BC tend to be Egg's tame lawyers - along with Fredrericksons who are Egg's heavy mob. I doubt if they own this debt as I don't think that's their normal modus operandi - and if they do now own it then you should have got an NOA (from Egg) - and if they don't own it then they need to have EGG take you to court - not just BC alone. I would just concentrate on making them woirk for any money Egg give them as suggested above - keeping copies of ALL correspondence, envelopes etc. BD v

So they are not a charge for credit - but are only levied when one needs credit from them? I'm amazed the SC let that go - even a 5 year old can see the flaw in that logic. It's like saying "I'm not going to charge you for buying booze from me - because it's illegal to sell booze without a liquor licence - but there is an entrance fee to my shebeen - but if you don't want any alcoholic booze then that's OK - you don't have to pay the entrance fee". I suspect Strathclyde's finest boys in blue would still arrest me if they came across this situation! I also seem to recall (although not first hand) that Cynthia Payne was done for running a "disorderly house" when she charged an entrance fee for her "parties" - but no further money changed hands when any specific "service" was provided. At least in this case the punters WANTED the services on offer and were willing to pay the "associated fees". BD

And before they argued they were "core" as RDM rightly says the Banks claimed they were levied to "cover costs" associated with the "extra work" of authorising a DD or SO that took a client to £0.01 overdrawn as opposed to £0.01 left in credit. Admittedly they didn't say "just cover costs" so I suppose they could have meant "cover costs 20 times over"? BD PS - have you warned Mike Dailly that he's on such shaky ground? After all, I'm sure he wouldn't want to be wasting SLAB's money (or his time) on a fruitless exercise! I wonder why the Banks fought so hard to try to deny Ms Sharp this chance at Justice if they were as sure it would all end up egg on face for the punter (yet again?).

Tink Hopefully I'm not too late to stop you paying these low life? Pay NOTHING until they provide you with evidence of why you need to pay more. Only thing is they'll trash your credit rating in the meantime - and if you're otherwise squeeky clean that could screw you up for other loans/mortgages for the next 6 years! It disgusting - but not illegal - for them to act like that. However if you prove you owe nothing they'll need to fix it with CRA's - but that could be months away. Do you have all your paperwork? If not, then you should do a SAR to establish just why they claim you are £700 in arrears. BD

Mike Dailly mentions "excessive" and that's good enough for me. I trust him to do what's best for his clients - and that will also help those of us similarly screwed by the banks over the years. I don't really care about the semantics of whether he attacks "price" or "costs"- or both. How else do you get to define (or prove) a charge as "excessive" - or not (which the Banks must now do) if it's not in relation to its "cost"? High price doesn't necessarily mean "excessive" - e.g £200k for a new Rolls Royce is high but might not be excessive - for an old Trabant on the other hand....... However I have LOADS of letters from HBOS saying "this causes extra work for the bank. To cover our costs..." In my language if they do more than that -i.e cross subsidise free banking for those always in credit then they were being dishonest and fraudulent. I'm fed up with HBOS and others supplying Trabant-style products and services (which we did not agree to in the first place) and charging Rolls Royce prices! I look forward to a positive outcome from GLC in due course. BD

Dup BD

That was quick! 54 pages read, understood and assimilated in minutes! I'm not here to argue the finer points of law - or even which Scottish court is the most "junior". I joined CAG to fight against unfair charges and help others do so. I believe this case, if successful for GLC. will force the Banks to refund ALL the £28, £35 and £39 taken without our consent for "unauthorised overdraft charges" and also similarly high and unjustified charge simposed for "bounced" cheques, DD or SO's. I reproduce post 2 in full - and as I said - i bleieve this will acheive my (only) two objcectives in CAG. The reason we have said 'Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges' is twofold. (1) Now that the court has accepted the new legal grounds, and appointed an evidential hearing on those grounds, the effect of this evidentially and tactically is very significant. Section 140B(9) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 provides as follows: (9) If, in any such proceedings, the debtor or a surety alleges that the relationship between the creditor and the debtor is unfair to the debtor, it is for the creditor to prove to the contrary. What this means is that the Bank of Scotland now has to prove its charges are fair in relation to price (under s.140A of the CCA). If you go back to pre-July 2007, that never happened. It always for claimants to prove charges were unfair, which historically was never easy given the banks failure to disclose their true business model etc., Tactically, to place the bank under more pressure, we can enroll an application to ordain the bank 'to lead' at the evidential hearing i.e. we create a prima facie presumption that the charges are unlawful, which the bank can rebut, but the onus is on them, evidentially, to do so, and we can insist that they lead their witnesses and evidence first. We are entitled to do this, given the court has accepted the new grounds of claim. Now, you wouldn't expect us to go into any more details - as our duty is to our client - but we believe we can show on the balance of probabilities that the charges were excessive, and if so, unfair under the CCA. We also have a pending claim to effectively ban the imposition of future charges - so this is considerably more powerful than a simple payment action (which is all we had pre-July 2007). BD

Cupcake I would not sign something that's wrong - as a matter of principle I would give them as much extra work as possible and just write again pointing out their mistake once more - enclosing a further copy of the last letter which told them - and asking again for the breakdown of charges. JMHO. BD

Contador I quote from post 2: What this means is that the Bank of Scotland now has to prove its charges are fair in relation to price (under s.140A of the CCA). If you go back to pre-July 2007, that never happened. It always for claimants to prove charges were unfair, which historically was never easy given the banks failure to disclose their true business model etc., Have you read this thread from the beginning? BD

RDM You sussed us out! Well - given we seem to have either started up or bought over many of the English banks (including founding HSBC and Bank of England) I think we might have to take the blame for trying to "fleece the English". I wonder what would happen if these charges were made illegal up here but not in England???? If that happens then I'm happy to set up "accomodation addresses" for a (relatively) small fee! BD PS - I am not going to mention the fact it was two Scottish Chancellors who set up the FSA and then let the Banks screw things up so completely!

I quote from the first post on this thread (which is where I started with this thread some 13 months ago). Mike Dailly, Principal Solicitor at Govan Law Centre said: "Over the last few weeks, UK banks have been telling one million customers that there were now no grounds to reclaim bank charges, standing November's Supreme Court's decision. Of course, the Supreme Court itself had explained that charges could still be challenged under different legal grounds, and that is what Sheriff Baird has permitted our client to do today at Glasgow Sheriff Court". "But besides a challenge under reg. 5 of the UTCCR, the Bank of Scotland now faces a fresh challenge that charges were excessive and unfair under the Consumer Credit Act. That is a potentially devastating case for them to answer, because under this new law the onus of proof is on the bank to show that charges were fair. Given that our banks have admitted they subsidise 'free-if-in-credit banking' by squeezing more money out their poorest customers through bank charges, they will now have to defend the indefensible. And, they will have the added problem that we are asking the court to prohibit them from imposing future charges under the CCA". To my mind this does tend to suggest the Banks will now have to justify how they arrived at the level of charges they have imposed - i.e. It looks as if the Banks will have to prove their charges were NOT "excessive". BTW although not really relevant to the case in point - I think you've made your point about the Sheriff Court - since this started as a "Small Claim" it's not too surprising it started "at the bottom" . However I don't think I said anything that was not true and everything I said about the power of Sheriffs is certainly true. Hopefully we'll soon have a "junior" Sheriff wipe the floor with"senior" QC's representing the Banks where the highest court in the land failed? BD

Magda OK - let me know if you want any help. I've done quite a few such spreadsheets - and it's amazing how quickly the amount of refund rises at their rates compounded monthly! They should give you all the statements for at least teh last 6 years. Incidentally don't believe any guff about only being entitled to recaim anything over £12 - or that the 6 year limit applies. You can reclaim ALL unfair charges IN FULL right back to the very first one issued (typically around mid 2000). There are a number of threads dealing with both points and sample letters too if needed. BD

Don't know - just know Sheriff Courts are more senior, and Sheriffs are pretty powerful up here - not the sort of people to upset at all as hopefully HBOS will soon find out when a Sheriff deals with the "complicated" case of by how much you can rip off a customer before it is counted as a rip off! BD

You could - if you're feeling generous to these leeches - but once you have the spreadsheet set up it's dead easy to chnage the interest on a month by month basis. BD

As I understand it, the basis of at least one of these cases was that the banks have to show the charges "cover their costs" which is what they used to claim - and that is what they were to be forced to show. At least that's how I recollect this starting off before the banks got worried and tried to get it away from the Small Claims Court (part of Sheriff Court system). Incidentally District Courts are inferior to Sheriff Courts up here. BD

Magda There is a spreadsheet on the site you can use, but it can get complicated if the OC kept changing its contractual interest rates. You can charge interest on each individual unfair default charge from the day they impose it right up until it gets refunded at THEIR Interest rates. In addition if they don't settle out of court then the court will award a further 8% statutory interest on the amount claimed. Hope this helps? BD

Does anyone have any info on when these cases will be heard now? BD

SSS Good luck! Cabot have just bought an old Barclaycard debt which I thought might reach SB. I have just CCA'd them - and they replied to say they have asked Barclaycard for the info but it may take a bit of time - and they returned by £1 PO. Unfortunately it was made out to them so I can't cash it in again! It will be interesting to see what they come up with - and CPUTR will probably be my next move. BD

SSS Is it not a bit odd that the one DCA was acting for all 3 OC's? BD

SHS I thought you had been pressured into agreeing to pay £10 to one creditor. Do you think it might have been to all 3? Might it be worth clarifying - before they do the transcript - that you want a copy of the actual recording - so they don't destroy it? There are two opposing views 1. Is it stronger to have nothing at all on the conversation (i.e force them to admit they don't have a recording - even if they're lying) than a transcript which might be forged but would still be your word against theirs? 2. If they give you a transcript it's most likely they made it just to satisfy the SAR - as I doubt the type up every call afterwards. So if they give you a dodgy transcript and then can't back it up with a copy of the recording then surely they're on even thinner ice - as how on earth did they make the transcript and if it was from the recording why on earth didn't they keep it, knowing how important it might be? Not sure what views best though? BD

SHS Just noticed this bit. Do you have your bank statements showing two £10 payments taken out on the same day? If so you really need the recording (not just a transcript) of the phone call. If they have cloned the second payment then (IMHO) they will be most reluctant to pursue EITHER debt. I think this will be a much stronger card to play than anything about the £10 being for a SAR. You might need to SAR your bank too to get older statements - but the £10 is cheaper than paying the Bank's charge for every statement requested. BD

Be careful not to be led into the DCA trap re what Waksman was actually all about. The signature is not required to comply with S 77/78 but SHOULD be necessary in a properly executed agreement and to enforce the agreement (although it seems some Judges are ignoring this point). CPUTR2008 (see related threads) should flush out whether they do actually have a properly executed agreement. See PriorityOne's posts (and also others) on this powerful weapon. BD

So Peter, Using your previously proferred logic that if a term does NOT prevent "something" or specifically REQUIRE "something else" - then that "something" CAN be done - i.e. since the older MBNA agreements were "silent" on the need to repay the outstanding balances (unlike Egg's) then surely MBNA's older agreements DO permit termination without the balances being repaid? Surely "as sophisticated financial institutions who never make mistakes" (which is what Judges clearly believe?) if they had wanted to have the same terms as Egg surely they would have done so - so clearly they must be quite happy to have unilateral terminations and not be repaid anything further? Since following termination no dodgy DN can be rectified, then no further sums need to be paid by a Debtor to holders of older MBNA accounts (unlike Egg)? BD PS I have two Egg agreements going back to around 2000. It will be interesting to see if these have the same terms as you have quoted.

Peter - See answers marked A; above in bold (it gets very confusing sometimnes to differentiate who has said what otherwise). Surely taking my analysis through to conclusion does tend to infer that those who said only legal arrears are due when an agreement is terminated on the back of a dodgy DN may ALMOST be correct - i.e. possibly not even the ARREARS need to be paid? By "due" I mean "legally enforceable". I do not accept any "moral high ground" arguments where Banks other OC's and DCA's are concerned and believe only debts that can be legally enforced are "due". BD

SHS If they've taken more than one payment of £10 then as you say they have "cloned" this. I seem to recollect a similar case where someone did a SAR - but did not include the £10 and subsequently paid the £10 over the phone and the DCA then applied this as a "payment" to stop the SB kicking in. That person had forgotten the actual circumstances until he came across his copy of the SAR letter some time later. The DCA denied getting the SAR letter and stuck to his story but couldn't provide the recording of the phone call to back it up. On "balance of probabilities" a debtor who was savvy enought to go down the SAR route was most unlikely to fall into the trap of paying the £10 to stop the SB kicking in. DCA's DO lose or misfile letters - they get an awful lot of them - and the Interpretation Act deals with the "deeming of delivery" of letters. After all why would a Debtor have a copy of a letter if they didn't send it? I think you should: a) do the SAR PDQ (to both?) - and see what they have in the way of info - including phone recordings, screen shots etc. b) search your own files in case you had sent such a SAR letter a couple of weeks or so before the phone call? Just one point - when did you first become aware of the DCA's involvement - maybe it was to Monument themselves you sent the SAR letter? BD