however i would say your complaint is in a state of stay and (15) to the extent that sums are ultimately to be paid to complainants in respect of relevant charges complaints that have been stayed, the firm must include in these sums an element of compensation in respect of interest charged to or lost by the customer as a result of being out of money during the stay period; (4) the firm must, in respect of each relevant charges complaint referred to it after the 2007 direction, keep a record of the complaint, the date it was received and the terms and dates of any subsequent communication with the complainant about the matter and must inform the customer that it has recorded the complaint for the purpose of complying with the conditions of this direction; (5) the firm must continue to maintain and preserve personal current account and other records concerning customers that incur or may have incurred unauthorised overdraft charges (whether or not they have complained) that are (or could be) relevant for the handling of existing or future relevant charges complaints by the firm, the Ombudsman, the court or otherwise; these records must be maintained and preserved in a way which ensures that they are as easily and readily available for the period until this condition terminates as they were when the 2007 direction started; surely there is better guidance than these it imo sparse

i dont think that particular rule helps you my interpretation of 14 if you want to make a claim for bank charges and it would have rann out dec 13th in normal days (pre waiver rule) jan feb march april may june july aug sept ocber november dec jan feb mar apr blue = fooked i have ran out of time if you had not made it by dec 13th you were fooked but because you are being prevented due to waiver rule from actioning charge claim they cant include the time the waiver clock is ticking jan feb march april may june waiver rule startsjuly aug sept ocber november dec waiver rule ends jan feb mar apr may june push the pause button on you time limit to action bank charge claim while the waiver is being enforced

oh you i had to go to the full house of commons debate which conclude in a less inspiring terms Ed BallsMember of Parliament for the Normanton constituency Ed Balls: As a result of the Cruickshank report, there is now a regular review of the banking code—the voluntary, good practice code for UK financial institutions, to which all the major banks signed up and which was first established in 1991. Mike Young, a former senior Bank of England official, is conducting the triennial review of the banking code this year. As part of that, he has written to stakeholders to seek views on possible changes to the code. He has asked stakeholders to consider the following: “Are the requirements about how lenders deal with people who get into financial difficulties clear enough?” He is examining whether or not the banking code requirements, to which banks sign up voluntarily, are sufficiently clear and onerous to ensure proper protection for some of the people the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Which resulted in Banking Code 2008 http://www.bba.org.uk/content/1/c6/01/30/85/Banking_Code_2008.pdf

Liberal Democrats - House of Commons (Westminster Hall) - Bank Penalty Charges

i found this but not sure if this si someone else quting without recognition or source Evening Times: News his problem arises from the banks using poverty as a source of profit—a great deal of profit. The bank commission of BBC 2’s “The Money Programme”, which included eminent business academics and a former senior NatWest executive, concluded that the absolute maximum administrative cost to a bank of processing a bounced cheque—the most labour-intensive of the processes in question—is £4.50. For all other items, such as unauthorised overdrafts or bounced direct debits, the commission concluded that the absolute maximum, in this electronic age where everything is done automatically through a computer, is £2.50. However, the average charge is approximately £30. Some are as high as £38, and they are charged every time people make what the banks consider to be an unauthorised transaction. That is a substantial profit for the banks, which rake in some £4.5 billion, without even taking account of the similar examples that the Federation of Small Businesses found in business banking accounts. Almost all of what is charged is profit, not costs. It is profit at the expense of hard-up customers. It is the biggest bank robbery in Britain, and it involves the banks robbing their own customers, especially their poorest ones. A common response when the practice is described is that there should be a law against it; but there is a law, or there are laws. First, under common law, disproportionate and punitive charges have always been illegal. In layman’s terms, if a consumer breaks the contract the other party—the bank, in this case—cannot impose a charge greater than the reasonable estimate of its loss. That common law has been unchanged for 100 years, and numerous cases in the higher courts have confirmed it. However, we can go further. The rights in question are protected by statutory instrument. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 made that clear.

i genuimely don't know if they can and if they can't are they using this allegedly agreement to get around they are not directly persuing the debt but the breech of an agreement also can you, even whith impending court case, initiate a bank charge claim under fda waiver hardship??? which would deffinate put spanner in thier works I would put thes facts/questions (minus the spanner hehehe) informally to fsa via telephone on grounds the bank is being unreasonable perhaps others on this forum may have more knowledge please you gurus out there

i know that feelinggg brilliant find though it totally reiterates what we knowwwwwwwwwwww and have been fighting would have been nice to have him on the bbc cant pay wont pay which should have been called cant pay CANT PAY blood - stone! (wont pay implies you have a choice)

you never missed the date as the waiver rule is still preventing you The amount being pursued is a result of bank charges and the bank is preceding court action under an agreement which you did not make However, you have prior the pending court proceedings attempted a claim of the bank charges which had you been successful would have erased the debt - but You were unsuccessful in reclaiming your bank charges due to the ongoing OFT V Banks high court test case. “When we tried to claim the last lot back we were told by the courts that we would have to wait as the fso case was on going” Because the court could not hear it due to FSA’s waiver i.e. When the test case appeal was announced in July 07, the regulator, the FSA, issued a one year waiver to the banks which effectively placed a hold on all reclaiming as neither the banks nor the Ombudsman had to deal with claims. This waiver was then extended to until the 26 January 2009, when it expects that there will be a decision by the Court of Appeal. It has said it will continue to monitor the situation, but that all cases will remain on hold for the moment. So your Case has Remained on hold only because of the oft trial case and rhe appeal and the waiver rules ON HOLD so if your claim is on hold how can the bank pursue it? oh oh I know that answer by inventing an agreement that never and does not exist ( seriously I realise what it means to you being on hold but what did it mean to the banks it being on hold( there right to pursue it)) Surely if you are not allowed to persue it then neither should they as it is ON HOLD for both parties Where you were originally prevented claiming with these particular bank charges under FSA waiver rules You should have also been able to persue the bank charges under FSA waiver rules due to financial hardship criteria I think the financial hardship guidelines apply to me, what should I do? A. Contact your bank urgently and tell it that under the FSA’s waiver rules you believe you fit the financial hardship criteria and would like your case to be dealt with straight away. This applies whether you've already started your reclaim and it's on hold or if you haven't started it at all. Also you where you did not make a claim under hardship the bank was/is more than aware to you hardship proof via appropriation letter which gave a strict breakdown of the tight expenditure of your finances. Also I am sure within these waiver rules there is a clause not to persue debt (anyone?) Is their not away to make your persuers aware of this and how they have potentially breecheed FSA waiver rule FSA waiver rule which is what prevented you relieving this debt initially anyone ?????

???? could this high court case be the cause of the contradiction - as in the bank already lost pre high court ruling, appeal and the waiver placement and the banks new charges arising within the waiver hence the cheek of the bank bringing you to court???? the cheek confidence enforce by the fos allowing waiver and oft stiil assessing whether they’re actually unfair but by their none corespondence until the proceedings did this not prevent you from ‘hardship case’ exemption to the hold (waiver) on reclaiming. also where you have not reclaimed current charges under ‘hardship case’ exemption to the hold on reclaiming you have most certainly made the bank aware of hardship via appropriations letter to which they have ignored but here you won the first case not only on the grounds of charges but the fact they were obtained from benefits and did the fact of the benefits have strong bearing on previous judgement? or am i wayyy of mark here????

i am off to find out more about this court case

ditto ditto ditto apologis but i feel i need to reqoute thiss can you not claim costs and compensation i have read some case on here and the dca's tactics omg but this case is the most ludicrous award for me do we have an award system so i can place my vote

hi i'm sure there is laws regrding benefits so i did a google jsa benefits debt bank account http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues/111908-jsa-payments-taken-out.html rory32 An example of a right of appropriation letter to your bank is shown below: Dear Sir/Madam, Bank Charges and Benefits and the First Right of Appropriation ACCOUNT NUMBER: xxxxxxxxx I am writing to you following several charges debited from my account totalling £xxxx on (date). Bank charges are unlawful penalties for breach of contract. However, the bank or building society is only allowed to charge you what it costs to cover their administrative charges. If they charge you more than this, you may have a legal right to get back the difference. Notably, and in my instance, if the income in an account comes from benefits, they are also contrary to the legislation relating to benefits. If the income is from incapacity benefit, job seekers allowance, etc , they are contrary to section 187 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. The working of this Act comes under the Treasury and the Department of Work and Pensions, respectively and are quoted below for your immediate attention. Social Security Administration Act 1992 Miscellaneous Certain benefit to be inalienable ** 187- Subject to the provisions of this Act, every assignment of, or charge on- (a)benefit as defined in section 122 of the Contributions and Benefits Act; (b)any income-related benefit; or ©child benefit, and every agreement to assign or charge such benefit shall be void; and, on the bankruptcy of the beneficiary, such benefit shall not pass to any trustee or other person acting on behalf of his creditors When you open an account with a bank or building society and use their services, you are entering into a contract. The law says that the bank or building society must carry out its business:- • with reasonable care and skill. If the service is unsatisfactory you may be entitled to compensation if the contract has been broken. I believe that there has been a breach of contract as I feel your organisation has failed to handle my affairs with reasonable care and skill. This failure on your behalf has caused me a great deal of hardship. I am left with no means to pay the rent/bills due to the unauthorised amount now outstanding. The incoming amounts due to be deposited into my account next week will only clear the amount outstanding leaving little if any to pay the rent, for housekeeping or utility bills such as gas. I ask for a little compassion and request that the benefit amounts totalling £xxxx, debited in order to pay for your default charges, be refunded by return. I am also writing to inform you that I am due to have the following payments made into my account:- Tax Credit payment of £xxx on xx/xx/xx Child Benefit payment of £xxx on x/xx/xx Incapacity Benefit payment of £xxx on x/xx/xx Totalling £xxxx, I wish to use my first right of appropriation for this money, for the following purposes; Rent £xx Utilities bills £xx Housekeeping money £xx I will withdraw the money on the day that it is deposited for the above use, and I would be grateful if you would ensure that any other payments out of my account do not interfere with this withdrawal. Yours faithfully,

when i was blocked by atlantic i spoke to them and quoted the protocol they were ignorant i was raging ok i said can i have tha in writing please as i am sure ofgem will be most interested you are not following protocol i had been victim of having a £25ish and £35ish dd that suddenly went up to £85 to which they broke dd agreement by not informing me- to which i cancelled dd and had bank credit it back to my account due to their breach of dd - this resulted in them not allowing me to set up a standing order which then lead to the debt as no payment was made for 3 months i went straight to energywatch and logged a complaint energy watch did not seem too clued on the debt protocol and then went to ofgem my understanding is ofgem spoke to energy watch energywatch spoke to alantic and atlantic spoke to me in a manner i did not recognise i.e. they could not do enough to help me I have never been on prepayment meter and still switched due to the protocol and i was £254+ arrears gas and over the £100 electricity (can't remember the amount) pre energywatch and ofgem i was prepared to bring the accounts in line with protocol but atlantic were not interested however after energy watch they forgot about the £100 and i did not bring it in line (under £100) did not transfer my outstanding balance to new supplier and the block was removed by atlantic i am now with eon gas and Electricity. anyway i hopes my experience helpsss ( I had a thought though it is in the enery suppliers interest to have you in debt so they can legally block you, so they have incentive to have your dd not fully covering your usage - they should not have this blocking power at any debtedness IMO ) grrrrr they enrage me

hi this practice is debt blocking - blocking due to debt however due to ofgem 2004 “debt assignment protocol” Suppliers have agreed to end the practice known as "debt-blocking" for customers who owe less than £100. if you are being debt blocked a and debt is below £100 they are in breach of “debt assignment protocol” to which i believe ofgem will be most interested in too as this protocol is their baby I was being debt blocked and involoved ofgem and hey i am now switched. p.s. 100 gas 100 electricity dont let them tell you it is £100 over both if you are dual fuel p.p.s. google ofgem debt assignment protocol for more info

hi jacob i would like to say hi to everyone tooo this site has been/is most useful to me and thankyou all