lol, those damn pop ups strike again, like the scarlet pimpernel, you never know where they will strike

I think the original press stories, and certainly the original press release, were quite clear that it was a product for mortgage account holders only. The interest rate is quite favourable in comparison to other authorised overdraft rates. They aren't talking about converting mortgages to current accounts either so don't really understand that sentence at all. Quote from santander ''There is no obligation for customers to pay their mortgage from their Zero current account but obviously we would hope that with such a fantastic offering, customers would hold their primary banking relationship with us and manage their standing orders and direct debits from their Zero account.''

Ok, have you spoken with any other banks with regards to mortgages?

The mortgage advisor could have been preparing a case for the underwriters as a result of the decline. If she hasn't contacted you, do you know if she is at work/holiday? Have you left a message on her answerphone on mobile phone(polite one of course)?

JM you already know what I think of the rubbish that is in bold above(and so does the author)

1000% it will not be the end of the OFT test case issues. The Test case is in two parts and this decision is the 50% mark in the test case. Anyone who says otherwise clearly hasn't read the litigation agreement . Next week the Supreme Court is deciding if UTCCR 1999 applies to bank charging terms. If it's a yes then we move onto the "substantive issues". I very much doubt that the banks' will voluntarily comply btw. It has to go back to court and stays continued.

I know and that savings account is a good one

I totally agree with you with regards to that.

I would expect that there will be more advise given to the County Courts if the banks' appeal fails. I fully expect, should the Banks' appeal fail, that all stays will remain for the time being. I would be surprised if there is any lifting of stays.

Further to point 1. It's a bank error plain and simple and the charge is refundable plus any associated charges as a result ie bounced cheques. On 2 if you know the month you called then the bank can audit trail the account for who accessed the account because it should show who dealt with the call but it is misselling imho and if no call that can be listened to exists then it is your word against the banks. Personally on point 2 I think you need to do it in writing and ask for a final response. I think you might have a case for what is called maladministration of the account. They failed to correctly deal with bank error and when you rang up they forced your hand to a packaged account or they would not give you the details of what you wanted.

It is unlikely anything apart from whether bank charge terms can be assessed for fairness will be resolved on Wednesday of next week. The Substantive issues should cover that.

Don't make it a criminal case rather than a civil one as it is at the moment, lol.

Have you been into your branch and asked if they have the details for you?

If tomorrow is 25th November then yes, otherwise the answer is no.

Some people will need to use the rail network to get to London to hear the Supreme Court Judgement in person. Surely, you knew that

See the above.

One thing that struck me was 2 things: 1) was the original £28 part of a charge not already waived because of the second bank error? 2) I would say that you have a strong case on misselling of the advantage blue with the circumstances you have stated.

I always say this on forums but keep us updated

The current decision in the Supreme Court will not decide on refunds nor will it decide on past charges. It is currently about whether UTCCR 1999 applies to bank charges.

I know but they won't allow me to tell their "administrative staff" how to do their job They can tell you the correct date NatWest Archive, product history

Why would it go down Next Wednesday since the Supreme Court are not ruling on the issue of fairness?

In that case, I can't see her objecting to it

You big kid First child?

If it's a credit card claim and you are happy with the settlement then accept it.

CAG, this site, recommends going to the court route regardless of anything else even if the case is going to be stayed anyway.