You can only expect a refund of charges incurred whilst in your period of hardship if they agree they treated you unfairly under the banking code (now BCOBS / the lending code ) The interim payment made by the bank was for the hardship, the remainder is based on the testcase and unless your hardship was extreme over a long period I would put a bit more information in your letter about how you feel the charging system was unfair (eg times you asked for help/leaway and were ignored / times DD's were unpaid despite being for less than the charges applied - that kind of thing). Banks don't have to repay anything if you are in hardship, as you know, and if you are arguing that it is outside of the test case, its more resolve your complaint than settle your claim.

Have you missed any payments since getting the CCJ ? Was the CCJ an installment order for a specified amount, or was it a forthwith order where you then made an agreement with Lloyds to pay monthly ?

(edit must think before speaking)

Make sure you add in all your own information and understand what you are writing, don't just send off generic templates which don't suit your case.

you will most likely get a letter from Dg solicitors asking the court to dismiss your claim so you need to be reading up on the issues and new arguments and decide if you want to fight against the dismissal and continue with your claim or get out. Read the main judgment thread in Campaign - I have posted some good info as to the arguments on there. (also @ everyone its polite if someone has helped you elsewhere or on here to give them a mention when requoting their work)

It really depends on the agreement you signed with Licit Legal and any changes you agreed when they went under and shifted cases to FirstStep Legal. How much claim do you have remaining?

Good Good, glad to be of help The parts you have quoted are OR rather than AND, just to be clear as you havent specified. They EITHER ''misrepresented'' in court (noooooooooo never!) OR they have misrepresented to consumers for the past 10 odd years...... We know its the first one, but will they defend the first or the second, or just the key bit BEING has that misrepresentation been to the consumers detriment ? oh and FUNNILY ENOUGH - ALL the banks accidentally lol misrepresented the same charges over the same period of time in the same way ?!?

Are you talking about the Breach wording in terms of the misrepresentation arguments ? (just checking)

You could get behind this campaign - Unfair bank charges - take action - Which? Campaigns

NatWest may already be sending the account to recovery so the account is likely to be closed. Unfortunately, I would say you should speak with your other half no matter how difficult the situation is and then deal with the consequences.

They need a clip round the ear then

They argued that the charges were for consideration of whether to pay or not. Furthermore, on page 14 of OFT1154 it is stated: "3.14 The OFT believes that the fourth challenge described is also likely to be difficult to mount successfully. Even if such a challenge could be brought successfully, it is likely to be limited in its potential effect, in particular because the OFT has been given indications (and has no evidence to the contrary) that banks generally order the sequence of payments where possible in a way that is not harmful to, or even benefits, the interests of customers." http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/personal-current-accounts/oft1154

Laugh Out Loud

Kim the charge is reclaimable.

First things first. Do you still bank with the one you are reclaiming from? Have you spoken to all the creditors you owe and explained the difficulties you are going through? Have you completed an current income and expenditure form and sent it to the bank? Have you sent in any changes in circumstances ie the repossession hearing to the bank(copies btw)? Did you have anything from HMP with regards to the period of incarceration(since you would not be able to work or find work)?

I was on JSA for 3 months and didn't incur one single charge. I wish you wouldn't label people on benefits as being in financial hardship because it does not correlate that someone on JSA is in financial hardship. Someone who has had their income drop and ARE still working can be in financial hardship. In fact, financial hardship payouts continue to occur since the banks still have to consider hardship cases under BCOBS and the lending code(section 9). With regards to making law retrospectively, let's go for the death penalty and kill a few people since it will save some money. Any law has to be fair to both seller and buyer(not saying that it is now at the moment) but it cannot be one sided cos we don't like the agreement. However, the issue of the right of set off is one that does need action over since their is no set rules that certain payments can be protected from being set off, ie benefit payments like JSA, DLA etc,etc,

If you want mass appeal then all consumer groups should support it. With regards to protesting outside banks/handing leaflets out, you have to be careful that it is authorised otherwise you can get into trouble. There has been discussion on leafleting outside banks before on CAG.

Have you read the lending code section 9 re hardship?

What if it wasn't because there cannot be as such a grey area. For example, someone has an item bounced that doesn't cause the maintenance charge, is that a rip off? Caro, you can see what I am saying, if the wording of a petition is simply saying rip off charges then you lose people who say, not all charges are a rip off so why should I support this? At the moment, the issue is why should I support anything that is about either avoidance of commitments or that is simply a loophole. If you can word something that avoids this kind of thing then you can get a broad support. If the wording is "rip off/extortionate" charges then you lose the chance for widespread support and leave the door open for the government to respond very generically. If you can avoid a generic response then the petition will be worth it. For example, the bank charges charter had 70,000+ people sign it(I wasn't one of them btw) but you need numbers and something that many people would agree with post SC decision.

The OFT are consulting with all interested groups. I've yet to see if CAG have taken the opportunity to be involved or not since all other groups have given feedback as to their meetings and will undoubtedly continue to do so as per the OFT announcement as of 22nd December 2009. Are you saying that £5 for an unpaid item is a rip off(which RBS Group currently charge)?

Apparently

Plain Intelligible Language (sorry that wasn't a good example of such) I'm just pointing out Germany as an example as their unfair terms law is much much stronger than ours (I can find a copy if you really want but its quite tedious) and takes the directive much further (actually I think the directive came FROM the german law first) As in the Judgment we haven't and it could be strengthened. If the government won't do it, then it needs a reference to the ECJ from the high court. I'm simply trying to get something more specific to be petitioned for, so the government can't turn round and say the OFT are looking at it etc like they did with the Charter petition, so if we want a Competition Inquiry, we say we want one and why, If we want law changing we say which ones and why - the heart strings pulling stuff has been done over and over and possibly creates a few questions in parliament and some sympathetic noises, but when it comes down to it we are stuck with what the OFT/FSA are doing, until we get something high enough up in the court system, or we get the government to step in. We know they can't just change the law to suit us off the back of one issue, else the banks would just take the government to court wouldnt they.

But they are working on it, they have been held up with the legal issues but now know where they stand, they have made massive changes and are continuing to do so, work WITH them as well as petitioning the government and guide them in the direction the people on the ground actually WANT and need. It is relevant to the thread as you are talking about redress AND the ongoing situation with regards bank charging, and no its not down to me to start a thread about it, you have a forum dedicated to the current work the OFT ARE doing, you could be doing so much more, as a site not just you personally. Sitting and winging and making petitions and talking about protests that wont happen will not change things.

lol I like that BRW. Right Caro, why not spell out exactly what government should do to force redress for consumers. Whats wrong with the directive implementation in the UK as opposed to say, Germany ? Spell it out so the government can't come back, as I said before, with generic bull. Put it in PIL so people know what you are asking for and so the government know what is needed of them.

Sorry Caro I really don't understand what you are trying to acheive with that. The future of bank charges and personal accounts is being looked at heavily and things are changing for the better, the white papers, the market studys, BCOBS regulations etc etc. I don't agree with the 'carry on at will' part. With your references to the Judgment I think you are petitioning for redress for historical charges and past actions of the banks, which is what the test case was primarily wanted for, and the part where you talk about changing the law, I assume you are meaning as indicated by comments in the judgment ? and so thus the UK interpretation of article 4(2) ??? I think a petition to force the OFT to refer the banks to the Competition Commission for an inquiry might also be an idea. I also don't think the OFT's decision is puzzling, they spelt out the reasons pretty clearly.