Unauthorized payments? Forgive me for being stupid,finance is not my strong point which would explain why i have a load of bank charges but my bank have never ever,and i mean NEVER paid anything for me when i have not had money in my account yet at the last tot up i have paid £2500 in charges. Can someone explain in plain english please,what have i "bought" for my £2500. Is it for some kind of service?if so i have not had it yet. does the above situation go in my favour as i have not at any time used the banks money and been charged for it.Instead the bank has done nothing and charged me for it:mad:

Fair comment,i was not trying to pull Martin Lewis down because you cant deny he has done some damn good work helping people reclaim and making people aware,i was just dissapointed with his comments really

In my opiion,and only mine i must add,his whole article on his site makes for gloomy reading,i think he would have been better not saying anything rather than what he has said. I know he cant give false hope to people but reading his statement gives the impression that things are not too good and i dont think thats the case.

So they should be. Am i right in thinking that the Clause 5 issue could be difficult for the banks to defend?

well done,i am pleased for you Mine is stuck at the moment as i have requested all the old paperwork from them so i can split the OSC and DLC(which i knew nothing about)

Last agreement was taken out April of this year. I think getting the DLC back should be easier than OSC as it obvious that if i would have been asked i would have said no you have the insurance on file. This is were there claims of training to a high standard falls down as they keep quiet and add both sets of cover as a matter of course when i am sure they should point out that cover is added.

Bit of a rethink needed now. got my reply back from BH and sure enough they are not interested so looked at the next move and descoved somthing strange:eek: I worked out the numbers from receipts i had paid and the new agreements with OSC removed and i did think the OSC cost were high compared to the web site but thought no more of it.However BH sent me copies of the old agreements with there get lost letter and i nearly fainted:-? I HAVE BEEN PAYING DLC ON FOUR ACCOUNTS. The very first agreement i have with them which is still active has NO DLC as i said i did not want it and i provided my own policy for them.They took a photo copy of it and it is also wrote on the agreement in the insurance box along with the expiry date.All the other 4 later agreements have had DLC loaded on automaticaly even though they had a copy of my insurance on file:evil::evil:. now interetingly when i sent the letter in to get the OSC removed i never mentioned DLC because as far as i new i did not have it but it has also been removed. What a complete shower:rolleyes: Same situation as post 2 above i think

ummmmm....I see what you mean:mad: I think whats happend is a judge has picked up on the term "deposit paid" When renewing an agreement you would not pay a deposit as this was done already.This does indeed contradict the rules as i read them. If you follow the threads that follow on from the other links it is mentioned that on the new agreement,which a renewal is,it should say that any deposit will be protected.Going on that basis after 6/4/07 your deposit should be protected.

The fact that the link still works means that the page is still there,and yes its from Directgov. The article is saying that all agreements made after 6th April 2007 must have a protected deposit,including renewals after that date.

My thoughts are that if they can justify the amount against a service or a product you have had then fine but its seems to me that they dont know exactly what its for so how can they expect you to pay. I would ask them to be a bit more specific before you pay anything as you have paid you bill already. Tread carefully though as you dont really want to fallout with them as you never know when you may need them.

LBA (Letter before action) Assuming i get a negative response from BH i then LBA them and say that there response is not acceptable and give them a further 7 days or i will start court process without further contact with them.

Dont you just love em. Did the ombudsman give you a time scale to what they are doing? I am thinking once the reply comes to LBA them and then court.

Well had a reply to my "nudge" There exact words were "we are at present drafting are final response which will be with you in due course" I am now taking bets on what the "response" will be......any takers. I will keep posting my progress. Ian

Any advise would be welcome round about now. How long can i let this drag on?Its been 14 days from my first letter to BH They contacted me after two days to say it has been handed over to the area manager.A further two days go by and shop manager phones to say she is investigating and will be in touch within the same week. As yet no more contact has been made.This seems to me to be delaying tactics so the question is how long do i wait before i send another letter stating enough is enough and take it to the next level? The longer i leave it the more they may think i will just go away(which i wont) EDIT Decided give them a nudge,so will update when i know more.

If you can prove the BoS is void and they then take the car that will be your leverage to get the balance wrote of as a void BoS means they need a court order to reposes and they are usually so bloody minded that they dont bother which means they break the law. It all hinges on the BoS.The funding Corporation were known for dodgy BoS but the later ones have changed so maybe they have learnt there lesson.In fact the one in your link is different from mine in that a flaw in the printed text has been removed from yours.Mine refers to the total amount of credit as the principle sum which is incorrect but yours no longer does that.