Have you contacted Billy Bragg to see if he will take part in the celebrity endorsement thing since he has done something "financial services" type thing? I'll find his agent for you. Got it for you: http://www.billybragg.co.uk/contacts/index.html

thanks Landy how you getting on now ?

thanks RGS, yes a heck of a lot of that is based on breach and penalty, even the UTCCR parts. you can amend the POC to remove all those arguments, and yes the main ''new'' arguments are as Martin Lewis has discussed. 1. UTCCR Reg. 5(1) – An imbalance of rights and obligations, contrary to good faith, and to the detriment of the consumer. 2. The Misrepresentation Act 1967 or common law Mistake 3. The Competition Act 1998, Chapter II 4. Undue influence (common law) 5. CCA 1974 (as amended), s140A & 140B – unfair relationship (in overdraft situation cases) 6. Common law penalty 9in certain cases) http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/oft-test-case-updates/139905-h-o-l-test-222.html#post2673306 and the rest of that thread has some good stuff in to help you create your POC, just keep asking for help and if you are stuck then speak to the site team.

I think the England versions will use additional arguments not available in Scotland but no otherwise I can't see why it shouldnt be ok for England, I was only stating what Martin said himself. I'd hope CAG will step up and advise people at some point anyway. Mike Dailly from Govan Law is the instructing solicitor for MSE / Raymond Cox QC

I think you still have a case for either Bank Error in not stopping the original account and allowing the charges to build up even though they were aware of the dispute. It SHOULD have stopped further charges not already due to go out at the point you stepped through the branch and made them aware of the dispute. I don't get why they did not accept you being able to pay it when you offered since realistically you were not saying you weren't going to pay it but that you were going to do so. On the FH stuff, I can see it will be difficult to argue with Lloyds but am very intrigued by how little they did. Perhaps maladministration. I might ask Kraken who is pretty good on FOS complaints to take a look at the thread with regards to maladministration.

A pleasure as always, Landy. OFT launches test case on unauthorised overdraft charges - The Office of Fair Trading This is the original press release, however it is note 1 you need to look at.

On the credit card side of things, are there charges from 2003 cos that may well reduce the overall debt. I am confused on the joint account issue and whether this account is still open or suspended. There may be further room for manoevre on the joint account imho.

They will deal with complaints and log them so that if the issue is widespread that they can take regulatory action. They do not specifically deal with individual cases.

FSA do not deal with financial hardship claims, the FOS do. What are you saying Martin???

We don't have the banking code anymore, Martin, we have BCOBS and we have the lending code section 9(for your reference more than mine). http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:Lb83r9fak3wJ:www.lendingstandardsboard.org.uk/docs/lendingcode.pdf+the+lending+code&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk The above is the lending code.

Was it the branch who refused or telephony? My understanding is that branch staff are not able to opt you out if you are within the reserve but telephony can do.

It was used by the OFT as a one terms fits all term for unarranged borrowing, referral fees, unpaids and guaranteed card payment fees/card misuse fees. Do I need to get the link for this one?

I would say as well that Martin Lewis has already stated that whilst he has seen the Govan Law Centre templates, that they are applicable to Scotland only.

Thanks RGS. A lot rests on the individual negotiation there doesn't it. That really is a minor point - its agreed the terms arent individually negotiated - it isnt that which creates the imbalance. Yes you can still amend your claim, just don't amend it to that. You need, if you want to continue, to do a lot of reading on the arguments. You have until the 26th Feb to apply to amend particulars of claim so a little patience and research is needed. If you are stuck then I believe Caro is asking people to email her with their case so CAG can help you. Costs wise, I have no idea, it would hopefully be limited in small claims, but we have seen costs of £'000's for claims without merit going through hearing.

thanks RGS. Can you post up what you sent DG / entered as your proposed amended particulars ? From hsbcs letter you seem to have only argued on the level of the charge under utccr and penalties, both of which were ruled out in the supreme court judgment. I see there is a mention of the imbalance in rights and obligations. Ahh have you used CAGs template from the letters page ? http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/48-bank-templates/113-4-particulars-of-claim-n1-updated-version-now-available

Which? have withdrawn their FSB amendment suggestion. ''too wide ranging'' and ''prefer a voluntary approach''

thats quite standard and to be expected. Expect them to throw everything at the first few cases in court. We have already seen a London QC attend an application hearing in Scotland. You have to decide yourself on whether you are willing to take the risks involved. If the claim is considered without merit, then even in small claims, the judge does have the discretion to award limited costs. they are correct in that 6(2) has wiped out arguments on level of the charges under 5(1) (the disprop argument) however it hasnt wiped out the imbalance of the contract overall. Martin on MSE has done a nice PIL description of the new approach to the 5(1) arguments, so have a peek at his bank charges updated guide - he will be updating that further next week. hope that helps a little bit, look forward to seeing hsbc's letter, it should help with other claims too if we can counter their arguments up front.

I think it would be a good idea to see DG's response to your letter first Was the letter you sent http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/234710-not-over-yet-rgs1.html#post2613552 one ?

I was asking about the 26th to see if there was anyone else attending with yorkshire bank that day so they could support one another. I dont think there was any need to moderate the question really. For info this case summary mentioned in YBs application documents hasnt been submitted to the court either in the three cases i know of.

Also - if you do hear that Yorkshire HAVE applied to your court - then call Kirstie Ross and ask her for the case summary she alledges to have sent you.

bump - and read GAZ's thread in this forum

Also look at Oceano Grupo http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...8J0240:EN:HTML

To be absolutely blunt with you, yes absolutely. The OFT report in 2006(OFT 842) stated this: "1.14 It must be stressed that this is a statement of our position and reflects the exercise of our discretion as an enforcement agency. Only a court can decide finally whether a term is unfair, or at what level default charges should be set to meet the requirements of the UTCCRs. It should be kept in mind that other enforcers may apply for injunctions under the UTCCRs and that the UTCCRs may be relied upon by consumers in private claims"

Disability Discrimination Act is DDA