I wasn't sure whether we had a case or not and it would seem unfortunately we haven't. Obviously not the answer I was hoping for although I was expecting I wouldn't be able to do anything other than write a letter of complaint to the Head Office. I'm fully aware that this is a commercial enterprise that has to make money however I object to the underhand way they have gone about this. I would have been far happier if they had just raised prices in September and kept the number of sessions the same. That is effectively what will happen as we will be possibly paying for a sessions that may not be used. As for implementing a rigid blanket policy, I guess you and I have different ideas on how to operate a business such as this. An Operating Manual with guidelines would be seem more suitable to me as each nursery, whilst part of a chain, is operating in different environments and should need to adapt. And I would also want to consider the views of staff 'on the front line'. But each to their own. To be honest, consumer choice doesn't really have anything to do with this. Of course I can exercise my option but life just isn't that simple sometimes. As for the last comment about closing the nursery...I really do not see the relevance of that at all. It's already operating at close to capacity so why close it? Anyway I think we can consider the matter closed. Thanks for your input and helping me make a decision.

Perhaps I am getting too emotive about it ....but.. I understand that it's their nursery and they can implement whatever policy they want but where is the consumer protection? Surely we have entered into an agreement with them that our child attends for 2 sessions? Plus we were never told that it was a temporary measure when we enrolled our child and it is unclear whether this is a new policy or not. I never stated that it's unlawful to generate revenue, but that changing the terms of the contract was unlawful, particularly when they state that fees are reviewed in Sept. The nursery is already at high levels of capacity. If we want to increase our sessions there are only 3 possible afternoon sessions to chose from so whilst I understand your argument (although I think it is ridiculous) I don't think it is valid in this case. We have already accepted that we will have to go with the 3 sessions and fortunately we can afford it however many parents cannot and it is this that makes me want to challenge the change in policy. The actual nursery staff do not support this policy either which makes me even more cross that the head office have implemented a blanket policy such as this with no flexibility or thought for the child.

Hi, I was wondering /hoping whether anyone could offer any thoughts or advice on a problem we have with our child’s nursery head office. It’s a bit of a long post but I wanted to get as much info in as possible. We were given a letter last week from the manager stating that head office were implementing a new policy that required our child to attend at least 3 sessions a week (sessions are split into am/ pm so one day is 2 sessions). This was then followed up by a letter dated 16th Jan (but not received until 20th Jan) from the head office which essentially re-iterated this and gave a months notice to either comply or withdraw your child as the nursery would be unable to provide childcare (although after emailing them – see below - we have been given until 1st March to make alternative arrangements if necessary). We have a problem with this on two levels 1) We don’t believe 3 sessions would be beneficial in terms of his development as he currently does 2 mornings a week at nursery and 2 afternoons at a playgroup which we feel is sufficient. Our child is 2 ½. 2) That this new policy is a revenue generating exercise We are not the only parents concerned – apparently there are 3 groups of parents –those that were going to move onto 3 sessions for whatever reasons and so are not bothered; those like ourselves that don’t believe it is beneficial and those that simply cannot afford it. We have not, as far as I or my OH is aware, signed a contract or been given any terms and conditions. The only documentation we have is a ’Parent Contract’ which could be seen as T & C’s and states that: 1) Fees are subject to a reasonable increase from time to time, fees are reviewed on an annual basis in September (they were not increased in Sept) 2) They reserve the right to make lawful and reasonable changes to the policies and procedures, premises and nursery calendar and timetable. We emailed the nursery head office asking to explain why they are doing this and had a reply from the trainee operations manager (apparently no-one more senior?!). The reply didn’t explain the reasoning behind this but did state that an allowance was made to have 2 sessions as a temporary measure due to high demand and this was made clear to the manager. As we signed up in October I asked for clarification (in a further email) whether this was a new policy (as stated in the letters) or an existing policy (implied by the temporary measure) and that this was not mentioned in any documentation or verbally. I also asked for a copy of the T & C’s. This is the reply (nursery name removed): “…Firstly In relation to attaining more of ABC’s Policies and Procedures other than the Parent Contract you have, please refer to xxxxx as she should have on site a seperate manual for: Health & Safety, Childcare, Reports and Service. The allowance of less than 3 session attenders was only temporary. This policy is only outlined by ABC to Managers as they must enforce it on a day to day basis when visits arise. ABC concludes the increase in sessions is of mutual benefit to both ABC and the children as Staff are able to build 'Key Worker' group relationships in line with the Early Years Foundation Stage. This means the more a child attends the greater a bond is created between staff and the child allowing for each child to progress at their own pace. In conclusion I am still unclear as to what the policy on 2 sessions was - we don’t have anything in writing stating anyting about number of sessions and I’m still not convinced that forcing a child to have 3 sessions without a consideration to what else they may be doing is beneficial. Also why did they not mention the reason given in the initial letter? Can the nursery do this as I believe that they are imposing unfair terms/ changing the terms unlawfully? Or do I just have to swallow it? I don’t want to remove my child as he is building a good bond with his key Workers as is and they have out in a lot of hard work. Thanks for any input.

Hi Ray First off let me say how sorry I am to hear of your situation. It doesn't sound good. I would suggest that you post this in another part of the forum as this post is not likely to be read by many. Also I am not qualified to give advice so I would suggest you try to see a Citizens Advice Bureau? That said, my case had already been given a hearing date prior to the OFT case being brought which is why it went 'to the wire'. If you had a hearing date then you could see it through and chances are the solictor acting for them will make an offer at the last minute. If you refused this and it went before the judge my impression is they would apply for a stay - and get it. If you had not had a hearing date set (which judging from your post you haven't) then I don't think there is anything you can do I'm afraid until the OFT case has been won. If I recall correctly, when the banks lose the OFT case, there is a chance you can claim the remainder however please please don't take just my word for it -post this again on the general forum. There are far more knowledgable people on this forum than I. Hope this helps

Hi all, I had my case against HSBC/ First Direct on Friday @ Bristol County Court. Have posted some info here but two things to mention: 1) It is highly likely that call cases @ Bristol will now be stayed until the OFT case has ben decided, I guess you either accept an offer or be prepared to wait. 2) On the subject of contractual interest, the Halliday case was mentioned so it would appear that the banks will be using that as their defence and it's unlikely to be awarded. I know there is a huge post on this so won't comment further. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/first-direct/109189-mg-fd.html#post1059443

Main thread here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/first-direct/60289-mg-fd.html Had case on Friday. Counsel for DG was waiting for me when I got there and we went and had a little chat which resulted in me being offered charges + o/d interest + 8%. I had originally been going for contractual interest but was pretty sure wasn't going to get this after the Halliday case and sure enough she did bring this up and said it was unlikely to be awarded - but she would say that! Then went in front of the judge and said we had a agreement. Judge did say that she would have stayed the case anyway until the OFT case has been decided. Do I need to give any more info about settled claims? Now suffering this morning after celebrating a little!!

I think you don't need to worry when the six years stop. I believe the six years start from the date you filed your claim at court. however, don't do what I did and (in a moment of weakness) concede that the lmitation act applies. There is a an argument based on a section of the limitation act that says otherwise. See post #2 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/104150-help-needed-limitation-act.html You may need to redo your claim but you pay £35 (not claimable) and file an application order. Once I get thru this claim I may claim on the previous.

thought so, thanks for confirming

Thanks C, Just wanted tom double check as am on my way to file bundle. Don't worry, all my charges being claimed are valid, I was just thinking about the wording of that section. Any thoughts on my post #121 above? thanks

On another note, reading through my statement of evidence, adapted from the links in the original posts I have query re a section: 5. I understand the definition of 'breach of contract' to be the failure of a party, without legal excuse, to perform a contractually agreed obligation pursuant to any or all of the terms agreed within that contract. I have an overdraft with the defendant. This overdraft has a contractually agreed limit, which is an express term of the bank account contract between myself and the Defendant. When I exceeded this agreed overdraft limit, therefore breaching an express term of the contract between myself and the Defendant, I was consequentially penalised for each such breach by way of a charge of between £15 and £200. Now for section 5, I was charged every month aan overdraft fee and on some months the exces o/d fee. Now I can see that section 5 convers the breach - the exceeding the agreed limit but does it also cover the charge of arrangng the o/d - the 'normal' fee? Do I need to adapt this further?

I'm just finishing off my bundle and wondered what the general consensus is re the litigation settled spreadhsheets. Are people including claims with other Banks or just showing claims settled by their own bank? I would imagine the latter as otherwise there are too many! Thanks

without prejudice: Prejudice (law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) In the UK this basically means that the correspondence is not admissable as evidence

I know these are a bit of a rarity but I was scanning my statements for my court bundle and read the back of them for the first time. There is a section on overdrafts. I have original statements from Jan 01 to date and the wording has not changed. Can these be used I wonder? I 'm not sure how I can display these on the forum but check the back of your own statements. hope this helps!!

cheers bud, have just pmailed you. Shouldn't bounce back.

are these T+C's valid for first direct?

I have tried pmailing Guido but have not had a response. Only just picked up this thread as have been planning to use basic bundle. Does anyone have a copy of that pdf and are able to send now/ today (wednesday 11th July)? Thanks

Hi, I'm in a similar position and have a hearing on 3rd Aug. Wish I'd read this yesterday as I reckon I've ballsed up. I refiled my POC yesterday taking off those dates and wrote a letter to them conceeding that they were over 6 years...I thought that you had to use the above defence in your POC (which I hadn't done in my original)?

OK, I've just downloaded the Simple excel sheet for England from page 1 of this thread - simple-charges-calc.xls There could be two issues, the most likely one is cell width so look at the end part of this post. Looking at it: Column A = empty Col B = Details of charge Col C = Amount of charge. You enter the amount Col D = Date of charge. you enter the date Col E - days since charge. This has a formula in which needs to be dragged down so that it covers all your entries. An example of the formula from row 116 is =DATEDIF(D116,NOW(),"D") Col E - interest calculated @ 8%. This formula also needs to be dragged down to cover all your entries. An example of the formula from row 116 is =(C116*0.00022)*E116 There are then also 3 totals. sum of column C , sum of column F and then those 2 added together. These should be at the end of your entries. You need to make sure the formulas are in each relevant cell. To do this, just click on the cell containing the last formula. The bottom right hand corner will have a block. Place your cursor over this block and the cursor should change to a small + sign. Then drag the cursor down all the cells you need to. MOST LIKELY: The other alternative is that the cell widthn isn't wide enough to show your totals!! Just go to the top of column F and place your cursor to the right of the column so that the cursor changes to a vertical line with two horizontal arrows midway. Then doubleclick. This should set the cell width to the widest cell value. Alternatively drag the cell width.

Hi THM, I think this may be because the formula in the cells only extends to a certain row. Have you tried unprotecting the sheet to view the formula in the cell? If it is blank then drag it down into that. I'll try and post more in a bit but just tied up with something at the moment (you may also need to go into Options > show formulas)

Thanks for the reply. I have the actual formula but I want to check that I understand it correctly. I.E. Checking that I have interpreted the IF statement, vlookup and the remainder of the calculations. Thanks

Hi all, I have been using Mindzai's spreadsheet to work out charges etc. I have been asked by DG solicitors to provide my calculations and also have a court date looming Aug 03 2007 and need to do my court bundle by next week. I *think* I have worked out the formula used to work out interest paid on penalties but would like confirmation that I have it correct. I won't post here unless asked as it may confuse. Can anyone help? Thanks

is it this one: Westdeutsche v. Islington BC. [1996] A.C. 669

What do you mean by business efficiency?

If we have existing claims (mine are with 1st Direct), how should we now handle offers? I have two claims proceeding. One has a court date set for 4th Aug and the other they haven't filed their AQ in time so am going to send a nudge letter. However in light of this precedent, I'm going to have to re-word it (and the other claim). All my other letters I have been claiming contractual interest and that has been the basis of what I intend to settle on. When I write my letter should I mention "in light of the precedent ...(details) ... I am willing to accept an offer based on 8% statutory interest this being £xxxx" Or should I just not mention the precedent and quietly drop the CI claim and just state I will accept an offer for £xxx (which will be lower that what I have previously been claiming)? What are others doing? Thanks

ok, i guess if you don't ask you don't get! I will reply to their letter saying that I will accept on the basis of their offer but my calculations and see where it goes from there. I've still got a little bit of time yet.