which was really

for a quicky

they went to

Hi OF long time!! I think that you are just being cynical. LOL

load of cobblers

having never before

" Oh my God !! "

Still waiting for the Judges ruling Kelvid, that is a good link from Tills there are also some good updates on the Prime Ministers thread, console yourself by thinking of the interest mounting daily. Stone

Hi Chris, In response to your PM I think that there is very little that I can add to the very good advice that you are getting from Steven. good luck and keep on going, Stone

HSBC expects to pay back £300m in overdraft charges Looks like they do not expect to win

HSBC expects to pay back £300m in overdraft charges

as they approched

who started to

(BBC NEWS | Business | Banks refund £784m to customers) I think they could be starting to get worried!!

You need to add the total charges and the total interest up to the day you filed your N1 ABG, I have pm`d you the relevant info, I hope it helps good luck, Stone, you will need to send a copy of the spready that I sent you with a covering letter to the Court Manager at Blackpool County court. Just quote your case number etc. and say here is revised schedule of charges as ordered by DJ Bryce on (date) then sign and date it and that should be OK

HBOS 'doubtful of future' do they think they are Northern Rock??

some passing soldiers

Hi Ann, Overdraft interest is any interest that bank has charged you for going into unauthorised o/d (this is generaly a small amount that will be shown on your statements usualy only a matter of pence or maybe larger if still overdrawn ) S69 interest is the 8% from the date of each charge as shown in column 3 of the spready ( If memory serves me correct column 1 is charge column 2 is cumulative charges column 3 is interest @ 8% and column 4 grand total ) you can work out daily interest for N1 by adding total charges + total interest + £10 for S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) (if you paid it) and mutiplying this total by £0.00022 this will give you the daily rate to ask for on the N1. Hope this helps, If I have got anything wrong or you need more help, just shout and someone will be along pdq. good luck, stone

that had been

racey for me

Me fit as a butchers dog, mrs stone still poorly thaks Ja-de

Sounds like a good time being had by all (bloody flu!!!)

so they decided

Hi Loukim, you are quite correct that they cannot set DCA`s on you over a disputed account and it is a breach of the Banking Code of Practice and a breach of the Office of Fair Trading Debt Collection guidelines: Physical/psychological harassment 2.5 Putting pressure on debtors or third parties is considered to be oppressive Examples of unfair practices are as follows: c. using more than one debt collection business at the same time in repetitive and/or frequent contact by different parties. d. not ensuring that an adequate history of the debt is passed on as appropriate resulting in repetitive and /or frequent contact by different parties e. not informing the debtor when their case has been passed on to a different debt collector h. ignoring and/or disregarding that debts have been settled or are disputed and in continuing to make unjustified demands for payment 2.7 Dealings with debtors are not to be deceitful and/or unfair 2.8 Examples of unfair practices are as follows: i. Failing to investigate and/or provide details as appropriate, when a debt is queried or disputed , possibly resulting in debtors being wrongly persued k. not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt You can find these at the following link. You have 2 choices IMHO. 1. complain to Shabby and point out that they are in breach of the OFT guidelines in setting DCA`s after you. or 2. Make a complaint directly to the banking ombudsman and the OFT pointing out shabby`s behaviour http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/oft664.pdf Keep us posted and good luck. Stone

This is nothing new but may help see where we are. Bank charges hang in the balance as test case awaits judge's decision