Hi, This is Lloyds TSB's early settlement administration fee, equal to 58 days' interest on the loan balance (maximum £250). The terms & conditions do state that the fee will only be £1 if you ask for a settlement quote within the first 30 days of the loan, and pay off the loan by the settlement date in this quotation. And you did miss the deadline, unfortunately, which means that the settlement fee is calculated on the 58 days basis. HOWEVER... Although Lloyds TSB certainly won't let you close the loan without paying this fee, I think you have good grounds for complaining about it afterwards, and for taking the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service if Lloyds TSB reject your complaint. I can give you a very interesting passage from a respected legal textbook that you could use in such a complaint, but it might be a few days before I can put it up here. Basically it condemns the practice of requiring consumers to pay early settlement fees of this sort. I'd be very interested to find out how Lloyds TSB respond if challenged over this!

I'm pretty certain that the £100 minimum applies to the individual transactions, so it looks like my section 75 suggestion isn't going to be much use here, unfortunately. The Ombudsman can and will act differently from the adjudicator if he or she reaches a different view on the basis of the evidence. If you really can prove that both boxes were empty (e.g. does the postage prove that the seller knew they were too light?) then that is a very strong indication that something strange has been going on. No doubt you've already done this, but check online to find out if there have been any other complaints regarding the seller in question. Get in touch with the Office of Fair Trading and see if they can give you any information. If the transactions are out of character in terms of the way you normally operate your account then emphasise this to the Ombudsman. If you have had your account for a long time and this is the first occasion on which you have claimed that fraud has occurred, emphasise this too. The really unpleasant aspect of this case is the fact that your honesty is being questioned, which adds insult to injury and must be very frustrating. I don't know if this would really help very much, but you might want to consider sending the Ombudsman a notarised affidavit affirming that you did not authorise the transactions in question. Maybe you could also arrange for some character references that are supportive of your honesty. It might help to convince the FOS that you are telling the truth if you show them how much you resent the implication of dishonesty. Since the Payment Services Regulations 2009 came into force on 1 November last year, the burden of proof has shifted with regard to transactions that are claimed to be fraudulent. The banks now have to prove that the payment was properly authorised, rather than customers having to prove that the transaction wasn't theirs (check out section 60). I don't know whether this would have any bearing on disputed transactions that occurred before 1 November 2009, though. You might want to consider approaching programmes like Radio 4's Moneybox (or You and Yours) or columns in the press that deal with consumer financial issues. Credit card fraud is very common, but the empty boxes angle and the helplessness of customers in the situation you describe might just catch their attention. Best of luck in any case.

Hi, Were any of the transactions for amounts over £100? In that case then you could always turn the tables on the bank by saying: "OK, you insist that these transactions were properly authorised, but I can prove that the supplier just sent me an empty box. If your position is correct then that means I am entitled to make a claim against you, as the credit card issuer, for the amount of the transaction under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974!" Of course you would want to word it carefully, in order to make it clear that you continue to dispute the bank's position that the transactions were authorised, and that in accepting the bank's position for the purpose of obtaining the refund you are merely being pragmatic. I suspect that the transactions you mention are likely to have been for less than £100, in which case you wouldn't be able to make a claim under section 75. Thought I'd mention the possibility though, just in case.

Hi, If the FOS adjudicator's view is based on information that you consider to be incorrect then I would certainly point this out to them and make it clear that you would like them to review their initial position. I know this seems obvious - but the first letter from an adjudicator sometimes has an unjustified air of finality to it which can discourage people from continuing with their complaints. You might feel that pursuing the complaint isn't likely to get you anywhere (and you might well be right), but you're quite entitled to take it all the way if you want to. I can't see what harm it would do. Also, you might want to query the basis on which the adjudicator was prepared to "ask" (but not to instruct) Capital One to refund excessive charges. If he thinks the charges were excessive then why didn't he just tell Capital One to refund them? And if he doesn't think they are excessive then why did he ask for them to be refunded at all?

Hi, It all depends on whether the letter the company sent you in 2007 really was a 'final response' or not. Did it enclose a copy of the Ombudsman Service leaflet, and tell you that you were entitled to take the matter to the Ombudsman providing that you did so within 6 months of the date of the letter? If so. then it was an official final response letter and unfortunately there really isn't anything you can do about it now. However, if the 2007 letter didn't include this information then it wasn't a 'final response' in the sense of the FSA regulations. In that case the Ombudsman Service wouldn't be entitled to refuse to consider your complaint simply because you first raised it over 6 months ago. Hope this helps