged to provide me with it, they do have it and will send it for £1, they don't have it etc etc. I finally complained to the Ombudsman about their failure to provide me with this information and about their handling of the case. The ombudsman essentially said that there was nothing they could do as the banks procedures meant that they no longer had the thing. At this point I believed the case to be lost as the CC in question dated back to 2001. I sent the bank a letter asking for the PPI back while describing the 5 year nightmare I had trying to aquire information I had been legally obliged to recieve. Low and behold they upheld the case and offered the amount of the PPI plus 7% interest "to place me in the position I would have been in had it not been for the PPI". I replied stating that the initial PPI had resulted in bank charges which snowballed across theirs and several other accounts. I included a spreadsheet detailing occasions where the PPI + charges as a result of PPI had been greater than the amount overdrwan or amount of payment missed adding the resulting charge to the former figure. I offered them the opportunity to pay back the total figure in a quickly and hassle free in exchange for me not pursuing the compound interest charged to me on CC as a direct result of the accumulated PPI plus charges. the above post explains their reply. Hope this helps, Cheers DH

Update, the bank have refused to refund charges incurred as a direct result of PPI. Their reasons in brief: the PPI offer was full and final, the charges were legally fair (I did not question this),more waffle about bank charges being fair, under 140A of the CCA my relationship with the bank has not been unfair, running of my accounts inc charges are not the fault of PPI, bank charges relate to operation of the account, bank charges laid out in T&C, bank charges not the fault of PPI. Ombudsman contacted!

I fear this statement "and borrowers must show they have mitigated their losses" from the recent "PPI appeal withdrawn from Supreme Court" notes may answer the above question.

Hello, I have received a letter from Clydesdale informing me that the PPI complaint has been upheld and offering a full refund of PPI payments plus interest to place me in the position I would have been in had it not been for the PPI. I beg to differ with this and intend to show the PPI payments directly caused bank charges as a result of the funds being removed. I can see no argument for refunding bank charges when the charge resulted from an amount overdrawn which was the same or less than amount of PPI payments. Following this, charges due to overdrawn amount being the same or less than the amount of (PPI plus resulting bank charges). My question is regarding the occasions a charge was incurred when the PPI amount was less than the overdrawn amount but was a component of it, for example PPI = £30, overdrawn by £50. Could the bank charge for this instance be reclaimed? Thanks in advance for any advice given.

I am considering adding credit card charges from other companies to my PPI claim to save the hassle of multiple court threats etc. I wander if this is something that would fall under being put back in the position I would have been without the initial PPI. I would think it could easily be argued that the snowball effect of bank charges after mis-sold PPI resulted in charges, then interest on those charges from other companies which should all be refunded.

As an update: I sent the bank a letter to ask them to decide and confirm which information was correct from the range of conflicting letters I had received. Was the information (PPI records and T&C): (a) destroyed (b) in vaults and easily available or © available and will be sent if I send a cheque for £1. I also asked them how the account numbers were so readily available (and provided) now that all the information regarding them had been destroyed yet, during the S.A.R nightmare with them in 2007, they claimed that account numbers were as easy to locate as hens teeth. They are doing the usual run around and sent a letter a month ago stating complaints are taken seriously blah blah, will be looked into and will be in touch "within a few weeks". I received a similar letter last week claiming the investigation is ongoing and will take another "few weeks". They really are a collection of turds!!!!

I am considering sending the department a letter asking if they can confirm that they "destroyed" paperwork which had been asked for (under a S.A.R.) and not provided. Surely they are breaking the rules here and would be liable for the entire P.P.I. claim amount for doing this??

Hello ims, Thanks for the welcome and I hope you are well. I am disregarding loan number 2 because I ended up with it paying out way more than the premiums I paid. All I have is the statements covering the period of loan 1 (including info on loan amounts recieved and paid, P.P.I paid and the dates etc) and the account number for the loan. I may have had a diagnosed medical condition which would have potentially excluded payment but I need to check the loan T&C (which I don't have) and my medical history (for dates). Cheers DH

Hello, I sent a letter to the bank in July asking for loan info (terms and conditions, credit agreement etc) informing them of my particular interest in a loan in 2002. I included a copy of my 2007 S.A.R. which asked for "all loan info" and questioned why this had not been provided at the time. I also poionted out that at the time of the S.A.R the loan had only been 5 years old so information should have been/ should be easily obtained. Additionally I included bank statements covering the time of the loan to aid retrieval without account numbers. I should note at this point the bank informed me at the time that they could not provide information without account numbers. Two months and many phone calls later the bank had "lost" the letter and "could i send another one". I received a letter today with the following information: "due to passage of time since closure the paperwork has been destroyed" "loans are regulated by the Consumer Credit Act so not obliged to hold paperwork if no sums are due" "the department that dealt with my S.A.R. request is now closed so any outstanding (relevant under the Act) information will be provided by them on request" "they have provided loan account numbers and dates of closure if I would like to make a P.P.I claim" I am going to ignore the contradiction that they could not provide information without account numbers in 2007, now that the information has been "destroyed" they have provided all of the account numbers. I am not sure what my next course of action should be, the offer to make a claim is an obvious ruse which will be met with "sorry we can not confirm the miss-selling as we have destroyed the relevant records" At this point I have statements detailing all the loan info (loan amount received/paid, P.P.I paid, dates etc) the account number but no terms and conditions or credit agreement. Should I report this to the ombudsman as a failure to provide info under D.P.A and fight to retrieve the "destroyed documents"? Is there any chance of success in making a claim with the info I have? Thanks in advance for any help or advice. DH

Mariefab you are a star, I can't thank you enough for taking the time to write such a useful and informative post. I can't see why our union are not all over this, I went over the info you have given me with our rep today (who is a member of the site - so hello if your reading this) and was told the following: -the reason for submitting a claim for the Christmas period (rather than the whole time) was to keep things simple to get the ball rolling??????? -Background: one employee had to act independently (making him potentially unpopular with management) by submitting a claim which the rest would then follow rather than the union acting on behalf of the whole shift. The reason for this is because the union would have had to put the potential action to a vote (involving all shifts most of which are unaffected and have nothing to gain) which may have lost. -The area union representative (a paid position) is keen to keep things as simple as possible. All of this reeks as far as I am concerned, I have to read up on individuals rights within the union. Surely if the company is making illegal deductions to even a single employee (let alone two shifts - night & back) the union should act without the need for entire workforce agreement?? Also, what is the point in having a "union" if a employee has to act independently (by submitting a claim) thereby singling himself out? I would have thought it was in the area union guy's job description to not "keep things simple" and to get his hands dirty and fight for the best possible outcome regardless of the odds of success (I also refer to a lack of willingness to fight for the "custom and practise" case on my other thread). We had already lost anything there was to lose so anything gained is a plus. Thanks again for all your help

Yep, we did pretty much run out of steam with the whole thing and decided to take it on the chin. Although it makes no odds other than to perhaps show that management can be real expletives at times here are another couple of events regarding the matter. At the very time we were individually frogmarched in and essentially accused of fraud and theft, there was a backshift guy working on dayshift under the explained terms. He asked his line manager if he could finish early in the week (having completed his 32 hours) to which he was refused and reminded of why we were paid the extra money. Salt in the wound: the manager who accused us of fraud (and adimently denied having any knowledge of the overpayments) had, a month earlier, told a potential employee during his interview about the "extra" money as an incentive to get him on to the shift. All of this is denied of course and the "new" guy on the shift is (sensibly) not going to come forward with it.

Morsy, we work 32 hours on the backshift but (very) occasionally have to work 37 hours when working on dayshift for training, holiday cover etc. This is how the overpayment was justified to us, to ease transition, save giving us overtime (for the extra 5 hours) etc. Mariefab, this happened around 3 months ago and after handing in a letter of grievance signed by the entire shift and consulting the union (and to be honest a period of hearing "yes's" clearer than "no's") we kind of ran out of steam with it. It is the more recent unpaid holiday/unlawful deduction thing that has renewed interest. I should also point out that there was very bad vibes toward the shift from management at the time (of "custom and practise" discussions) with some fairly petty (but unprovable) behaviour on their part.

Thanks for the info mariefab, yep, I am pretty sure there are tactics involved but I won't be signing away any potential backdated claims for the sake of a weeks underpayment. Regarding the claimable period, for me and most on my shift we are looking at around 3 to 6 years but for some on the nightshift it could be as much as 20 years. Do you have any links to references on how far back claims can be made? We are continually told either one year (due to a case where someone was on long term sickness leave so not applicable) or 6 years which rings bells with the whole bank charges 6 years previous versus 6 years from date made aware of problem debate. Sorry for the long sentences/poor phrasing, I am typing this on my phone. Thanks again for your help

@morsy, appologies for being pedantic but it's 5 hours per week difference (a good chunk of our wage). The employer has made it pretty clear they would fight tooth and nail over "custom and practise" and that they see it as an overpayment (even though the same manager who justified the "overpayment" then went on to claim he knew nothing about it). Unfortunately the justification (although made many times to separate people) was always verbal and never on paper. Of the top of my head, there is nothing in the contract except the usual 1 month notice before termination of contract. The closest to "variation" is that we may be required to work overtime or on different shifts for training etc (the justification for the extra money- although this unfortunately is not worded). I will have another look through but the company historically does not mess around with "variations of contract" as there is around 200 employees and a strong (although sometimes unwilling) union presence. I should further make the point that although there is a large workforce, most of it is concentrated on the day and nightshift with only around 20 people on (my) backshift. Perhaps this explains a lack of motivation for union involvement. Thanks for your reply.

The term "custom and practise contract" is defined on the government website as the following (roughly): Where an employee gets a bonus every Christmas for a couple of years, or a day off every (whatever day) for a couple of years etc etc, although these circumstances are not in the original contract they can be considered contractual by "custom and practise". Therefor the employee becomes entitled to them even though they are not in the original contract. I feel this applies (almost exactly) to our situation.