My Northern Rock/NRAM mortgage has been reviewed. Letter 1 says they have overcharged me, and have knocked £940 off the unsecured part of the Together Loan. Letter 2 says I have underpaid the unsecured part of my Together Loan, and they want £153.15. 1) I have never missed a payment. 2) WTF?

I regularly get statements from Clydesdale Mastercard where the interest charged per month is higher than the minimum payment; there is a regular debit of £3, but aside from that, there is no use on the account (their pin change service has always resulted in the card not working). The interest is around £10 more than the payment. Is this actually allowed?

Here is the agreement, which is not accessible on their main product or support pages, but which you can access by going through 4 separate links. http://www.mamut.com/media/products/license/Mamut_User_Agreement_int.pdf I realise we're at the end of what can be usefully put forward on the forum, but any final thoughts based on the agreement (which does not come with the software, but which you have to hunt) would be gratefully received - and NOT taken as anything other than learned opinion!

They're ignoring my comments on distance selling etc., and have sent this by post: -------- Payment for the above is now long overdue. Please settle the outstanding amount immediately. Failure to do so will lead to the claim being transferred to debt collection. If the claim is transferred to a debt collection agency or a Court of Law your Mamut licenses will, in accordance with the Mamut Service Agreement and the Mamut License Agreement, be reduced to the product Mamut Free until the account is settled. -------- Doubly annoying, as the "Mamut Free" thing doesn't happen; the app says your service agreement is out of date, then quits. Do I just pay now? Debt collection, Court of Law, etc. and they've ignored the substance of my previous correspondence

No. When I bought it, I used it no problem until I needed an update, then I found I had to do the service agreement. It now says on the website "Mandatory service agreement" - and they say it's always been that way, but they also say they spoke to me on the phone when I took out the service agreement; I couldn't have taken it out separately if it was mandatory when buying the software - plus - I couldn't have known I couldn't get the update without it, if the programme didn't run without it, as I wouldn't have known it needed an update if I couldn't open it, etc. A moot point I suppose, as they're singing a different song. I am still working on the principle that I shouldn't be held to an agreement renewal without being asked whether I agree.

Interesting event - and one that makes everything moot. The software won't work without the service agreement, so it's £150 for the software, but a further £110 per annum to use it. I now can't access my accounts to print off last year's. I may well have to pay to avoid inputting a year of accounts, but then again - I may just be pig-headed and input the whole lot again in another application!

Again - thanks much. d

The reply Good Evening David, Thank you for your email which I received today. We have indeed been in contact before but as mentioned before & as per our terms & conditions, the invoice remains to be paid. Best regards, ------- Thoughts? Say nothing? Repeat email?

Latest sent by me (I've been abroad - as opposed to "a broad") Dear George and Accounts department: As you are aware, I have queried the situation whereby an ongoing agreement is stipulated as a mandatory occurrence. I have communicated this disagreement to you several times, and asked that you void the invoice for the Service Agreement for the year which I neither requested nor used. To be more direct: I do not wish to pay the invoice number as above. You will be aware that an agreement to agree is void in English law and therefore unenforceable. This is aside from other issues relating to the Distance Selling Regulations which, likewise, give grounds to cancel. I hope you understand, All the best, David ------------ We shall see.

Thank you so much kraken and slick (Kraken and Slick: a new crime-busting series?) I shall send Kraken's message, and keep you appraised.

Thanks slick132, This is their reply: Dear David, Thank you for your email but the invoice remains & cannot be cancelled. When you purchased the software from myself on 9th December 2010, I explained the yearly service agreement & everything you receive with it in that telephone conversation & so there is no uncertainty as to what you 100% receive on an annual basis with this service agreement, then please see the below: • Full & unlimited support (telephone, email & online) between the hours of 9am to 4pm Monday to Friday • Any / all updates or upgrades within the market are included such as new VAT or EU Laws • You are allocated a personal / dedicated account manager for all queries which is myself in your case • Minimum of one free software version upgrade per year & any other change in the market • Use of the software of an annual basis including the apple applications available for unlimited download Please again see the invoice you received at the time that also states the same terms you question: Our yearly service agreement has always been mandatory & is the same for all 700,000 current Mamut Customers & provides an upgrade every year around March / April. It is not as you say “in case” an upgrades occur. Hmmm Thoughts?

Some correspondence - From me Dear George, Thank you for your email, and for cancelling my service agreement. What is meant by the current invoice remaining? I'm assuming that it does not mean that the invoice is to be paid, as I haven't actually used any of your service facilities outwith the previous year, for which I of course paid. In terms of a mandatory renewal: I'm sure the meaning is automatic rather than mandatory - as the whole point of a limited term contract is that it is - by definition - limited, and renewal is at the agreement of both parties; it would be a funny old world if new contracts could be enforced by just one side! In terms of both three months notice being required, this would also be odd, as the point of renewal would be so far off as to necessitate some kind of prescience on the part of whichever party might not wish to renew; who could possibly know that a quarter of a year in advance? I'm sure I have the wrong end of the stick, but could you please confirm that the invoice is indeed for information only, and does not require action on my part? Thanks so much for your time and patience, David From them Dear David, Thank you for your email. Unfortunately the invoice remains to be paid as you did not cancel within 3 months which is our Mamut Policy & as per our terms & conditions which I also emailed you plus where it is stated in the original invoice from last year (also emailed to you). I am sorry this is not what you want to hear but these are Mamuts terms. From me Dear George, Thank you for your email. It is indeed unfortunate! It seems a tad unfair that I should be charged for something I haven't used. I bought the software without the service agreement. When I tried to find updates, I discovered that I could only get updates with the service agreement. Leaving aside the fact that, while I am all for paying extra for software service and support, charging for non-major upgrades sets Mamut in a relatively small club in the world of software suppliers; most software companies charge only for major updates, and only when they arrive. Your charge seems to be "in case" an upgrade occurs. Anyway - I wanted the update, so I phoned the number on the service page, and bought the service agreement. At no point was it mentioned that renewal was automatic (let alone compulsory). I see now that the service is now listed as mandatory. This wasn't the case when I bought the software, as I would certainly have had second thoughts about buying a product where the initial charge still did not mean one could use the product! I paid at the time, and used it to update. I haven't had cause to use it for support, or to update subsequently. Nor was I even aware that my agreement was ongoing. My problem, on an ethical level is this: 1. Having bought the software, I am being further charged mandatorily to use it. 2. I am being charged for [updates and support] I have not used. 3. The idea that an agreement can have mandatory renewal is counter-intuitive: if it is an agreement, then I would - by definition - need to agree to the renewal. I can see where automatic renewal might occur, but not compulsory. 4. I can see where three months notice would be necessary during the course of a fixed-term agreement, but once the agreement is due for renewal, the agreement - by definition - is reaching its conclusion, and therefore notice should not be necessary. This seems to have been brought about by my buying the software prior to the mandatory service agreement, and purchasing [what I thought was] a year's service support subsequently. I apologise for any confusion this has caused, and I would greatly appreciate it if you could see your way to cancelling the current invoice. All the best, David

Thanks for all the advice, and thanks for your thoughts, Kraken1 & Slick 132

Hi, Thanks for the advice. I had a hunt online - nothing was ever sent or signed. In a sub-sub page of the product service description (NOT the product description) it says if you instal the app, you are bound by the User Agreement, which is available as a PDF. The only mention of time is this: "4. Duration and renewal of the Mamut Service Agreement From the date on which you enter into a Mamut Service Agreement it will, as a main rule, remain in effect for one year, calculated from the invoice date, and be renewed automatically for one year at a time, unless otherwise agreed. Please note that the Mamut Service Agreement will in respect of certain software licenses remain in effect from the invoice date until the first yearend, and then be renewed automatically by additional agreement terms with a duration of one calendar year at a time, unless otherwise agreed." So as far as I can see - they are defining the contract as needing renewal after a year. At that point, it being a contract renewal, I should surely have the right to simply NOT renew. I shouldn't have to give three months notice that I do not wish to RENEW something which is an agreement. Nor should they be able to bill me for their renewing the agreement without my actually acquiescing - their saying it is a mandatory renewal is a tad arbitrary. Continuing with the bill and adding on costs for a renewal of an agreement that does not (in their view) need my agreement also seems at odds with the Distance Selling regs. Any thoughts based on the clause above?

Thanks much

Hi Coniff, No - Mamut software: their "AccountEdge" app

Here's the deal: I bought accounting software. All good. I found out I only got updates by taking out a service agreement. I did that (around £300). I then got an invoice for this year coming. I contacted them and said I didn't wish to continue with the service agreement, as the price didn't really cover small updates that would be free on other applications, and that I no longer needed. I was very polite! I got a reply (very polite and nice) saying that the agreement renewal was mandatory, was done in advance and needed 3 months written notice to cancel it. This is indeed written in the invoice (I missed it). However - I'd have thought that regardless of the T&C, consumers' rights would take precedence, and 1) An agreement renewal can't be mandatory, as it's a renewal, and both sides must agree. It can be automatic unless stated otherwise, but not mandatory. (am I right or not?) 2) I can see why I'd need to give three months notice to cancel mid-agreement, but the point of renewing and agreement, is that (as above) it's an AGREEMENT that needs to be RENEWED. A consumer can surely say - at the point of renewal - I no longer want this and do not wish to renew? All kind advice accepted.

Thanks for the comment. The Supreme Court may have let it go, but I'm afraid I'm in it for the long haul! I'm not even necessarily reclaiming; I want the unfairness of the situation to get noticed. My latest letter (via the MSP) is reiterating the request to get a breakdown of the £35 "costs" of returning a direct debit. The bank don't refuse to say, they just change the subject - "it is the responsibility of the customer...." "We pride ourselves on our superb customer service..." blah blah. We shall see what happens next.

Clydesdale. They're phoning back today or tomorrow, so I'll hopefully learn more. As per usual with CB, I tried contacting them direct, but they won't put your through or give you a direct number. It takes a few tries to get that!

I went online to check my bank - a debit for £1 to a health and beauty spa, quickly followed by £900 to NW MC DUACREDIINTERNET. The fraud dept are on it, but I'd like to follow things up myself also. Does anyone have any idea who they are or how to contact them? I've googled around and there is nothing, save a question on Yahoo Answers. Anyhoo - obviously someone did the £1 to test the details. I paid for my mum to have a day on a spa in July, so perhaps someone got the card details from that. Any thoughts on what to do to find these folk? The bank must surely have the technology to trace the EPOS machine that did the £1, and to trace an account number from the £900 transfer.

State of play: They called two weeks ago - "we are settling in 5 days" 10 days later I called them to see what was going on. "The letter has gone out, but because you didn't take your ex-wife's name from your account, we're sending half the repayment to her" I explained that both my ex and I had written and phoned frequently to have her name taken from the account, and that among my letters of complaint he would find just that issue! He said to check the letter of offer and get back to them. No letter of course. I called on Tuesday to say as much. They were going to chase it up and someone would get back that day. Ahem... I called yesterday - someone would get back. Got back home and there was indeed a message: "The letter has just been sent out and will arrive tomorrow or Saturday" - This is the letter that apparently went out over a week ago! New letter? Or was the first one a bit of porky pies? I'll write more when I know more. t

Having been chasing Yorkshire's little sister, Clydesdale; I am meeting my MSP next week to chase further abuses of the situation. My main issue is the same as noomill puts forward. Too often I hear the counter-argument (not just from banks, but also from the self-righteous perfect folk who have never been in debt): "if you didn't spend what you don't have you wouldn't get charged". However, the scenario I'm putting to the MSP is the inescapable spiral: you are self-employed and a cheque is late, or you are employed and there is a screw-up with the wage run. The amount is £1000. Six bounces to pay £800 happen, you are charged £210 in bounces plus £25 to tell you you're overdrawn. The cheque finally goes in. Now it's £1000 minus £235, leaving you £765 to pay £800. More bounces, more charges. Next month's payment now won't cover the bills and the deficit, and so on. It is tantamount to constructive bankruptcy. The other point to note is that even if you DID get charged for overspending: it's the cost of bouncing an item - NOT a punishment meted out by the [morally superior] bank manager.

Or maybe they did away with him and got the cleaners in to hack the posts! No, wait - they are apparently so cack-handed with computers that such an action would be beyond them.

Really? I'm assuming "dealt with" will mean their ticking a box and saying: "We've done that one. He's getting nothing, but we can mark his claim 'dealt with' and file it in the giant warehouse from Raiders of The Lost Ark" But perhaps I'm a bit too cynical after my dealings with them. I count a reply letter with an actual contact name as a major advance!

Ta much!