Hi, cheers for the reply. This has been done already. Have received all statements, etc. (conveniently on the exact day of the 40 day expiry). Have tallied up all the charges, it amounts to almost £1900 if you include the overdraft interest that has been applied to the charges. (About £1500 without interest) I was trying to find the template letter for the preliminary request for repayment using the new arguments, but I could not find one (they all had references to the OFT case and s6. UTCCR arguments). I did find the one I needed on moneysavingexpert though. I did find the guides on this site as well. As I understand, I have to prove that NatWest claimed that their charges covered their administration costs. I couldn't find any documents that said this, but they may exist somewhere. I opened the account back in 2004, which was long before the OFT case and NWB remarketing their charges as 'payment for services'. The one thing I did find was an old 'full and final' request to repay some bank charges on this account, but back from 2006. This time they mentioned nothing about the charges being payment for a service, nor that they were being used as cross-subsidy. The paragraph that caught my attention was "We believe our charges are fair, reasonable and transparent. We consider that the amounts debited to your account have been applied strictly in accordance with your agreement with us and our published tariff, which we are satisfied, complies with all applicable laws and regulations. We are also committed to ensuring the transparency of the information that we give to our customers about the operation of our accounts." Don't know if this is of any use, its the only thing I could find.

Thanks for the reply I'll go and check it out

Good luck with the case! I found a similar letter to the one you have from natwest. This was another 'full and final' request to repay some bank charges, but this one was back from 2006. This time they mentioned nothing about the charges being payment for a service, nor that they were being used as cross-subsidy. The paragraph that caught my attention was "We believe our charges are fair, reasonable and transparent. We consider that the amounts debited to your account have been applied strictly in accordance with your agreement with us and our published tariff, which we are satisfied, complies with all applicable laws and regulations. We are also committed to ensuring the transparency of the information that we give to our customers about the operation of our accounts." Don't know if this letter is of use to anyone.

Hi, Don't know if anyone can help me. I used to have a current account with NatWest and rang up about £1,800 in charges before they defaulted me and closed the account. This all happened back in 2008/09. Now, I know the SC decision was in favour of the banks, but I have read a lot of stuff on here about the charges still being unlawful -- espc. under s.5 UTCCR and s.140a CCA. Also, I have heard people are still having successes despite the SC judgement. I am looking for some advice if it is worth starting the claim process, and how to proceed with it (as I think a lot of the information/letters on this site are for claims prior to the SC judgement). I am not sure if I can take the 'hardship route' since the reason I got the charges in the first place (and entered hardship as a result) was because I had a gambling problem, and I rang up my overdrafts to about £6,000 with gambling debts and bank charges. No doubt they will see the online gambling debits and decline the claim straight away. (Its amazing how they let a 19 year old student's overdraft increase to this level, esp. when statements were filled with gambling transactions!) The charges were applied to a NatWest Current account. I have no problems with going to court, and am prepared to take it all the way.

Hi, first time poster here. I'm not sure if anyone can help with this at all. I am currently a student, and over the summer I applied and got offered a permanent job at Sainsbury's. I was originally intending on taking a year off to save up some money for uni, but I was offered some financial support by the university to return, so I handed in my notice. The management were understanding, and said it was very likely that they would take me back on as a temporary employee over the university holidays. As time went on, it seemed clear that the management were expecting me back and I was led to believe that my position was secured for the christmas holidays. However, on the final day of my notice, my immediate manager took me into the office and said that as a result of my timekeeping record, they will not be offering me my job back in december. I had been late to work a few times over the course of the past couple of weeks. However, they expected me to work long hours, normally 47 hours a week, sometimes even exceeding 60; and also expected me to work until 10.30 on a Friday night and be in at 8.00 the following morning. It was a 1.5 hr commute into work, so that normally left me only 6.5 hrs of sleep, and often much less than this (if the trains were delayed or cancelled,which they often were). I explained that my poor timekeeping was due to being excessively overtired, and even asked for my hours to be changed, but to no avail. I explained to my manager that by employing me for those hours the company would be in breach of the Work Time Regulations, but my manager's response was "you signed your contract saying you were happy to do those hours, therefore we are not breaking the law". As I understand it, under the WT Regs, I am entitled to an 11-hour rest period between shifts at work, which they failed to oblige. They also fiddled my timesheets a few times so that they could let me work over 47 hours in a week, not only to keep within the WT Regs, but as I later found out, to avoid paying me overtime premium. I know there is not much of a case, I left of my own accord and hadn't been working there very long, but is there anything I can do?:-? Thanks very much for reading through this.