who should write what off and why? if you hand over £15 for gas and £15 for electric but inadvertently get £30 credited on each card (£30 in total more than you actually paid) all that has happened is that you get more credit than you paid for and it will be another week/month/whatever before you need to top up again and you will get billed for the additional amount credited in error at a later date. Mistakes happen from time to time and, as long as you are not financially disadvantged by the mistake, where is the problem in that?

Lol! If memory serves me correctly, they changed the words to "It 'asda' be perfect"

I have recently started receiving letters from debt collection agencies for a tenant who used to stay with me. Previously, I had been receiving these letters after he moved out and simply returned them in the post marked "no longer at this address". These letters then stopped arriving and now, 2 years later, they appear to have started again. Can anyone advise is it best to bin these letters or return them again marked "no longer at this address"? The letter are addressed to him and have not been opened - but I recognise many of the return addresses on the rear from previous letters. Any advice much appreciated.

I personally find it very disturbing that Egg has been providing staff names, payroll numbers, salary amounts and other personally identifiable to members of the public. First and foremost, this would appear to a blatant breach of the Data Protection Act (assuming the information provided is true and accurate) and something with which I am sure both the staff members concerned and the trade unions would be extremely concerned about. On the subject of 'screen dumps', anyone with even the most basic knowledge of IT is well aware that a copy or print of such information can be manipulated to display the information that any interested party wishes to convey. As mentioned by the user ‘Enron’, the date and time information indicated on a screen dump (assuming that these haven’t been altered) simply indicates the time at which the screen displayed in the print was printed, as opposed to the time at which the account indicated was worked upon. What interests me is the fact that Egg see fit to use such a screen dump in their written response to a customer as a reason not to refund the charges being claimed but, so far, have not produced any of these screen dumps in court. Presumably this is because they realise that under scrutiny and cross-examination that such evidence would be susceptible to interference and, therefore, inadmissible. If not, why have they chosen not to defend any claims to date? I would suggest that anyone who has as issue with their bank (or building society) disclosing such information makes an official complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (www.ico.gov.uk)

I'm just about to start my legal action against the Bank of Scotland and looking for further bit of advice. Seem to recall a thread not long ago advising that charges for unpaid items (DDs) had to be pursued separately from charges for unauthorised overdrafts. I've never actually been charged interest by the Bank of Scotland for having an unauthorised overdraft (which has only ever happened due to the charges for unpaid items being applied) although I have been charged unauthorised overdraft fees (usually £28 for going overdrawn as a result of the unpaid items charges applied. Can I include both "returned items charges" and "unauthorised overdraft fees" on the same claim? On most of the earlier statements, all charges are listed as "returned items charge" but on the later statements they are referred to as "charges as notified", which I presume refers to the letters sent at the time advising of the charges (the actual letters sent being something I do not have). Also, in my original letters directly to the bank, I did not include any interest on the charges I was requesting to be refunded. As they have refused my request for a refund, I have now calculated interest for my claim using the spreadsheet on here and split the total amount being claimed for (nearly £1800) into three claims to avoid going over the small claims limit for Scotland - do I need to explain why I am now adding interest to my original (refused) claim or will this not matter? Thanks in advance for any advice.

Thanks for the replies, going ahead with claim now.

I've been trying to claim £1432 bank charges back from Bank of Scotland and was initially offered £120 which I rejected, they then offered £360 which I again rejected and then advised would accept a recalculation of charges at £12 each (which was offered by my credit card company) meaning I would accept a refund of £868.00 which they have now refused, stating their previous offers are now withdrawn and they will not refund any charges. Considering taking them to court now and, before doing this, have sent a subject access request asking them to advise of all instances where there has been any manual intervention on my account. They have now replied advising they are "under no statutory obligation to record this information and, therefore, are unable to assist further with your request". They have added they are sending copies of duplicate statements separately (a bit pointless as I keep all copies of my statements, hence how I was able to calculate the charges applied over the past 5 years in the first place). Can anyone advise if this sounds correct - that they would not keep a record of any manual intervention on my account? Thanks