Hi, Nattie, I quite agree with you that it's a matter of interpretation. I work for a 'Media Company', in the sales department, so the customers who come through to us EXPECT to be sold to. (That's mainly why they are calling.) Our training is such that we let the customers know which services are available to them, find out which ones they want, and then question them about their needs. ie, which programs they want to have on the TV, to what useage the internet will be put, (downloading, games playing, simple browsing etc), and how much and when the telephone is used and the types of call. We then RECOMMEND which services would be best for them and the reasons why. (This is the theory, at least, and one which is generally adhered to.) Funnily enough, when this process is NOT followed, there tends to be UNDERselling, as the customer may not have the information about the differing services we offer, and may take the cheapest, but not necessarily the most cost-effective, option(s). If the same sort of criteria were applied to banking/financial customers, then there would be far less accusations of staff being pressurised into selling as the process lends itself to guiding the customer to the products which are right for them. The customers would have an understanding of what they were purchasing, and more importantly, why. As you rightly imply, matching products/benefits to needs is ethical selling, and there the banks seem to fall down, (not only banks of course, overselling is prevelant in many industries), but, it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. PeteCC And as a BTW, I recently went overdrawn bya few pounds, was willing to reluctantly accept the 'penalty', then had charge upon charge applied to the tune of £190.00. All successfully waived.

Hi, Anonman, And welcome to the forum. I wish it all were as simple as you make it sound in your original post. A case in point. I made the mistake of going overdrawn by writing a cheque for £58.00 give or take, (guaranteed by virtue of the Cheque guarantee card I have), which was duly 'bounced'. A simple miscalculation. Ok, I thought, that's an end to it, the cheque will be paid and I'll suffer the charge. Didn't bother calling the bank to arrange an overdraft, just thought to make my lfe simple. Pay the charge, go forward! I've reclaimed charges in the past, and I figured that, as it really was my fault for going overdrawn that, whilst I disagree with the lawfullness of the charge for doing so, I would pay it and be more careful in future. I looked at my account online to see that I had indeed incurred a charge of £39.00, and I had deposited £100.00 in the meantime. Then I saw at a later date to my surprise that there was a second charge relating to the same transaction, another £39.00, even 'though it was the original charge which had taken me again into the situation where there was not enough in my account to cover a second presentation. (Where was the cheque guarantee?) The cheque had been marked RDPR (refer to drawer, please represent). On top of this, the bank then charged me £28.00 for 'unauthorised borrowing', That put me about £70.00 OD which I couldn't hope to cover until payday, and before that, again I had another charge of £28.00 for 'unauthorised borrowing'. I wrote to the bank complaining about what are excessive charges, (and let's be honest, those charges ARE excessive wherever you are coming from), saying that I would have accepted the first charge, but due to their behaviour now wanted to claim the full amount back. They first simply said that as a gesture of goodwill they would forego the next 2 month's charges!!!! and I wrote back to say that this was unacceptable, and after a bit of, 'We'll think about this over the next few weeks', etc, the bank refunded all the charges. Now, I'm not really bad at managing my finances, generally, but I admit I made a mistake. I have a good, steady wage, 3 bank accounts. I own my own property, and have only one debt which is for a loan which has been 'topped up' over the years on a regular basis, and which has never had a missed or even a late payment. Not all of us are that lucky. Many thousands of people are not in a position to absorb even one penalty charge from a bank, and let's be fair, it's the people at the lower end of the income spectum who are more likely to have a problem managing their finances and get into difficulty however clever they are at juggling. Sometimes it's literally impossible to stay 'in the black'. So, please don't say that it's easy to avoid charges, that's like saying that you will never run out of petrol if you fill the tank up when the needle hits 1/4 full. It's true, of course, but simply not always possible. Regards, PeteCC

And here we go/have went, again. (Deliberate antigrammatical.) Well, I had my new account or a few weeks, and screwed it up. I wrote a cheque which was presented before a deposit was 'in the system'. Ok, I'll accept the charge (£39.00). Not happy, but it was my own fault. But! A second charge (£39.00) was applied as the cheque was noted RDPR (Refer to drawer, please represent) even 'though I had less in the account (due to the original charge) than necessary. I then incurred two charges of £28.00 each time for 'unauthorised borrowing' making a total of £132.00. No way! So I wrote my letter(s) saying that I WOULD have accepted the original charge but certainly not anything else, and guess what? A letter in the post saying that they would refund the £132.00. Mind you, they have said they will close the account if I do not accept their regime of charges in future. Oh, like I WANT to keep writing letters/getting letters? Charge me fairly for a breach of contract and I'm cool. Enjoy your obscene profits! Regards, PeteCC

Hi, Rachel, From reading this, your account IS in dispute, (naturally), so LTSB and/or DCAs should not be attempting to obtain any payment from you, and an account 'in dispute' should not have been passed to a DCA. If the DCA continue, tell them that this constitutes harassment and you will be seeing THEM in court, too. They can close your account, it's in their terms and conditions, but there certainly should have been some notification as such. (I had a different problem, they wouldn't close my account because I had ongoing charges. Go figure!) And this action is against the BBA Code of Conduct. As far as a default goes, is this an actual 'default' lodged with the Credit Reerence Agencies, or simply the DCA using inflammatory language? Top of my head? You maybe are in breach of the CCA as you are in breach of your contract with LTSB, (the cornerstone of what this site's about), but so what? And as for affecting your claim? An emphatic 'NO!!!!!' And that's the crux of this. Continue as planned. Many of us are claiming/have claimed against closed accounts. It makes absolutely no difference. (Mine was for an account closed 5 years ago, and I got MY money back.) So, tell the DCA to get lost, if they pursue this and try to efect a default against your account, if they haven't already done so, (see above), they will not be allowed to. The banks, and not only LTSB, are using anything they can to prevent/delay claims. Please let us know how you get on, and again, DO NOT WORRY. You really do have right on your side, and 100000+ supporters. Regards, PeteCC

Hi, There's no problem here. I'd received and banked (and now nearly spent) the amount of the claim, this just seems to be interest which was due from the claim date to hearing date. PeteCC

Hi, All, Just got a copy of the order from the court. It reads as follows: Before District Judge Pescod sitting at Gateshead County Court, 5th Floor Chad House,Tynegate Precinct, Gateshead, NE8 3HZ. Upon hearing the Claimant in person and Upon reading the Defendant's letter, and the defendant having indicated on intention to settle the claim in full. BY CONSENT IT IS ORDERED THAT the Claimant's application be adjourned generally with liberty to restore ifno application to restore is made by 4:00pm on the 30th March 2007, the proceedings be deemed to have been withdrawn. I've left their typos in. One other thing that happened was that on Saturday I received a letter from SC&M. We refer to the above matter and enclose our Client's further cheque for £15.24 in respect of unpaid interest. Er, ok, thanks. That can't, I mean really CAN'T, be them acting in a unilateral and fair way, can it? Regards, PeteCC

Well, even later than 'a few minutes before a hearing'........... I was at court yesterday, ready to do battle so to speak, and when I got in front of the Judge he said they had received letters from LTSB to say they were settling the claim in full. They WILL take it to the wire at times, but, usual outcome. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/11169-peters-progress.html Enjoy. PeteCC

Oh, I wish.......................... Settled today, from 16th June 2006. (But it WILL happen.)

Hi, All, I know it's been a while since I posted on this thread, or any other really, but things with my claim seemed to be following the path of so many others, and there was little I could add. However, just to give a little encouragement to those who are chasing payment from Lloyds TSB.................. After a lot of prevarication, and coming perilously close to having action taken over non-compliance of Data Protection Act 40 days rulings, (over the time limit for some of the info requested, but within, JUST within, my timescale), I received all the info I needed to continue my claim. Over the last few weeks/months........... The court sent information to me that they has asked for an Allocation Questionaire from the bank within 7 days or they would have been in default. I checked with the court and the AQ had NOT been sent in time, (at least, according to their records, but as I had received my copy from Scratchy etc, I knew this to be a mistake, 'though I let it ride...................) I then had a letter to say they HAD submitted an AQ. Before I claimed default, (see above), I had a letter from the court to say that LTSB, or their representatives, could not attend court during November or December, (busy suing Santa?), and they would send me a date. I then had a date for today (1000hrs, 8/2/2007). I turned up! LTSB didn't! The Judge, when I appeared before him, informed me that they, (the Court), had received various letters and faxes from LTSB to say that they were willing to settle the claim in full, and that a cheque had been sent to me the previous day for the full amount of the claim. To be honest, and this is only from my own experience................ When the Judge announced that LTSB admitted no liability as to the validity of the claim, but would pay anyway, he grinned. He then set an order that if before the end of the month no further action was required by me, then the case would be closed. (Verbatim.... or close to.......... 'if there's a problem, such as the cheque bouncing.............') My friends, do not be deterred! In retrospect, as I had to go to court, and possibly argue my case, I could have built a housing estate with the bricks I was s*****g, but the bottom line is that the banks will not Go To Court. Take heed, take care, and take heart. Regards, PeteCC

Hi, All, I had occasion to visit my branch the other day, the first time I'd been in since reclaiming and receiving back my charges. After I'd concluded the transactions, the teller said that there was a note on my file to say one of the advisors would like to speak to me and 'Did I have a few minutes?' I said yes, and she said, 'I'll just tell her and I'll give her your card (Solo)'. (Uh-oh! She's walking away with my card, they're going to close my account!) So, I sat for a few minutes in the reception area, rehearsing what I was going to say, quotes from the FSA and BBA etc, words like 'retaliatory' and 'unconscionable' flitting about in my head. Anyway, I got invited in, sat down, and the advisor asked how I thought my account was going. 'Pretty well', says I, 'I'd just like a better one.' (It's a Step account.) 'That's what we're here to look at.' she replied. Turns out they wanted to 'upgrade me' to an Advantage Gold account, a 'real' account with a chequeboook, overdraft facility etc. For this, and the additional services, they would only charge me £12.00 a month. So I accepted, but on the condition that I would only use the basic service of the account, not the additions, hence NO £12.00 charge. So, I now have 4 accounts with them, the Step, a savings account (comes with the Gold), and for some reason, I have 2 Gold accounts as well, one with the £12.00 charge, as yet unpaid by me, already refunded. I guess this would relate to Bookworm's thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-charges-print/34233-evening-standard-metro-27-a.html Ah well, such is life. Regards, Peter

Outside? There's an outside?

Hi, avlasc, Simply stick with your timetable as stated in your LBA. This is just a lazy version of a standard BOG OFF letter. Regards, PeteCC

Hi, Ben, Welcome to CAG. Your second assumption is correct, it matters not one whit how much the breach is in relation to, it's how much it costs the institution to deal with it. ('pre-estimation of liquidated damages' is a phrase worth researching.) One small point, these charges are 'unlawful', not to be confused with 'illegal', and that's not just dictionary definition, it determines how the law is applied to any particular circumstance. Civil breaches are deemed to be unlawful, criminal breaches are deemed to be illegal. (Whether or not these charges can be seen to be in breach of criminal legislation is yet to be decided.) Lay on, MacDuff, or in chavspeak, 'bring it on, pal'. Please keep us posted. Regards, PeteCC

Nice one, Andy, That looks really good, and hopefully should get a few more visitors flying in. Just one thing I'd take issue with, (I think), and this goes back to dredging my memory for some 'A' level law 25 years ago, I'm not sure that you DO have to pay for something accidently broken in a shop etc. As far as I'm aware, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, the notices which state, 'all breakages must be paid for', etc are simply disclaimers, (same as 'vehicles left at owner's risk', in a car park), and do not hold any validity in law. A small point, I know, but if we, collectively, are trying to give sound, correct, legal advice and guidance, then it would be a shame if someone were to read that and walk away with false information. I've had a look around, and so far can only find a couple of other forum comments, on other websites, which support this view, not any 'law' as such, but I'll keep looking. Once again, your link is fab, and good of you to take the time to produce it. Regards, Pedantic Pete

Nice one, Lisa,