That doesn't reaaly help - I just want to know if the landlord is legally entitled to withold a deposit to redecorate the whole place - even though we have reaaly looked after the place over 2 yrs. I don't trust him as he's a tight wad and has never fixed anything since we moved in and has also never had a boiler inspection.

We have lived in the property for over 2 years now - from new and the property was never redecorated - however when we gave notice on the place - he is saying that we need to pay him to get the place redecorated. Is he allowed to do this? We don't have a current contract (it expired after 12 months) and he holds 1.5 months rent as a security deposit. Help!

seems like £500m was a cheap price for a cracking egg... Pru admits overvaluing Egg as bank is sold to Citigroup - Industry sectors - Times Online

can a mod delete this pls - reason not 2500 it was 75,000

...and they weren't hers. BBC NEWS | Scotland | North East/N Isles | Woman gets 75,000 bank statements

...and they weren't hers. BBC NEWS | Scotland | North East/N Isles | Woman gets 75,000 bank statements

just announced on BBC news

sent an email to david owen (bmi legal advidor) stating pay up or face more legal action and costs. cheque arrived yesterday - result! So it was worth the £30 to take them to court!

I did send a letter saying I accept the offer mid december.. nearly a month gone now. I will contact them again asking for the money plus the statutory 8% interest which will add to about £3 - will get me a pint down't pub I suppose...

Here is the letter from BMI outlining their settlement offer. I have accepted this as It was what my claim was for. ImageShack - Hosting :: bmixi0.jpg (they still have not paid it though) :-|

no, they have to prove that their admin fees are NOT baloney

Thanks, my case about bmi was the fact that they wanted to charge £50 to administer the refund and I said that it was unreasonable (taking the unfair bank charges template) They may charge an 'administration fee' (which if it's over £5) is excessive imo- £50 in my case. This is when you take action to take them to court and they have to prove that these 'administration fees' are a reasonable fee for a service otherwise they constitute a punitive charge. Direct action with the courts is often the most efficient way to deal with these leeches. In my case they settled out of court and strongly denied they were punitive charges but I got all my money back just before court date. Once again, don't listen to idiots on here who have strong opinions to the contrary. M

If you go onto woolworths site and buy something there is no mention at all of "click to accept terms and conditions" or "I accept t's and c's" etc. Does this mean that consumers are bound by them if they are 'hidden' ? Also, it would have been reasonable to assume that £150 for a £1000 telly was a genuine offer when they stated: "MASSIVE SAVINGS ON TV's - upto £800 off!!"

I know it's possible to take ryan air to court in England because if the wheelchair fiasco (when they now charge everyone for wheel chairs as a tax) you seem to be doing the correct thing, you just need to find the correct address in england to firstly write to and then issue the court claim. Try companies house website as every company that operates in the UK has to have a registered office on there.

You have an excellent case - better than my bmi one in fact (that was settled out of court at the last minute) just stick with it and don't cave in. It is identical to the bank charges fiasco - dont let anyone tell you otherwise - unless it's a district judge.

Great news, I got a letter today from BMI offering to settle the £97 in full. Merry christmas! M

Personally I would even go as far to say that £5 is excessive for going overdrawn (especially with egg as thier system is paperless and post free) An automated process is employed that simply adds the (£20 charge) to the customers account and I doubt that this process even costs £5. The interest on going £10 over your credit limit is actually only 1.3p per day or 39p a month (based on the BOE base rate of 5%) and this cost is even less when you take into account the banks lending rate which is 2%. Bank charges are a money making venture for the banks. I would like egg to appeal to show the true cost of going over ones limit on ones credit card and maybe then customers will only pay the true cost of doing so and have a right to claim all of the previously unlawful charges on their accounts (minus the actual cost) I used to work for egg (and other banks) and I know for a fact that they don't employ monkeys to calculate that someone has gone over their credit limit and add charges onto peoples account - it's an automated computerised process that costs only the electricity to run the computer that the calculation and automated notification is run on. It's only when you as a customer ring or email to complain, that there is manual intervention and someone will look into it and invariably decide not to waive it - especially if you are a persistent offender. (like me) Obviously though, it is ultimately up to the courts to decide what the actual cost to the bank is. And I am of firm belief that the court in this case has made a mistake in saying that £5 is a 'reasonable charge'. When you take into account that in Barcotes case, the judge asked to see evidence of actual costs and Egg submitted a document with parts missing (i.e not the whole truth) there is still some milage in pursuing even this £5 punitive charge that make £bn's in profit each year. It will take an appeal either by barcote or by egg to for this to be escalated into a higher court where egg cannot dither and pick and choose over what evidence they wish submit. Personally, if I was barcote I would in fact appeal against the £5 'reasonable cost' on the grounds that it was still too high - purely because I know the true cost of going overdrawn and bouncing a direct debit etc from working in an IT back office banking environment over the past 10 years. I am personally on the verge of claiming my £800 or so from egg (yes, they do charge their employees for going over their credit limit too - and I am a disgruntled ex-egg empoyee too) so I wait with baited breath to have the opportunity to appeal against the £5 'reasonable charge' - unless someone else quite rightly gets there before me. Magz

Given that egg are largely an 'innovative' new company that is isolated from the wider banking world, massively in debt and is actively looking for a buyer they are a risky company especialy if you calculate the liability they have with all these back charges. Eggs potential risk: If there was an 'average' of 5 charges per customer over 6 years at £20, with an average 'actual' (very conservative) cost of £4 this would leave a balance of £16 * 5 charges * 2.8 million customers = £224m A potential total of £224m wiped off the value of egg (25% of it's value as of dec last year) I this is only a theoretical risk and is based on highly conservative estimations of average assumption of a customer having only one charge per year. (I had 40 over 6 years) Even at 2 charges per customer per year, over 6 years, this is a crippling 50% of the value of the company. Bigger banks can absorb this risk but egg are only worth about £950m as a single entity (as of december last year) so it does not suprise me in the least that egg are defending these claims (it would appear) the most rigourously. The upshot of this is that if prudential wish to sell egg then buyers would have to take this liability into account and that makes egg poor value for money. Magz

MOO, One last straw to clutch - but I think I have a solution for you. I went through a pretend online booking with PD website... When you did the online booking with portland you would have had to agree having your own insurance OR getting their own insurance.. If you did inded have insurance then read on... Reading through the small print it would appear that you are covered in the event of you cancelling the holiday up to the limit of the cancellation charge. see insurance here: Portland | Essentials | Insurance search the page for 'cancel' You will have to speak to PD about the claim or read through it in more detail but you should be covered and will be able to claim back the £300 + £70 (which is in effect their cancellation charge) If you had a different policy then check that too as you still may be covered for some of the cost. I suggest you pay what they ask and to avoid court and then claim on the insurance (but double double check you can do this with them first) Magz

Barcote, Thankyou for agreening to answer any limited substantive questions of law and questions relating to case preparation. Please can you post your "particulars of claim" that you sent to the county court. (obviously with any identifiable or confidential information taken out) You may be doing things that the conventional template on this site is simply not doing. It will certainly help other users in Case Preparation against egg and other institutions if they can draw from your experience as you outline above. Also, please can you post the defence that egg would have submitted? (again while protecting your identity and confidentiality) This will help with case preparation in anticipation of what to expect from egg. Your help and time is greatly appreciated especially when done pro bono and without compensation for the public good. Best Regards, M

Indeed BF I smell a rat with this thread... Please explain Barcote, how you joined in March? (At least three months before you claimed to have 'discovered' this site) Also, you speak and transcribe like my brother (who's a barrister) Magz

In that case, we need to see the wording of the contract and know the total value of the holiday (plus surcharges). can you post it on here?

Bookworm, In that case, there is then the question of weather the £70 is all of the deposit or not. According to chambers english (UK) a deposit is: "deposit verb (deposited, depositing) 1 to put down or leave something. 23 to give (a sum of money) as the first part of the payment for something, so guaranteeing that one can complete the purchase later. to put (money, etc) in a bank, etc, for safekeeping or to earn interest. " Chambers Reference Online So in effect if £70 has alreay been paid and this is the first payment, then, by the definition above (and by default), any subsequent payment cannot consitute a 'deposit' because the first payment has been made. Further payments to this £70 cannot be anything of the sort. Further payments can be 'installments' or 'balances', but a 'deposit'? It has to be said that the 'charge' is still unfair but you may be able to stick a thorn in PH side by also disputing what their definition of 'deposit' actually means - if the judge is to take advice from Chambers dictionary then the remainder (£300) is a punitive charge for cancelling the holiday. I have to agree with bookworm for not asking for the £70 deposit back. If you are to go ahead with this you will have to wait until they take you to court and then submit a defence.

Just out of interest, how much was the total cost of the holiday?

Rest assured that they are only trying to scare you off court action. And they seem to be doing just that judging by your reaction! However, all is not lost. Firstly, their OFT quotes are from 5 years ago - meaning that in the last 5 years, the charges could be unreasonable. Secondly, their quoting the OFT ruling faild to highlight a few important points in that report: "Term 1 ("Our agreement") had allowed the company to levy a cancellation charge for failure by the consumer to pay the balance of the holiday price eight weeks before departure, while giving the company discretion over when to regard the cancellation as having occurred. The term was amended to provide expressly that the company did have discretion to charge the amount set out in the cancellation scale if the period for payment was extended at the consumer's request. However it was considered that the term could be used to charge more than the deposit if the consumer failed to pay by the due date without the period being extended at his/her request." Report here:http://www.oft.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/18BED3C2-385B-434D-BC00-9FE7BC771C33/0/oft720.pdf (Do a search for "cancellation" in this PFD and read through some of the OFT rulings) In any case, it still remains that Portland holidays have unfair terms in their contracts. In that you have to pay for all of the cost of the holiday - when in fact you don't! The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCRs) came into force on 1 October 1999 and replaced the 1994 Regulations. The regulations implement an EC Directive (EC Directive 93/13) in the UK. UTCCRs apply to standard contract terms used with consumers in contracts made after 1 July 1995. The Regulations say that a consumer is not bound by a standard term in a contract with a seller or supplier if that term is unfair. They also give the OFT and other Qualifying Bodies powers to stop the use of unfair standard terms, if necessary by obtaining a court injunction. Ultimately only a judge in the County Court can decide whether a term is unfair - and not Portland direct's solicitors (they can merely only express their 'opinion') My ninjalike googling has brought this OTF test case to hand: It concerns virgin holidays and their unfair terms and conditions many clauses which were forced to be changed in march 2003. OFT press release: fairer contracts from Virgin Holidays May I draw your attention to the following paragraph: "[the contract] Allowed the company to cancel the holiday, retain the deposit and charge a cancellation charge if the consumer failed to pay the balance of the holiday by the due date. The term also gave the company discretion as to the exact date of cancellation, giving them control over the level of cancellation charges levied. Change - the term now states that if the balance of the holiday is not paid by the due date, the booking will be cancelled and the consumer will forfeit the deposit only." Write back to portland direct solicitors and quote this above. (PM me if you need a letter writing) Also state that you are willing to go to court to get ALL of your money back and force them to change their terms and conditions in accordance with the OFT ruling. Plus costs (£30) and all of your expenses. You have opinion that the terms and conditions are unfair. (and they are in my opinion) Untimately, only a judge can decide if it is. If PH are sensible then they will back down, if not then go ahead with the court action. File a claim in the County court for £30 requesting all of your money back plus costs. One of 2 things will then happen. a) the judge will rule against you...(very very unlikely) and you pay the money back but don't have to pay their costs because it's a small claim. b) the judge will rule in your favour and you will get most of your money back plus your reasonable costs AND PH have to change their terms and conditions so that tyhis will never happen to anyone else again!! Unfortunately, the corporate animal being what it is, they will want their money come hell or high water! But thank God that you live in England, the land of the free where you can use the court system to take on the corporate lions - and WIN! Keep us posted on this, and don't pay them a penny! I will be most intrigued as to what they say after reading your next letter... Magz