Yes makes sense bill, so I assume the only difference then is that all interest calculations on amount incurred due to unlawful charges are made one month in arrears? As I dont have a credit card though, I'm not sure if the one month interest-free 'grace period' relates to each and every charge individually, ie if you get charged £30 (unlawfully) on 15th December, do you not pay any interest until 15th January? Or is it done on a basis whereby you have until the end of the month (or whenever) at which point any charges incurred in that month start accruing interest? I'm guessing the former is more likely, but just to be sure...

That's correct but it's not really the issue at hand - the existing spreadsheet does this, but there is a difference between this and credit card accounts. Bill - that certainly seems to make sense. I'll have a think about that and see if I can come up with something. My understanding of CC charges is also pretty sketchy so I'm reluctant to upload anything untill I'm sure it's correct. The previous spreadsheet was checked by someone much better at maths than me, so I'll do the same with the CC one and then upload it if it gets the all clear.

The spreadsheet is hosted with my ISP now so hopefully ahould remain available. You can get it from here, and if you have any questions etc you can post in this thread and I will help in any way I can.

Hi JonCris - thanks for that. I've hosted the file on my ISP web space now I have broadband back so hopefully this will be more stable. janquinny - I will attempt to find out the differences involved (if any) in credit cards. I'm not sure the way charging etc works for them at the moment but I will find out and upload a credit card version.

I have written a letter to send to their collections center about this (will post later), but I have also just emailed their CEO: They just do not seem to get it do they?! Doesn't inspire me the same sense of confidence I'm afraid! If they have no intention of proceeding then in my eyes these letters amount to abusive attempts at intimidation. Still i'm not going to worry about this over Christmas, we'll see what happens next, but rest assured they ain't getting a penny regardless of what they say or do.

Yes you may well be right, hopefully someone can clarify.

Exactly right. Believe me, when you come to fully understand how weak the Bank's defences are you will feel alot better. They seem very intimidating but peel off the layer of bravado and they are very weak indeed - hence them paying up before they have to rely on it in court

The 5k limit is the base claim before any interest is added I believe. Whether the same applies to contractual interest I'm not sure, but I don't see why not.

But they're not charging extortionate fees for a 'service' where they should be expected to know these things.

Feel free to use whatever you like, that's why we post it

Yet you are remarkably reluctant to put him (her?) straight with any kind of fact. Your response is the written equivelant of putting your fingers in your ears and running away shouting "lalalalala"

And that's a fair price to pay for sending a couple of letters and filing a court claim?! Incidentally was the contractual interest your idea? I notice you didn't post that up anywhere? If so how is this not just profiting from the work of others by offering a very, VERY poor level of value? And how is this a good thing? I mean, 2 letters plus filing a claim earns you £2400? And you claim to have automated much of this? Seems you clients would have a reasonable claim against you under the sale of goods and services act for charging a price that is neither fair nor reasonable! I pity the ones who don't find the info for free and happen accross you first. They must kick themselves when they realise they spent £2400 on 2 first class stamps and the bus fare to the court.

Or it shows that they happened accross an advert offering to take the banks on and get them back their money without ever reaslising how easy it is to do yourself...

I would argue there are plenty of businesses that people use and receive a bad service. however in a one-off service you really can't do alot about it. Besides, the argument isn't whether people will getr (some of ) their money - that's pretty much a given. The point is that they could very easily do this on their own but probably don't realise it. Also 9/10 statistics are made up on the spot and 87% of those are completely meaningless. Incidentally regarding your first comment, I thought it was worth highlighting as a cynic would say it could be interpreted as "when I have anything of my own to add to the work already provided for free by others...".

Bet that inspires confidence in your customers

You can either scan a letter as an image and attach it (I wouldnt do this without blanking your personal details first) or you can use OCR (Optical Character Recognition) if your scanner software offers it to convert the letter to a digital text version then copy and paste the text into a post. The exact procedure for these options will vary depending on the software you are using with your scanner - if you are unsure have a look at the manufacturers web site for the manual. Personally I just wait for Lucid to type them up

I refer you again to my previous point: The banks are unaffected by the persons actions. It makes absolutely no difference to them if a person arranges a payment when they have no money there, or if they arrange payment when the money is there. Their computer simply checks the balance and either pays it or doesn't. If anything the bank is even less inconvinienced by returning a DD debit than paying it to the tune of the few CPU cycles and a few bytes of bandwidth involved in actually transferring the money. The bank do not need to impose a deterrant, and their charges not a deterrant. It's simply an easy (but entirely arbitrary) way of getting more money. The only losers resulting from an unpaid item are the payee and, to a lesser extent, the payer (in that they have to chased by the payee).

I think you are mistaken in believeing the banks need a "lever". Don't forget that the banks don't pay the DD then charge you for that service, they don't pay it, then charge you. They are no worse off either way, as either way it's costing them nothing, so they really don't need to worry about the irresponsible few. All they have to do is not pay the DD, cheque or whatever (which they do anyway). This leaves the customer with an unpaid bill which they will have to sort out. This is incentive enough for most, and for those reckless few it's not like it inconvinences the bank - their systems are entirely automated. It costs them nothing, the person involved still has to pay their bill - the situation is effectively the same for all as before the DD was due, and this is why there is so much anger. It's as if nothing has happened, yet you've been charged £30. How is that in any way fair? But how many more people are there getting charged than have £50-500k sitting in the bank. They made £4.5b from charges last year. I'd wager they made less from the interest on these substantial accounts. Similarly most of their profit is generated from playing the market with their customer's money, however again I would wager the collective balance of the average population far outweighs the collective balance of those with the kind of sums you mention. I certainly doubt that these wealthy few are subsising the poorer members of society to any great extent. As an aside I see it as perfectly reasonable that the wealthy subsidise the poor, but that's a different dicussion. And if it carries on like that they will run out of ways to screw us and start having to be more honest. That's a very negative and defeatist attitude you seem to have. Personally I would rather get screwed in one less way than just lie back and take it.

Yes I would agree with Gary, just wait it out now (this the hardest bit of all in many ways). They've said it themselves - "The defendant intends to rely upon it's defense and the terms and conditions that govern the account". If that's all they've got, they'll lose! Your settlement won't be far away.

Is this not what happened with J2b though? I havent read the thread recently but I thought he accepted partial payment and this could not then be discussed in court, hence he couldn't argue for the default removal. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Are you sure they haven't indicated they will want to discuss settlement. This is just a box they tick, not a statement as such. Even if they haven't don't panic. You could certainly as for settlement but be wary of being too subservient. Just send them a simple letter along the lines of "I would like to open the way for communication should you wish to discuss settlement or any other matter relating to this case". This will not be classed as harrasment but to be honest it probably wont do you any good. It's just a waiting game, but rest assured they will refund your money.

There are gounds for consequential loss but you have to be able to prove with absolute certainty each and every loss that you suffered that was a direct consequence of your charges. It's a different ball game from claiming back charges.

Grr damn tiscali you have my depest sympathies. Aside from Lloyds are the worst company I have ever dealt with. You should read up on the sale of goods and services act which specifically states that a contract become active when the provision of the service is started. So they cannot charge you until you got the BB sorted. As for suing them for the rest, that could be more complicated, but I would certainly complain about the money they billed.

Agreed Westy that is a ridiculous assertion. Why does a community need to be balanced? Is your idea of perfection a world where half of the community are in favour of murder, child abuse, rape etc? The reason this seems like you are in the minority is that you are in the minority. Most others (including the legal system) seem to be able to come to the conclusion that the Banks are at fault.

If you have asked for it in you POC I would strongly suggest you don't settle. If you do, even if you continue the claim for the default removal there is a chance it will be defended in court. This is just my opinion but pretty much the only way you will get a default removed is by submitted a claim for charges AND removal of default caused by the charges together. They will really fight the default, but they will have to give in unless they want to be in court based on the charges. Accepting the charges gives them a way out. They may try to tell you that you have to accept the charges only - you don't, you only have to accept a full settlement, ie everything you have claimed for. You can do something about this, don't be taken inby their assertions that you can't. I would refuse their settlement and remind them that it also includes removal of default, then stick by your guns.