Good luck (when the action happens) - and be prepared for all sorts of diversionary tactics. LOL

"Charges as Notified" does fine! Indeed, on some of my statements that is the phrase that HBoS used!!! Sauce for the goose ........

I'm very well, thank you. Just back from a week in Tenerife and was mooching around to see where we were all "at". It seems that it is drawing to a conclusion . . . Just wish that the OFT would get on with things!! I'm still rubbing my hands in anticipation of getting the balance of £21k!!!!

LOL!!!

Just hanging around, waiting for The House of Lords!

That's interesting, Rory!

That is one way of extracting the information that is rightfully yours. For 3 of my accounts I went down the road of the Information Commissioners Office. It took some time, but was successful.

Who are YOU calling "OLD" ?? :)

HO! HO! Only your 5th one, SSL? I get the gold star, then! Seriously, the increasing arrogance of the Banking "profession" (sic!) beggars belief! I have the suspicion that - eventually - they are going to receive their come-uppance! You and I have both been around here long enough to know that persistent patience, in the end, wins the day! Sorry that you've been at the receiving end of more grief. PS. Can you imagine what might happen to CAG if you were CAGbotted (or even CAGbooted!)? The on-line petition for your re-instatement would crash the system!!!

Wise move! And since SSL is *in the know* - I guess it won't be long until they are back here. Just another thought . . . I wonder under what Terms your previous claim was settled? In the past some of the Banks included a "rider" which said something along the lines of: "OK. We (grudgingly) return the cash that is (rightfully) yours. But just behave yourself from now on. We won't be as generous again." I'm sure that SSL will advise.

Yes, SSL, I am back. I think that for months and months we were all in limbo - but now that matters seem to be progressing once more (albeit grindingly slowly) - it was time that I returned. After all, during my absence, the total that HBoS owes me (incl interest) now stands at a massive £22k (having already received some £11k back before the Test Case). Two more account details have surfaced and there are, I think, two more to extricate from the sticky fingers of HBoS! (Sorry, *fishes* - for hi-jacking your thread!)

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/ Yup! But I have copies of the OLD templates stored on my PCn - if they would be of use - just PM me. But, caution ..... The Mods obviously removed them for re-drafting for a reason!

Like I've started doing again!

I'd guess that there are (at least) two possible ways forward: 1. Stick at it - Write back with supporting evidence (I know you have already supplied them with it - but, from my experience the right hand often doesn't know what the left hand has done). 2. It's astonishing that they use the phrase: "regardless of any Court finding...." Is HBoS really saying that they are totally above the law? I think that the Ombudsman might have something to say about their cavalier manner.

Ah! Bigmac, two of the folks I suggested should be here (and joined) are dealing with business accounts...... However, I'll have to check with them to see whether they were arranged as and under *Personal Account* status. Thanks for the RED alert there!

Well, thank you kind sir!

Hello guys and guyesses, Well, we seem to be up and running again. The finding of the Judge (published today) is only the start. It would appear (from what I have heard on radio and TV since 11.00hrs) that the Banks will absorb the massive document - and along with OFT - will meet with the Judge on May 22nd to decide what the next move will be. Meanwhile - an update on my situation. During my / our / *silence* since last July, I have uncovered/discovered some other accounts. My spreadsheets tell me that the figure owing stood at around £32k now. I think that there may be 2 further accounts - but HBOS is being rather reticent to release details. Maybe I'll go back to ICO and chase them that way. I think that our *waiting* period will still stretch out - after May 22nd there could be further appeals to be heard. It is important (TODAY) to understand that the Judge DID NOT say that the charges were unfair. He DID say that OFT could pursue the banks, "The banks' relevant terms and conditions were in, or largely in, plain intelligible language; and that the banks' unarranged overdraft charges were not penalties at common law." "The High Court has today confirmed the OFT's view that personal current account unarranged overdraft charges can be assessed for fairness. This is an important early milestone for the OFT and our investigation into this area of high consumer interest. We are now analysing the implications of the judgment for our overall investigation into the fairness of the terms. There may need to be further hearings to determine any outstanding issues arising from the judgment. The timetable for next steps will be decided by the court at a hearing before the end of May. Hang on in there, everyone. Here's the OFT webpage info: OFT welcomes High Court ruling on unarranged overdraft charges 55/08 24 April 2008 The High Court has today confirmed the OFT's view that personal current account unarranged overdraft charges can be assessed for fairness. This is an important early milestone for the OFT and our investigation into this area of high consumer interest. We are now analysing the implications of the judgment for our overall investigation into the fairness of the terms. There may need to be further hearings to determine any outstanding issues arising from the judgment. The timetable for next steps will be decided by the court at a hearing before the end of May. This case was brought by the OFT in agreement with eight of the largest current account providers. We will be working with them and other interested parties to ensure this market works well for consumers. It is important to note that this judgment only covers points of legal principle and does not determine whether the relevant charges are actually unfair. We are continuing our investigation into the fairness of these terms and will consider our position after reviewing the detail of this judgment. NOTES 1. The judgment today sets out the judge's ruling and reasoning on a range of legal issues, including ruling that the banks' relevant terms and conditions were in, or largely in, plain intelligible language; and that the banks' unarranged overdraft charges were not penalties at common law. 2. All businesses have a duty to ensure that they are complying with the law. Current account providers will need to consider whether there are any implications from today's judgment for their current terms and conditions. 3. In April 2007 the OFT announced its investigation into the fairness of unarranged overdraft and returned item fees (referred to as 'unarranged overdraft charges'). This followed on from the OFT's initial review of such charges, where the OFT concluded that it shared the public concern about the level and incidence of bank current account charges. 4. In July 2007 the OFT entered into an agreement with the largest current account providers in relation to bringing a test case in order to ensure an orderly and timely resolution of the legal issues associated with its investigation. This stage of the case was heard between 17 January and 8 February 2008, and dealt with certain preliminary issues of legal principle relating to whether the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 ('UTCCRs') apply to the banks' various current terms and conditions and whether the charges are capable of amounting to penalties at common law. 5. The other parties to the test case are Abbey National plc, Barclays Bank plc, Clydesdale Bank plc, HBOS plc, HSBC Bank plc, Lloyds TSB Bank plc, Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, and Nationwide Building Society. Together these current account providers account for about 90 per cent of personal current accounts in the UK. 6. In parallel with the legal action on the preliminary issues in the test case we are continuing our detailed analysis of the terms and conditions of current account providers. 7. In the course of its work on the issue we have liaised closely with the Financial Services Authority and have also held discussions with the main banks. 8. The OFT has also been conducting a market study which is taking a wide-ranging look at whether the personal current account market is working well for consumers. In particular we will assess the extent to which consumers help drive competition. The OFT plans to publish our findings in the next few months having taken account of the implications of the judgment. Further information on the background to the case can be found on this website. The FSA has also published guidance for consumers on its website.

Well.... well.... well! And did we expect anything else? It's been a LONG time since July 2007. We've all been very patient! Let's see what happens next ..... I bet they appeal!

Hello everyone! I'm back. We've all been "in limbo" since July.....but now it's all kicking off again. Like you all, I'm waiting to see how tomorrow's court case pans out. Meanwhile, for those of us in Scotland, it might pay to listen to this morning's broadcast on Radio Scotland: BBC - Radio Scotland - Sunday Live Having been paid back £10k and awaiting a further £20k (plus two further "missing" accounts) I'm with you all ..... and am now ready to put my £340s-worth" into all this. Wach this space. Apparently, apart from Glasgow's Courts - all other Scottish Courts are ignoring the "English Stay". I haven't explored this route/avenue yet .... But, I'm willing, now, to resume giving advice and encouragement to all you lovely people who have either been "ripped off" or have had partial repayments. That is something Martin Lewis didn't mention on radio Scotland's broadcast - other than saying that £1billion had been paid back. Maybe a "precedent" has been set. We'll see ..........

Mere novices!

I must confess, SSL, that I was down in the dumps at the apparent refuseal of HBOS to comply with the ICO. Quite depressed, really! But, hey! I've got the carrot of £19,000 to pursue - and the little matter of two more accounts with HBOS. And YOU'D better watch out SSL!!!

Goodness! What a kot of excitement I missed! I could have / nearly did go down the legal route of non-disclosure, Mac, but, like you, I've FINALLY received the information I asked for and that Information Commissioners Office asked for (several times). I know EXACTLY what you mean when you said earlier "It's like starting all over again at the beginning." But - I'm £10,000 better off and am now chasing the remaining £19,000. Can't wait to find out about the other 2 accounts that I have un/discovered I had with HBOS!!!!

Thanks Mac! I'll go check you out!

Bump

I have received (finally) statements from HBOS going back to 1995.