Hi rdm2006, Please accept my apologies. I think the following sentence would have been a little more helpful!!! No. Judgement on historic terms and conditions - 7th and 8th July 2008. TheyrCriminals

No

Hi Medusa, The way I see this is that there are three 'enforcement structures' for parking violations operating in this country. We have local councils, National Parking Adjudication Service - now known as the Traffic Penalty Tribunal and we have the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northamptonshire County Court. My appeal is against a decision made by the Chief Adjudicator of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. My local authority is the party that has registered the unpaid Penalty Charge Notice with Northamptonshire County Court as a 'debt' and has issued a Warrant of Execution to recover the money, despite the fact that an appeal to the High Court was in the process and therefore, as previously explained, I believe I have a case based on the principles founded in Miah v Westminster (2005). If the local authority does not agree with my argument and will not rescind the ticket and continues with its enforcement action could you tell me please what body/court/tribunal deals with the hearing of my legal argument that the ticket should be rescinded on the grounds of Miah (2005). Thank you. TheyrCriminals

MilkTrayMan, Barclays will not charge you £8 per day for the same bounced item!! It will charge you £8 per day if you bounce 1 item every single day! You said: Thus the poor become even poorer...to help finance those that MAY save the odd bob or two under the NEW T&C's... Please elaborate. TheyrCriminals

JonCris, I'm sorry I dont think I understand what you mean. Are you saying that companies are attempting to apply a direct debit for the same item several times in one day? And with regards to cancelling any direct debit, surely the bank will cancel it immediately/within 24 hours on receiving such an instruction from their customer? TheyrCriminals

Companies who are repeatedly entering peoples bank accounts on the same day to apply a direct debit is a complaint to the company not the bank, surely? I have to ask however how big a problem is this? TheyrCriminals

MilkTrayMan, You can not accrue an infinite amount of these charges in one day, 5 is the maximum, so what your saying is that if you do have 5 bounced items in one day you will be paying an extra £5 compared to the old system. The £35 was certainly not a one off charge either. Under Barclays old system you could have dozens of £35 unpaid item fees in any one month - I know I had them! Now I will only be charged £8 instead of £35 every time which is a dramatic reduction but I accept still not good enough. Besides how many of us have 5 bounced items per day every other day from our bank accounts? In addition I am certainly not forgetting those who are in a less fortunate financial position than myself. TheyrCriminals

Hi Guys, As I understand it the 'buffer zone' Barclays is offering for 5 days at a cost of £22 is optional. You do not have to take it. You can instead just keep paying £8 for each bounced item (up to 5 a day), be it an unpaid direct debit/standing order or returned cheque etc. I have to say that is a stark improvement on £35 which is the current charge not £30. So depending on how many bounced items you have in a day, if it is just one bounced item your charge has been slashed from £35 to £8. The figure of £8 is still too high and we have a long way to go, but it does look like at long last one bank is beginning to move in the right direction. Let's not underestimate this hugley significant development. TheyrCriminals

Hi tomterm and Big Budgie, Thank you very much for your information, things becoming more clearer now! TheyrCriminals

Im sorry to keep asking this but no one has helped as yet. Can someone please tell me or direct me to the arguments submitted to the Court by the banks that led the judge to grant them an appeal. I have not found a single argument put forward yet and as you know the banks can not simply appeal because they dont like the decision they have to have grounds. Thank you. TheyrCriminals

Hi Bookworm, Profoundly off topic here but could you slightly elaborate on your thoughts that there was more to trigger World War 2 than just the invasion of Poland. Many Thanks. TheyrCriminals

Hi askl, Welcome to CAG. I have only had time to absorb the basics of NatWest's claim against you. As I understand it you have accrued a debt of £25,400 as you were a personal guarantor of a company's borrowing needs. This has obviously spiralled into the debt of £25,400. It appears most of this debt is made up of charges, overcharging and overdraft interest. I must say the interest they have applied is phenomenal, can I ask when these charges were incurred? Am I right in saying that you believe the only legitimate part of this debt is approximately £2,700 (as it was in 2004)? If this is the case you should immediately apply to the Court to have this claim stayed (suspended) pending the final outcome of the Commercial Court litigation - Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National and others. To clarify business accounts ARE most definitely a part of the test case as the issue of penalties at common law is being determined in the test case, penalties at common law form the basis of all business claims for the recovery of bank charges. However I must stress that this issue has already been dealt with in the test case (last month) in relation to the banks current terms and conditions i.e from November 2006 onwards. And the Office of Fair Trading will not be appealing this so the judgement is final. The judgement as regards penalties in relation to the banks historical terms and conditions (pre-November 2006) is expected in July. So you may be able to buy yourself some time until July at least. You can see it is crucial to identify when these charges were incurred. It is interesting to say the least that the Judge has ordered Natwest to disclose a breakdown of its charges as regards the administering of your cheques. I am assuming what your saying is that the judge’s order means a disclosure of the banks actual costs to administer a bounced cheque. If Natwest do disclose this this will be of immense importance as up until now any request of this nature has not been complied with in any single case. If they do comply can you please inform us immediately. Also pop a copy into the Office of Fair Trading will you! Overall it seems like the bank has not only applied its usual disproportionate and unfair charges and interest but has then gone even further breaching its own terms and conditions. This is wholly unacceptable and that part of your claim should easily be countered. In the first instance as I mentioned above because they are pursuing you for a debt that is largely made up of charges, overcharges and interest on these charges you should request the court stays this claim pending the final outcome of the test case. If you have any further questions or need any further help please post them up and myself or someone else will do what they can to help you. Good luck! TheyrCriminals

Hi, Can someone please post up where I can find the reason/arguments the banks have submitted to be allowed to appeal? Thanks. TheyrCriminals

Hi Guys, I have searched but I can not find the grounds on which the banks have been granted leave to appeal. As we all know a party can not appeal a court judgement because they simply don't like it, they have to have grounds for an appeal. Does anyone know what grounds the banks submitted an appeal for? Procedural irregularity? New evidence? Judge error? TheyrCriminals

Guys, If anyone knows can they please report what happened in court today, I have heard nothing?! TheyrCriminals

Hi Tomtubby, Can you please tell me how i start a new thread? TheyrCriminals

Hi Guys, Medusa - Thank you for a prompt reply. Yes I have sent a copy of the Letter Before Claim to the Bailiffs. Which Act covers the offence of harrassment for this situation, that you mention, which I could invoke if the Bailiffs continue with their enforcement while court action is on going? Pin1onu - many thanks for that I have posted a reply to her. TheyrCriminals

Hi tomtubby, I was given your name by pin1onu, who said you may be able to help. I have posted my complaint and question below: With regards to my persistence in resisting paying this penalty charge notice I am now of the belief that the ticket should be rescinded on the grounds of the principles established in Miah v Westminster (2005). I sent my Letter Before Claim to all parties concerned back in February this year but never got anything back from Torbay Council instead they simply sought enforcement of the PCN - hence the Bailiffs now demanding money and apparently paying visits to my house although no-one has seen them! While I will continue fighting this ticket on the gounds of Miah v Westminster in the mean time the Bailiff has outlined his charges for visits and future visits. These are not charges for levying distress, we're not there yet!! These charges amount to £150.07 (before the debt!) simply for his 3 visits. I have looked at a forum on here and Zooman states that if the debt is under £100 (my PCN debt is £95) the total amount the Bailiff can charge for visits (before levying distress) is £25. This is great news if correct, do you know if this is true and where can this information be found to corroborate it? If you can offer any advice on this I would be very grateful. TheyrCriminals

Hi Medusa, Hows life? Dare I ask? Last time we spoke you were very busy!! With regards to my persistence in resisting paying this penalty charge notice I am now of the belief that the ticket should be rescinded on the grounds of the principles established in Miah v Westminster (2005). I sent my Letter Before Claim to all parties concerned back in February this year but never got anything back from Torbay Council instead they simply sought enforcement of the PCN - hence the Bailiffs now demanding money and apparently paying visits to my house although no-one has seen them! While I will continue fighting this ticket on the gounds of Miah v Westminster (thanks again for bringing this case to my attention) in the mean time the Bailiff has outlined his charges for visits and future visits. These are not charges for levying distress, we're not there yet!! These charges amount to £150.07 (before the debt!) simply for his 3 visits. I have looked at a forum on here and Zooman states that if the debt is under £100 (my PCN debt is £95) the total amount the Bailiff can charge for visits (before levying distress) is £25. This is great news if correct, do you know if this is true and where can this information be found to corroborate it? Thanks. TheyrCriminals

Hi Josh, Interesting post although slightly off topic! What is your business? TheyrCriminals

Hi Guys, Do we know if there are any developments from CAG on the legal basis for pursuing business claims yet. Many people don't really know what is going on, and I must admit it looks pretty tricky at the moment! TheyrCriminals

Hi Josh, Can you explain your previous comment about does it matter who has to be in breach of contract please? TheyrCriminals

Hi Photoman, Thanks for those posts, I now see what that section is referring to. Your stance on the issue is particularly plausable, however my concern is that even UCTA (1977) appears to state that in order to invoke the Act there still needs to be a breach of contract. I am pretty sure the judgement in the oft test case made it clear that the banks' charges were not imposed as a result of a breach of contract. TheyrCriminals

Hi Photoman, I have looked at s4 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act (1977) but I do not know if this is the correct section we should be looking at, the section in its entirety is as follows:- 4. Unreasonable indemnity clauses. — (1) A person dealing as consumer cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness. (2) This section applies whether the liability in question— (a) is directly that of the person to be indemnified or is incurred by him vicariously; (b) is to the person dealing as consumer or to someone else. I will continue reading through the Act but if anyone knows for certain any relevant sections can you please post them up. TheyrCriminals

Hi Photoman, It's good to know CAG are working on something. I will begin research on exact wording of the Act itself and hopefully, as you appear to have already demonstrated, we should be able to rely on it, lets hope so. Many thanks for that. TheyrCriminals