Fair one. I was cleary wrong, thanks for the correction

DD thanks for the explanation, genuinely didnt think of that, and a fair point raised. Thanks diddydicky i understand that the matters within these forums are extremely emotive. I DO understand terms contained within credit agreements, and certainly am familiar with the cca. What the CCA doesnt do well is set out remedies, or consequences for non compliance of areas. Frustratingly, this is inconsistent as some areas of the act (90-92) clearly set out remedy etc. regarding DN's, and using NKs' post (sorry i couldnt find who they quoted). The cca states that the DN should give a deadline for remedy "no less than seven days" after the date of service. Indeed the date of service could be interpreted as in the post, but in NKs post it would suggest that the DN was right - but thats just off the back of seeing that one post. apologies if i have offended anyone, not intended, forums such as these can be a great source of education.....

people should be careful when posting letters here, simply putting into a letter saying that you consider yourself relieved doesnt mean anything, if anything it actually reads "ive convinced myself im right, irrespective of the facts, so there ) this probabbly sounds odd on such a heavily one sided argument, but can some explain that if you have lend the money, not maintained the facility, then why shouldnt you have to pay it back? Granted, all banks etc have to issue notices in compliance with relevant statutes, but this just seems like a complete avoidance of responsibility. Im honestly not trying to offend anyone, merely understand the ethos.

theres a couple of things to bear in mind: FOS are a business like anyone else, just employed by the government and are not for profit. Since the boom in bank charges and PPI, they have received MILLIONS of complaints, these all have to be personally handled and are not pigeon holed. Sadly, thoroughly investigating takes time. Regarding deadlines for the banks, they are just as strict. Its the sheer volume drven by the unfortunate culture which the media has driven

the role of the ombudsman is to review the case with a fresh pair of eyes. They will review the adjudicators files, and any additional information supplied at the time of the complaint, and will make a decision from there. The desicion will comment on the adjudicators decision, and obviously if something is untoward internally, it would be dealt with. Be aware thought, their decision is final, and they will avoid in providing legal advice wherever possible. Hope this helps. p.s the ombudsman may take a couple of months to respond, so dont worry if you dont hear back straight away.

perhaps, but unless they are looking for a pretty high amount is unlikely. Its important to remember that each individual business within a group its a seperate legal entity. Whilst information can be shared, its not their piggy bank to dip into. if you ensure that you keep you credit card up to date, and maintain your current account you have nothing to worry about

this sounds to me as though they have closed the account on a technicality (and seem to be cagey). I would sugest checking your credit file to see if there are any CIFAS marks against you (these are marks that are displayed and shared with financial institutions who gave received suspicious activity). Either way the bank is now allowed to close your account without justification. You should ask the bank to issue you a final response to your complaint (which will have to be before, or at 8 weeks from when you contacted them), then refer to the Ombudsman. Be warned though, this may take a while and therefore does not constitute any kind of delay. Good luck, hope its something that can be sorted out