Hi I called them to complain, they refused. I will put this in writing as I consider it to be unfair. In the meantime all others take note of these charges.

Hi I bought some US Dollars from the Post Office online for £1000.25. Even though I didn't buy the currency from them, and the Post office charged me £1000.25 to my Debit Card, Lloyds charged me £4.50 and said the carge was for purchasing currency. Any thoughts??? Thanks

Received letter from Lloyds Solicitors this morning offering to settle in full. Obviously I will be accepting. Clearly it was sent out before they knew about OFT case. Amount is 1127.40 Will let you know when i get it

Received letter from Lloyds Solicitors this morning offering to settle in full. Obviously I will be accepting. Clearly it was sent out before they knew about OFT case. Amount is 1127.40 Will let you know when i get it

BANKS FACE OVERDRAFT TEST CASE By Nicky Burridge, PA Personal Finance Correspondent The Office of Fair Trading will begin its High Court bid today to prove bank charges for unauthorised overdrafts are unfair. Tens of thousands of consumers have complained about the charges, which are levied on people who breach their authorised overdraft limit, with many taking their bank to court. The OFT, which has been investigating the issue since March, said the banks did not accept the unfairness rules of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations applied to the charges. It said in a statement: "The OFT believes that they do and is seeking to establish this legal principle clearly in the court. "The OFT considers that a quick determination of this point of principle will assist in securing a clear orderly resolution of the fairness of these charges." It added that it had decided to take action after being unable to secure voluntary compliance. The charges can be as high as #39 for bouncing a single payment. Consumer and financial websites have encouraged the revolt, with many providing letters that people can download. The test case will involve Abbey National, Barclays, Clydesdale, the HBOS group, which includes Halifax, HSBC, Lloyds TSB, the Royal Bank of Scotland Group, which includes NatWest, and Nationwide Building Society. Together these banks account for around 90% of the current account market in the UK. The British Bankers' Association said the banks were working with the OFT and City watchdog the Financial Services Authority to ask the UK courts to clarify the legal position regarding overdraft fees. But it added that the banks still believed the fees for unauthorised overdraft charges were clear and fair. The FSA has agreed to issue a waiver allowing banks to suspend the handling of complaints on the issue of unauthorised overdraft charges until the courts have issued a judgment. As a result, all existing and subsequent complaints on the issue will be recorded by banks, but any potential refunds will be put on hold until the outcome of the case is known. Offers that have already been made to customers will be honoured if customers choose to accept them. Banks will also be writing to the UK courts requesting a stay of all claims that are pending until after the outcome of the test case. The FSA said it did not think it was in the interest of consumers for the complaints to continue to be handled in the current "inconsistent way". Angela Knight, chief executive of the BBA, said: "Establishing legal clarity on the issue of bank charges is of paramount importance, not only for the banking industry, but for all customers now and in the future. "The banks have always been firmly of the view that the fees they charge customers are fair and clear. The court case will clarify these points and provide certainty for customers and banks alike." Cavendish Elithorn, senior director of the OFT, said: "It is obviously a big step for the OFT and we are happy to be providing clarification for consumers. "The banks have disputed whether the law applies or not, and we have agreed with them that the best thing to do is go to court to get it clarified." He added that there were two stages to the test, the first was to decide whether the charges were covered by the law, and the second was what a fair charge would be. The OFT said the test case complemented the ongoing market study it was carrying out into personal current accounts, which addressed wider questions about competition and price transparency. It will publish its findings by the end of the year. At the beginning of this month, 44 claims were due to be heard in Hull, but all but eight were settled by banks beforehand, with more than #50,000 believed to have been paid out to customers in the run-up to the hearing. end 270317 JUL 07

BANKS FACE OVERDRAFT TEST CASE By Nicky Burridge, PA Personal Finance Correspondent The Competition watchdog tonight announced plans to take the major high street banks to court over their unauthorised overdraft charges. The Office of Fair Trading will launch a test case in the High Court tomorrow in a bid to establish that the high charges are unfair. Tens of thousands of consumers have complained about the charges, which are levied on people who breach their authorised overdraft limit, with many taking their bank to court. mf 261838 JUL 07 The OFT, which has been investigating the issue since March, said the banks did not accept the unfairness rules of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations applied to the charges. But it said in a statement: "The OFT believes that they do and is seeking to establish this legal principle clearly in the court. "The OFT considers that a quick determination of this point of principle will assist in securing a clear orderly resolution of the fairness of these charges." It added that it had decided to take action after being unable to secure voluntary compliance. The test case will involve Abbey National, Barclays, Clydesdale, the HBOS group, which includes Halifax, HSBC, Lloyds TSB, the Royal Bank of Scotland Group, which includes NatWest, and Nationwide Building Society. Together these banks account for around 90% of the current account market in the UK. The British Bankers' Association said the banks were working with the OFT and City watchdog the Financial Services Authority to ask the UK courts to clarify the legal position regarding overdraft fees. But it added that the banks still believed the fees for unauthorised overdraft charges were clear and fair. mf 261846 JUL 07 The FSA has agreed to issue a waiver allowing banks to suspend the handling of complaints on the issue of unauthorised overdraft charges until the courts have issued a judgment. As a result, all existing and subsequent complaints on the issue will be recorded by banks, but any potential refunds will be put on hold until the outcome of the case is known. Offers that have already been made to customers will be honoured if customers choose to accept them. Banks will also be writing to the UK courts requesting a stay of all claims that are pending until after the outcome of the test case. The FSA said it did not think it was in the interest of consumers for the complaints to continue to be handled in the current "inconsistent way". Angela Knight, chief executive of the BBA, said: "Establishing legal clarity on the issue of bank charges is of paramount importance, not only for the banking industry, but for all customers now and in the future. "The banks have always been firmly of the view that the fees they charge customers are fair and clear. The court case will clarify these points and provide certainty for customers and banks alike." mf 261912 JUL 07 Cavendish Elithorn, senior director of the OFT, said: "It is obviously a big step for the OFT and we are happy to be providing clarification for consumers. "The banks have disputed whether the law applies or not, and we have agreed with them that the best thing to do is go to court to get it clarified." He added that there were two stages to the test, the first was to decide whether the charges were covered by the law, and the second was what a fair charge would be. The OFT said the test case complemented the ongoing market study it was carrying out into personal current accounts, which addressed wider questions about competition and price transparency. It will publish its findings by the end of the year. Thousands of consumers have challenged their bank over the charges, which can be as high as #39 for bouncing a single payment. Consumer and financial websites have encouraged the revolt, with many providing letters that people can download. At the beginning of this month, 44 claims were due to be heard in Hull, but all but eight were settled by banks beforehand, with more than #50,000 believed to have been paid out to customers in the run-up to the hearing. mf 261939 JUL 07 The FSA said tonight that there were "significant deficiencies" in the way banks were handling complaints about the charges, with some failing to respond fairly and consistently, while others were not adequately addressing them. It said in some cases banks had unfairly closed accounts or threatened to do so, and made false or misleading statements to complainants. Consumer group Which? welcomed the test case. Doug Taylor, personal finance campaigner at Which?, said: "This announcement is a victory for common sense. In April 2006, we called for the FSA to investigate whether bank customers have been treated unfairly and this process will finally give legal certainty. "A lot of time and money could have been saved if the banks had not tried to evade questions about their charging structures for the past year. It's unfortunate that it has to go to court, but at least we will get a decision that banks cannot dispute." Tony Boorman, principal ombudsman at the Financial Ombudsman Service, said: "This year the ombudsman service has been dealing with tens of thousands of inquiries and complaints about bank charges - and county courts across the UK have similarly been coping with significant volumes of bank-charge claims. "In the cases that the ombudsman service has settled so far, all disputed unauthorised overdraft charges have been repaid, but on a voluntary 'goodwill' basis, without the ombudsman reaching the stage of investigating the merits of the legal issues. "Meanwhile, cases heard in the county courts have so far resulted in a range of outcomes, with inconsistent and unpredictable judgements and no clear legal precedent being set." He said it was in the interests of everyone involved to settle the legal uncertainties relating to the level, fairness and lawfulness of unauthorised overdraft charges. He added that the ombudsman service would also be suspending its work on complaints relating to the issue until after the court case. end 261946 JUL 07 reopens) Liberal Democrat treasury spokesman Vince Cable said he hoped the courts would come down firmly on the side of the consumer. "This is a very important milestone in the struggle by consumers to get fair treatment from their banks," he said. "After initially dismissing protests from consumers and consumer groups regarding unfair overdraft charges, banks have had to concede that they are on very shaky ground legally. "There is widespread dissatisfaction over the way charges are applied capriciously and are often unrelated to any costs." end 262010 JUL 07

Claim was issued on July 16th. Have received a letter, dated July 23, similar to the one below, now offering £278, including the £80 court fee (ie they have NOT increased their original offer) I am sending a nice letter back rejecting their offer. Also today Received notice from Wragg & Co saying Alliance intend to defend case.

Quelle surprise, no reply, going to the court this morning to file my claim - wish me luck!

Quelle surprise, no reply, going to the court this morning to file my claim - wish me luck!

Please note I have full text of offer letter they sent me yesterday

Total charges, and interest I am looking to claim is £535.00 They have written offering £198 which i will not be accepting. Here is text of letter: Thank you for your letter requesting that we refund the fees and interest you have paid on your current account. theese fees form part of the T&C of your account and were generated because payments were presented for payment, for example cheques of DDs, when there were insufficient funds available. As you are aware the OFT is currently reviewing the issue of current account charges. It is our understanding that they have suggested that there may be some similarities between default charges on credit cards and similar charges applied to current accounts, however it recognises that the application of the the general principles set out in 2006 to the banking industry is not straight forward and that a more detailed explaination is needed in relation to bank charges. Default charges may apply to current accounts when items are presented for payment whilst the account is in excess of its overdraft limit and are returned unpaid (bounced) and a fee is charged. We do not believe this term applies to other types of fees. We believe that all our charges have been applied in accordance with the T&C of your account, of which you have been given a copy. However having reviewed the particular circumstances of your case and taking into accouint the ongoing OFT review, in order to resolve the matter we are prepared to refund the sum of £198 in full and final settlement. The reflects the difference between the amount of charges for unpaid items aactually applied to your account and the amount of charges that would have been applied to your account if the charge has been £12 (being the amount the OFT indicated was not unreasonable in relation to credit card default charges). this offer is time bound ... [ etc... 1 month - please sign enclosed letter and we will aplly the refund] You may have seen media reports that some banks have considered closing certain customers acconts where the customer has complained ahout bank charges. We would like to re-assure you that this is not our policy and if you do not accept out offer of settlement we will continue to operate your account. We will do so on the basis that you accept the Terms and Conditions of your accouint that were previously notified to you and that charges will be applied in accordance with our current charging policy. We would stress that as the OFT has not concluded its review, the offer of settlement contained in this letter is made on an entirely ex gratia basis and without any acceptance by us that £12 is an appropriate charge for returning an item unpaid. ........ This is what I will send them tomorrow: Response to settlement offer. Dear Sirs Thank you for your letter dated 5th July 2007. I respectfully decline your offer of Full and Final settlement offer and request, once again, that you return to me all charges imposed on this account. As I mentioned in my previous letter I will proceed with my claim at Bedford County Court at 10am on Monday July 16th 2007 unless I receive a full refund of charges and interest as per my further updated Schedule of Charges (enclosed), in my account, or by cheque, by 0001 on Monday July 16th 2007. I trust this clarifies my position. Yours faithfully

Request for copies of statement sent at the beginning of May 2007 - received a list of charges back within about 3 weeks. Request for repayment of charges sent 1/6/7 - standard letter reply within 14 days. Letter Before Action sent 14/6/7 - stardard letter reply within 14 days. I will send the following letter tomorrow 2/7/7 - enclosing an updated schedule of charges and pre-dated Court Claim. I'll keep you all posted. FINAL LETTER BEFORE ACTION Dear Sir/Madam, ACCOUNT NUMBER: I am very disappointed that you sent me what appears to be standard letters in response to my letters to you of 1st June 2007 and 14th June 2007. (Copies enclosed) I am also very disappointed that despite my letters you have continued to impose charges which are unlawful at Common Law and contrary to consumer regulations. (Please find enclosed an updated Schedule of Charges). Pleased be advised that I WILL file the enclosed claim with the Bedford County Court at 10am on Monday July 16th 2007 unless I receive a full refund of charges and interest as per my updated Schedule of Charges, in my account, or by cheque, by 0001 on Monday July 16th 2007.

Request for copies of statement sent at the beginning of May 2007 - received a list of charges back within about 3 weeks. Request for repayment of charges sent 1/6/7 - standard letter reply within 14 days. Letter Before Action sent 14/6/7 - NO REPLY. I will send the following letter tomorrow 2/7/7 - enclosing an updated schedule of charges and pre-dated Court Claim. I'll keep you all posted. FINAL LETTER BEFORE ACTION Dear Sir/Madam, ACCOUNT NUMBER: I am very disappointed that you have not responded to my letter of 14th June 2007. (Copy enclosed) Pleased be advised that I WILL file the enclosed claim with the Bedford County Court at 10am on Monday July 16th 2007 unless I receive a full refund of charges and interest as per my updated Schedule of Charges, in my account, or by cheque, by 0001 on Monday July 16th 2007.