W Things bumping along OK with me too - no further F&F activity - I'm only paying out two lots of £5 per month to Egg and Barclaycard - and just fending off various new DCA's who turn up every so often to chase up on the othe runresolved debts - but go away when I tell them I've got unanswered CCA or SAR requests and to come back when these have been answered. It's just a case of waiting until these debts become SB - but they are all still 2-3 years away as foolishly (pre CAG) I was paying small token amounts to any new DCA's when forced to do so - I now know this was to restart the SB clock and stop it ticking to the SB date too quickly - I now know not to do anything like that - and I just tell them to come back when the outstanding CCA or SAR request has been fully dealt with! However I'm having a bit of a problem with Glasgow Parking who claim an appeal letter I sent them didn't arrive - see thread below. They've gone right to the Bailiff stage without my getting any chance to state my case to anyone impartial - local democracy??? HUH!!!! http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?276853-Does-the-OFT-guidelines-on-Debt-Collection-apply-to-Council-Parking-Fines-and-Council-Tax-debts

Quick update. After exactly 53 weeks of hearing nothing - and no response to letters sent to both the Council and Stirling Park (debt collectors) - two Sheriff Officers arrived on my doorstep without warning - upsetting my wife yet again. Luckily I was in and offered these two goons a copy of all my correspondence - but they refused to accept it - and even refused to sign a letter saying they refused to accept it! They've valued my car (worth well over £12k - most of it still owed to the Finance Company) at just over £3k - and stated it could be repossessed and sold at auction if I don't pay up on the disputed parking fine. I'm not sure what to do now - I don't want to give in when they've just ignored my letters etc. - but I can't afford to lose my car. Any help would be appreciated. BD

W Lonmg time no hear - hopefully a good sign? How are things going with you now? BD

I've been away for a while (no - not that kind of "away" - I'm sure they've got better broadband than any of us can afford in there anyway) - so I'm just catching up on threads of interest. The thing is it now seems to me that we are back into a two tier justice situation - the Banks will cave in when people can use legal aid - but will continue to prevaricate when cutomers need to risk their own money in fighting them. I think these kind of "confidential" deals should be made illegal - after all surely "justice" must be seen to be done - and apply to all - not just to those who can use legal aid? Hopefully GLC "phase 2" might help the rest of us? I'm puzzled though that in this anti-Bank culture there has been nothing in the papers or media even to report that there is nothing to report other than two cases have been withdrawn. Perhaps CAG should be more pro-activae in publicising things like this. BD PS - Totally agree - OFT please BUTT out thsi time around - leave it to those more competent - i.e. everyone else!

This wait is killing me! Having been married for over 40 years I'm just not used to so much silence. However I suppose we've just got to think that no news is good news - but it's bl**dy frustrating just how these banks are managing to find more ways to hold on to the money they've taken from us in all these unfair charges over many years! BD

I fear we might be heading to another OFT SLC debacle if this sees the light of day! I would prefer to put my faith in Mike Dailly and GLC on this. I have been following this - and many other now lapsed thresads for a very long time - I think the Banks want to use our mortality to keep this saga going until we are all dead! However I have very determined sons and now a grandson who will keep my fight alive on this issue! One thing I remember from earlier threads is that the Banks used to claim that the £39 (or whatever) charge was simply "to cover our costs". Surely the whole issue would just go away if the banks simply produced their evidence to back up these claims? Surely the banks wouldn't have been lying - and therefore can actually substantiate these claims? BD PS For some reason I can't get a sarcastic smilie - or any smilie to come up here - but for the avoidance of doubt I was being sarcastic and DID NOT MEAN the above!!!!

I totally agree - but as someone said earlier, whilst the actual "cake" might be hidden in a confidentiality agreement, surely the "recipe" can be reproduced? If so then we'll be back to the position where every claim is met "as a goodwill gesture" as it used to be before the OFT stuck its oar in and let the Banks win in the SC on a technicality. Is there any way we could summon any Sheriff who was involved in a case that went confidential as a witness to give evidence as to what he would have ruled had the case progressed to a conclusion and the rug not been pulled from under him? After all, if it was now clear to the Sheriff the banks should lose (and thus the public win) then surely it's in the public interest not to allow them to hide behind any such confidentiality agreements? BD PS - I've just realised - I'm falling back into the trap of trying to apply moral judgements and common sense to THE LAW (sigh!!!).

I note the big post 1319 refers to AMENDING current small claims. In my own case I just complained to the Bank and they told me "no dice" - follwoed by FOS who supported the bank - so I was waiting on the SC judgement - so I never raised any case that could now be amended. If the arguments in post 1319 do prove successful are they only relevant to those with a claim already made - or can we make fresh claims on the grounds we would have done so earlier but were misled by the Banks as to our actual legal position? On that point if the banks did mislead us - are they not guilty of fraud or misrepresentation? At a minimum their misleading info caused us to "take a transactional decision we would otherwise not have done - so surely against CPUTR? BD

Good idea. Since patience is a virtue the banks won't understand it! BD

My flesh crawled whenever I saw her on TV. She epitomised the impression we have of "greedy bankers" with no emotion or humanity visible in any of her words or gestures - apart from the evil grin she showed after the SC debacle. I only hope they don't manage to get someone who is more "media-friendly" as at least we KNEW she was our enemy! I remeber when I was a student that an undercover communist managed to get elected leader of the University Conservative Association - and then reaped havoc on the hooray hendries from within their own HQ and using their own funds! With this thought in mind I think we should all apply for her job - and swamp whatever recruitment agency gets this poisoned chalice - unless it's all sown up already - but that would smack of privelige and insider trading - so can't possibly be the situation! BD

I'm getting really confused. Sometimes I get Kennyh's post 1309 of 18 April as the last post - and sometimes one from Caro. This is a VERY important thresad -e specially to us in Scotland. Can someone from the site team please look at this and ensure we can see all relevant posts? Does ANYONE (who can or will tell us) know the current situation regarding either the Reid or Sharpe cases? BD

Thanks for that - I really hope its sentiments become reality. It's totally anticompetitive that the established banks can offer "free if in credit" banking on the backs of their most vulnerable clients. This stifles any hope of new entrants to this market and given how similar the current big banks are in their practices, there is in effcet NO COMPETITION in the present banking market. On another point I note Mike Dailly (of GLC?) is the author - but note nothing further in the public domain following the Glasgow Sheriff Court hearing which was due earlier this month. I note Santander have foleded in one Scottish case but can anyone throw more light on the Sharp or Reid cases? BD

Be sure to watch Scottish news or check out GLC's web site after next Monday for news on the Reid v. Clydesdale unfair charges case. BD

Panther I have a similar thing with an old Egg loan which I stopped paying about 3 years ago - now sold to Aktiv Kapital who offered a 65% discount when I told them that Egg hadn't responded to a SAR request made over 2 years ago . It seemed to stop Egg chasing me up - but still no info sent by them. I suspect there's not any paperwork to back up their case - hence the big discount on offer. However I've decided not to pay them the 35% they'll settle for - but to pay them 0% unless and until they comply with the SAR - that was a few months ago - zilch heard since! Good luck! BD

Just noticed my signature is not showing - not sure why? BD