corruption allegations in Italy - surely not!

Anyone else see the article in the Glasgow Herald 15th Feb noting that three senior staff have quit RBS' investment business? Interesting that one is walking into job with Morgan Stanley, and its highly unlikely the others will be collecting dole money, these guys never jump without a parachute. Perhaps the squeeze on bonuses is having some effect then?

my settlement for him includes the use of the words "testicles, plate and cut" In any other jurisdiction he would be in jail already, but here the lily livered government and its advisor actually signed off his massive extra pension instead. It makes me mad beyond words that he sails off into the the sunset, secures employment with that showboating bunch of cowboys - RMJM Architects and nobody is held accountable for the mess he presided over. Amazing!

Anorak moment! One of the best Thai restaurants in Glasgow - The Thai Fountain, still does, I wonder how many more we can find?

Exactly!

Blimey, is Diners Club still on the go?

excellent idea! Baffle them with science, or as said before, go somewhere else! I agree about inkjet printing too, can be fun, but as a pro I never print my own. Making even small adjustments can get through a lot of ink and pro printers build wastage into their overheads. If you're not happy you ask for another print and only pay for the good ones. Besides, the range of sizes is far wider (up to AO if required)

were the brokers fees not shown on the Key Facts Illustration? If not, they have broken a major FSA requirement which is sufficient to nullify any "agreement" you may have entered into. If they were on the KFI but not explained or pointed out prior to signing, the ground is less certain as it becomes your word against the advisor's and ultimately you're supposed to read the docs before you sign them. It certainly sounds odd given the "no fee service" statement so I would be looking closely at their terms of business (another FSA requirement). Usually the final stage is in signing the Offer of Loan from the lender, but it doesn't sound like you're at that stage yet so there's plenty of scope to stop this progressing too far.

No guarantee whatsoever, but it seems clear we're talking about morons here who think CDs = Professional so they may be equally blinded by "proof" especially if well presented. Failing that, go elsewhere! My bad experience related to the practice of providing clients with transproofs several years back on the basis that they could be projected easily to judge their appearance but were beyond the scope for printing by the local 1 hour labs. My dear clients had every slide copied onto negative and ordered loads of prints thereby missing me out of the loop and costing me a a couple of hundred pounds of lost revenue. When I tracked down the lab that did the work they hid behind the "they said they were their own pictures" defence. Ultimately a solicitor's letter got me £150 and gave them a fright but it left a sour taste and forced a rethink of how to present proofs in future. I think this stance comes from some companies being successfully sued by pro studios and they are understandably nervous, but as you say, probably fresh out of training and a little over zealous in applying the rules.

If that fails go and put petrol in your car with the credit amount.

Not true I'm afraid and as a professional photographer I'm grateful they take this stance. The best way around this is to take written proof from the photographer stating that they are copyright free which gives the printer effective immunity from action later; or simply go to another shop like Jessops who simply ask you confirm that you own the copyright. Having said all that, it seems strange that the printer is willingly turning away business. Perhaps they are flattering the photographer's skills in assuming they were professionally taken! Ultimately you can vote with your feet!

I think its far more likely that they simply didn't want the hassle of arguing with you, or facing the option of returning the item, rather than them "not having a leg to stand on". I have to agree with Gezwee on this. Too many more of these cases will either force them out of the market or have them increase prices to the going rate. Glad you saved your £8 - well done.

I agree with Ida, your share of the equity is exactly that - your share. I note your comment re no credit searches for staff, but you are wrong. All lending decisions involve some form of search. Overdrafts may be offered after a purely internal "score" has been obtained, but loans certainly need the full search. Although the terms may be softer for staff, the consequences for failure are more severe. In other words, banks expect their staff to behave better than customers as they should be setting an example and are closer to the detail. I'm also struggling with the concept that an unsecured loan can become attached to the equity in a property on default, simply because the debtor is a member of staff. That sounds really odd. By "court order" do you mean "arrestment" or "legal attachment"? as this would make more sense. Once again, they can only attach your ex's share of the equity unless you had any responsibility for the loan or overdraft. They need to be chasing her not you.

Cheers PW, and good luck with this.

Help me out here guys as I'm a wee bit confused now. I had thought PW had RBS on the ropes and that they were offering him money to go away. This letter suggests they want money from him, and confidentiality, for them to leave him alone. Did I miss something or simply misunderstand what's happening here?

so back to monthly account charges for everyone then? I remember this last time around and much prefer the current option. Its not like there's a huge secret here, account balances have never been easier to track with internet and telephone banking. you can even see where you are from ATMs unlike years ago when we all had to to keep track of sending by making notes in our cheque books. Lets stop pretending here's a big mystery here - the banks need fees and charges to make money so they aren't going to go away any time soon. That's why they kept on appealling until they got a decision that suited them. The government has always understood this and now they are the major shareholder in three banks, they will do everything they can to reinforce thebanks' potion, they cannot afford to do anything else. There will be small victories along the way, and all power to anyone claiming against the system, but a wholesale change isn't on the cards anytime soon.

the word you're looking for is "Shadow limit" not pretend limit. I suspect there is an element of truth in there somewhere, but remember banks charge for not paying items too, so enforcing a xero balance regime wouldn't remove charges, you'd just get different charges from the bank and probably charges from whomever should have been paid too. So it seems a case of pay the direct debit and go over the agreed limit and incur charges and interest; or don't pay beyond your limit and incur charges, interest and a second charge from your mortgage/loan provider, credit card company etc and have a liate payment note added to your credit file. Heads they win - tails they win a bit more.......

I fear you're seeking utopia - sorry, but whilst there's still one person in a position of power, you'll never get what you seek. Lovely idea, but pointless in my view.

from what you're saying it looks like you're expecting them to allow you free reign on one account, whilst you owe them money on another. If this is correct, why are you surprised? I'm not defending the bank here, just confused as to why you thought you'd get any other kind of response? Did you not realise that you would have a customer number to which all your applications would be linked and cross-checked and where issues are found, action is taken to prevent further losses. Any company granting financial facilities would act the same way, check out BT or Scottish Power and you'll see what I mean.

Nuke em, I think you're living in the wrong country. America seems much more like the right arena for your theories as your links seem to originate over there. The last time anything like this succeeded Che Guevara lead the revolt for the free man. Although he died his ideals live on in Cuba, but its not my idea of utopia. I love the idea of overturning the mega powerful elite's control over our daily lives, but it ain't gonna happen in our lifetime. I do appreciate your sense of humour though!

Fair enough point I guess, but until C&E begin their own freight handling operations we're going to be stuck with delivery agents doing their collection work. Given that C&E are reducing their manpower levels, I wouldn't hold your breath.

Hi Katiephil - it seems like you have a right muppet on your tail with this one. If you weren't so concerned it would be really funny. What a clown! Its all hot air. He has no legal rights here whatsoever and despite any threats to the contrary there's nothing he can do. You offered the item for sale, he agreed with the price. You delivered it - deal done. If he wanted to reclaim VAT he should have gone to a retailer. It looks like he's baseing his logic on these being "stolen goods" on you supplying a VAT invoice, that's really intelligent - not! My guess is that the Police will tell him where to go, as he's suggesting he bought stolen goods. They will ask him why he thinks they're stolen and then the laughter will begin....... I agree with BSC, send one more short reply then set your inbox to reject his messages.

Its not uncommon, nor is it illegal, just a descriptive term. With my trusting head on I'd say it was either an error or a conscious decision by the salesperson to enable you to get the funds you were seeking. Its difficult to see how using the term "Home Improvements" would produce a "yes" decision if a debt consolidation lend didn't. The banks would rather see people sorting out their existing borrowing instead of someone in debt borrow more to do up a property. The only difference that I know of between the two, is that Home Improvement loans used to available over ten years, whereas the maximum for all other purposes was seven years. If your loan was for seven years or less, the bank could simply say it was a keying error. Nowadays, most loans face second vetting to ensure their purpose matches the borrowers situation - e.g. Home Imp loans for homeowners.

Call into a branch and sit down with the branch manager. In my experience letters are the slowest way to get things completed and after all, they have already agreed to the refund so there shouldn't be any disagreement.

I thought this was a consumer action forum, its beginning to look like a philosophical debate arena!