Yes send the thing recorded delivery with notices of arrears on priority debts(mortgage or rent, council tax, utilities). If you follow the advice of get stuffed then here is your scenario for financial hardship: "6. Where the firm does not have sufficient evidence to assess whether or not the complainant is in fact in financial difficulty, the firm will seek such further relevant information as is reasonably required to make that assessment. In the event that the firm reasonably requires relevant information to be provided by the complainant and the complainant does not provide the requested information within a reasonable period of time, the firm shall not be obliged to treat such a complainant as being in financial difficulty." Your claim and therefore, your choice.

The banks' won the penalties in law argument so the OFT did have the common law argument in when they started the case. The above link is to the Appeal by the banks on whether the charges could be assessed for fairness under UTCCR 1999. To be honest, I think we are discussing a moot point, since Wednesday is going to be whether the charges can be assessed for fairness under UTCCR 1999 not penalties in law and not under the Human Rights Act either.

The charges are the consequence of an action not the catalyst to that action. If the OFT wins their case, then terms that cause charges to occur can be considered for fairness under UTCCR 1999. I personally am in favour of what the US have recently brought out with regards to "overdraft services" in that if you do not opt in then every transaction that takes you over your limit is declined and no charges are made as a result.

Article 3 is about interpretation of the law so what are they doing if they are not doing that since UTCCR 1999 is about an EC directive from 1993 on unfair contract terms? If Article 3 is about interpretation then what is a court doing if it is not interpreting that EC directive and the application into UK law?

But that is still UTCCR 1999. I'm sorry, but I still don't follow your argument on this one.

The issue re hardship is about when income becomes insufficient to cover "reasonable living expenses and meet financial commitments as they become due;" Reasonable living expenses would not include loans, credit cards, store cards, etc,etc, but would include mortgage or rent, council tax, utilities, HP on a car used for work, Income tax bill, or collectively known as priority debt arrears. Let's be honest, there are times when we are very very brassic but it doesn't necessarily lead to missing those essential payments. I doubt you have been evicted for the last 20 years or threatened to be imprisoned for the whole of the last 20 years. Furthermore in advice give by the FSA to firms who use the waiver from March this year "a consideration of a refund of charges, in particular where the charges may have added to the FD during, or immediately before, the period of Financial Difficulty" So income minus charges lead to less money to pay priority debt arrears leading to arrears and therefore refund should be considered. I hope that makes sense. As for the rest of the stuff. I think you know what I think of the financial hardship guide based specifically on the fact of innuendo and lack or real advice on what they need to do(thread announcing the guide is shut so can't discuss the issues in a constructive manner). I assume, as a complete aside, that the washing machine has been on most of yesterday if your daughter is back from uni for the weekend

Apologies, I missed the fact that i used the word "want" where the right word was "what". The answer is no with regards to calling them as witnesses. With regards to letters sent I would assume it would be proof of letters sent but not necessarily that they were received by you. Are we talking court for bank charges?

What do you mean it was not correctly argued?

I personally completely agree with you on that last bit. They give a headline rate but very few people would ever actually get that rate.

On the first part of what you have said the question needs to be asked to the OP, ie does it meet their needs. From post 1 I think the OP is certainly happy with it thus far. The Hardship guide you have written makes no mention of negotiation and there is no provision or guidance given to banks that they have to refund 100% of the charges if the person is in financial hardship. They don't have to accept the offer but the OP got a payout of over 50% of the claim which, unless they can prove that charges further back, caused their current hardship, would be difficult to argue. Personally, I think the payout is pretty good.

Interpretation of legislation?? What has the Supreme Court been doing then? Interpreting the legislation. Any other case law that applies to contracts specifically?

It is unlikely to make any difference to claims unless the Banks' are successful in their appeal.

The Supreme Court are not deciding on fairness on Wednesday. They are deciding if UTCCR 1999 applies to bank charges, ie whether they can be assessed for fairness. They are not deciding on whether they are in fact fair or unfair.

No problems but the OP has only had a Full and Final settlement of the hardship part of the claim. The rest is still live subject to the OFT test case issues resolution.

No they shouldn't do just because he has reclaimed charges.

Unfortunately their student overdraft is not guaranteed. I have to say I have looked on MSE, Halifax website for even guidelines as to how they make their decision but to no avail. I wish I could be more helpful Phatram and suggest what she has to do but it isn't clear what limit she is guaranteed to have.

Caro, I refer you to the FSA Waiver on bank charges point 13.16: "(16) if the firm attempts to resolve a relevant charges complaint after 27 July 2007: (a) the firm must not seek agreement from the complainant that the resolution is in full and final settlement of the matter; (b) in relation to such complaints, if the outcome of the test case produces a result that is more favourable to the complainant, the firm must take all reasonable steps to pay any difference in the amount of compensation actually received by the complainant and that that the complainant would have been entitled if his claim has not been settled by the firm then; and © the firm must explain the implications of its approach and commitment;" relevant part is highlighted in bold.

Which specific law currently supports your case? UTCCR 1999 is being decided upon on Wednesday so is there any other case law you are relying on with regards to bank charges specifically?

They would have a copy of the judgement(the solicitors anyway) a week before the verdict is made public so yes they know what the decision is.

To slightly go off topic, I would always vote in local and general elections because it is democracy in action. Sometimes you vote for the winner and sometimes you don't. Would an x factor style competition to become an MP be any better?(not sure my ears could take them singing, lol)

It's a court case deciding on whether the regulations apply to bank charges. Many people have said how can the bank charge while claimants cannot. Simple, because the legal case is about whether Bank Charges fall under UTCCR 1999 and can be assessed for fairness. The OFT can apply under section 12 of UTCCR 1999 for an injunction against the banks charging terms in the next part of the case that would prevent them from charging customers under those terms subject to the test of fairness under UTCCR 1999. Sorry for long winded answer..

Ok, you can complete a third party mandate on the account to allow you to speak on his behalf or he can ring up go through the security questions and then verbally state that you can talk to them and you can speak to them on the telephone at the point you ring up. Third party mandate would give you authority to speak on his behalf all the time and the second option is just that he would have to ring up everytime and you would then have to take over, so to speak.

Totally agree with JC, if the OFT set a limit they will have to get it to a court agreed deal but that would be to stop date with regards to fairness because it leaves the charges levied from the date historically as requiring action. UTCCR 1999 clearly states that a term that is deemed is unfair is unenforceable in its entirety so we cannot have a situation in which, for example, the level is £12 yet the historic charges are allowed to be partially repaid. The unfair term was completely unenforceable yet we let the banks keep the charge that we now believe is fair. Anyone who challenges charges through the FOS are getting 100% payouts on credit card claims including the £12 ones so it would be perverse if historic charges are not dealt with through the courts. With regards to the challenge to the £12 credit card charges, I think everyone that does challenge them gets their money back. I would add that how far back would have to go through the courts since under UTCCR 1999, it leaves to the national courts to decide how far back you can reclaim and not to the regulator or to the government.

We were discussing the OFT test case cos the discussion had moved on until....... Shall we continue with THAT discussion?

To give Nationwide their dues, they are probably the best in terms of their reasons for saying no and are very much concise and precise. Unfortunately the rest are pretty poor with giving people the reason for rejection.