You can only get one CCJ for a debt - once it has been pursued by claim form in the county court and judgment given any third party buying an interest in the debt would only be able to enforce the original ccj, as has been mentioned, either as agent for the original creditor or as owner of the debt.

If the solicitor's fees were added onto a claim that has been to a hearing befoe the district judge then I suspect that the lender obtained an order for summary assessment of those costs at the end of the hearing - that is the usual course anyway. If so then the costs have been judged reasonable by the court and your only recourse in that respect would have been to have asked for the costs to have been subjected to detailed assessment. If, as I suspect, the hearings were some time ago then you are far too late to challenge the legal costs

these messages have ben around for years - even the police have stopped taking details of any received. They just tell you to delete them. Lets face it youd have to be a bit naieve to fall for them.

You are permitted to have your own comments recorded on your credit file. Do so and put the record straight. Credit scoring can be particularly unfair in my opinion. I have a number of late payments on my file on my credit card going back to some two and a half years ago. The result is that I have a credit score in the "poor" category, even though the particular circumstances that lead to those problems are behind me a good two years ago and my payment history on the credit file clearly shows this. Forget the fact that I own my own business that has over 20 million per year going through its client account and that I am a professional earning a very good salary. Credit scoring is a pile of shite in my opinion. As a result when I sell my house this summer I wil be forced to get a mortgage from a sub-prime lender for my next house purchase and I will pay a higher rate of interest because of late payments (no defaults or CCJs) recorded against me years ago and even though the particular debts were paid off early. Dont you just love the banks?

If your claim is £1079.92 work out yearly interest at 8% like so: 1079.92 X 8% = £86.393 - this is the annual interest at 8% Then divide that by 365: £86.393/365 = 0.236 So the daily rate of interest is £0.236 per day Hope this helps

You are referring to the common law duty to mitigate losses. In any contract if there is a breach the person suffering loss has a duty in law to make that loss as small as possible. So if you think it through - how much less does it cost NOT to pay something that would take you overdrawn than to pay it, charge you for the unauthorised o/d and for a paid referral fee - not paying it would result in just a returned DD, etc fee. Clearly the banks deliberately augment their loss. No doubt this might get argued if a bank ever gets before a court.

I think that you might find that if you are still undischarged you are not allowed to issue proceedings in your own name. It would usually be for the trustee in bankruptcy/Official Receiver to stand in your shoes. I would check this first to make sure you dont get into difficulty with your trustee.

Ha Ha thats priceless

I sent the letter to my branch which is Primeline, Bradford. Havent received the statements yet though

If I remember the banks in NI were investigated by the OFT in recent years as their charges were considered to be rigged at a level in excess of other non NI banks. Look on the OFT website and search under bank charges - I'm sure thats where I saw it. Might be power to your arm as it were. Hope this helps

In my humble opinion this gives the bank an unnecessary window of delay. Remonstrating with them at their dreadful behaviour is also pointless. A polite and short letter stating why you think charges should be refunded with a time limit before you issue proceedings is all that you need - except where you need copy statements in which case you have to ask for them and deal with the response. Dont think for one minute that the bank will use the 14 days you give them to research your points - they just won't. You will get a standard letter from the bank in reply every time and further correspondence just causes delay. Its not for you to give the banks a crash course in the legal position as we see it. In relaity the banks are well aware of the position we take. As soon as you know the correct figure for charges send a 14 day letter before action. If the amount is not in your bank by the end of that time issue a claim - everything else is just a delay. The number of members at this site and others is increasing rapidly. The number of court claims is growing exponentially as far as the banks are concerned. Pretty soon they are going to throw a lot of money at this situation and people should get their claims in as soon as they can before the landscape changes into one where the bank becomes an interested defendant rather than a remote corporation who as yet have not geared up to deal with small claims served and giving them only 2-4 weeks to reply. In any event best of luck to you.

I got the same letter from Cap One. Happily they also included in the letter exactly how much they have charged me over the last 6 years. No need for DPA so I've issued the claim based on their figures. Clearly it would be pointless to respond to their letter (which fails to answer your enquiry, completely misses the point about the charges being a penalty, etc.) save to send them your £10 for copy statements and then issue once you have them.

Yep - its for a service - the telegraphic transfer of the funds

From memeory only I think the reasonablelness test is contained in section 11

google does find you - thats where i found you anyway

google does find you - thats where i found you anyway

Nat West Primeline got my letter today about charges. Very polite phone call received from a chap there. Confirmed receipt, said my 6 years statements would be with me within a week or so and that the £10 DPA fee would be debited to my account in a day or so.

Nat West Primeline got my letter today about charges. Very polite phone call received from a chap there. Confirmed receipt, said my 6 years statements would be with me within a week or so and that the £10 DPA fee would be debited to my account in a day or so.

We agree on almost everything. Thats close enough for me

We agree on almost everything. Thats close enough for me

I think its a valid approach to correspond with the bank in the way that you are Whisperwolf. The banks would be just as pissed off if thousands of tenacious but polite people just kept clogging up their departments with post. This would have an effect I am sure and would cost them a great deal of time and money. One thing though. Being bullish is fine - but we should not get too carried away. This thread appears to have decided that what the banks do is illegal and that they have no chance of ever winning in any proceedings. I am not sure that is true, certainly not in the near future, anyway. What they do is not illegal. It is pursuant to a contract. The only thing we can say is that the charges are excessive. This is not splitting hairs. Excessive penalty clauses are not illegal - they are unenforceable but only if declared so in the course of proceedings. In any contract dispute the remedy is to take proceedings (or arbitration etc. depending on the contract). The decision about unenforceability can only ever be made by a judge (unless the banks suddenly agree with us). Even if the OFT actually get off their fat arses it will still be for a judge to decide. In addition a declaration of unenforceability or a payment in setlement etc. in a case bought by an individual is and can only be related to the contract under consideration - i.e. that between you and your bank. Each case is decided on its merits and if Joe Bloggs gets a decalration that probably binds no-one else, unless the matter goes on appeals into the court heirarchy and becomes a binding precedent. It is only when that day comes that the banks will lose for good, either against Stephen or someone else or the OFT. That day is a few years away even if it is Stephen's case that goes to the House of Lords. Only the OFT has the big stick - they should be seeking an injunction to stop this practice. Again a final resolution is probably years away. The banks know this. As for those of us who have already paid and lost ludicrous sums of money in charges - we have to sue to get it back, each one of us, one at a time. Letting default judgements happen or settling at the doors of the court is a tactic the banks might use for some time yet. I for one am happy to take them to court and letters have today been sent to a number of lenders who have charged me a fortune in years gone by, profiting, as their charging regime is intended to do, from a very difficult period in my life which I have overcome despite the banks. They are bastards but lets not pretend that we will kill the cash cow just yet. For those of us involved now claims to court are the only language spoken for the time being. But the practice does have a social and moral perspective that we should always remember. Lets not forget - the rich dont pay these charges. The bank heirarchy who make these policies dont pay these charges. They are designed to punish people living, as so many do, from hand to mouth in a world where taxation and indirect living costs for us all have year after year outstripped and continue to outstrip either inflation or pay rises given by the rich to their workers whilst the rich get richer. They are designed to kick you in the knackers when you are down. It is a hateful and obscene way for wealthy senior bank staff to increase their performance bonuses and for shareholders who dont need the money to get richer off the backs of those so much less fortunate than themselves. It is socially, and morally repugnant, but then I'm an old socialist We talk about "banks" or "Corporations". Lets remember that these are not faceless institutions. Every decision taken by a Bank or Corporation is taken by people - usually wealthy ones looking to feather thier own nests. Lets be the pioneers in the great undoing of the hateful moneygrabbing banks!! :twisted:

I think its a valid approach to correspond with the bank in the way that you are Whisperwolf. The banks would be just as pissed off if thousands of tenacious but polite people just kept clogging up their departments with post. This would have an effect I am sure and would cost them a great deal of time and money. One thing though. Being bullish is fine - but we should not get too carried away. This thread appears to have decided that what the banks do is illegal and that they have no chance of ever winning in any proceedings. I am not sure that is true, certainly not in the near future, anyway. What they do is not illegal. It is pursuant to a contract. The only thing we can say is that the charges are excessive. This is not splitting hairs. Excessive penalty clauses are not illegal - they are unenforceable but only if declared so in the course of proceedings. In any contract dispute the remedy is to take proceedings (or arbitration etc. depending on the contract). The decision about unenforceability can only ever be made by a judge (unless the banks suddenly agree with us). Even if the OFT actually get off their fat arses it will still be for a judge to decide. In addition a declaration of unenforceability or a payment in setlement etc. in a case bought by an individual is and can only be related to the contract under consideration - i.e. that between you and your bank. Each case is decided on its merits and if Joe Bloggs gets a decalration that probably binds no-one else, unless the matter goes on appeals into the court heirarchy and becomes a binding precedent. It is only when that day comes that the banks will lose for good, either against Stephen or someone else or the OFT. That day is a few years away even if it is Stephen's case that goes to the House of Lords. Only the OFT has the big stick - they should be seeking an injunction to stop this practice. Again a final resolution is probably years away. The banks know this. As for those of us who have already paid and lost ludicrous sums of money in charges - we have to sue to get it back, each one of us, one at a time. Letting default judgements happen or settling at the doors of the court is a tactic the banks might use for some time yet. I for one am happy to take them to court and letters have today been sent to a number of lenders who have charged me a fortune in years gone by, profiting, as their charging regime is intended to do, from a very difficult period in my life which I have overcome despite the banks. They are bastards but lets not pretend that we will kill the cash cow just yet. For those of us involved now claims to court are the only language spoken for the time being. But the practice does have a social and moral perspective that we should always remember. Lets not forget - the rich dont pay these charges. The bank heirarchy who make these policies dont pay these charges. They are designed to punish people living, as so many do, from hand to mouth in a world where taxation and indirect living costs for us all have year after year outstripped and continue to outstrip either inflation or pay rises given by the rich to their workers whilst the rich get richer. They are designed to kick you in the knackers when you are down. It is a hateful and obscene way for wealthy senior bank staff to increase their performance bonuses and for shareholders who dont need the money to get richer off the backs of those so much less fortunate than themselves. It is socially, and morally repugnant, but then I'm an old socialist We talk about "banks" or "Corporations". Lets remember that these are not faceless institutions. Every decision taken by a Bank or Corporation is taken by people - usually wealthy ones looking to feather thier own nests. Lets be the pioneers in the great undoing of the hateful moneygrabbing banks!! :twisted:

Didn't you know? The £7.99 per month is for the privilege of using the automated telephone system, the overseas call centre staff on one fifth UK wages , being credit scored instead of spoken to, and having a bank that will take as much of your money as it can, as soon as it can, as often as it can.

Didn't you know? The £7.99 per month is for the privilege of using the automated telephone system, the overseas call centre staff on one fifth UK wages , being credit scored instead of spoken to, and having a bank that will take as much of your money as it can, as soon as it can, as often as it can.

Its a matter of evidence. Just because the right to charge is part of the contract does not make the charges reasonable. The Bank saying that "but you agreed to the T&C" misses the point. What you are saying is that the charges are so high and so unconnected to any proper assessment of loss suffered by the Bank that the term allowing the bank to impose such charges at those levels cannot be enforced because of UTCCR 1999, case law and UCTA 1977. Here's examples of the sorts of evidence that you would put in your witness statement (if there was a defence entered and the matter proceeded to a small claims trial): 1.You pay youer credit card bill 3 days late. You do not hear from the Bank at all but on your next statement there is a £20 charge. The Bank did nothing - what is their loss? If the Bank say the cost is reasonable they have to prove it. 2.You go over your overdraft limit by a few pounds. Your bank charges you £28 and all it has done is send you an automated computer generated letter. How does that cost £28 for each letter - sometimes 2 or 3 x£28 at the same moment? 3. The charges are imposed immediately by computer, automatically. There is no investigation of and/or assessment of the loss in respect of each breach and the payment is just an arbitrary figure decided upon by the Bank with no attemtp to justify the actual cost to them of you being in breach of your contract with them from time to time. 4. Look at the library and the voice files and the post (I can't recall where) about the Select Commitee interviews - they variously describe the charges as a) a way of subsidising free banking for other customers b) a way of paying for the Bank's whole debt collection and recovery operations - so your £35 actually pays towardds the copst of pursuing other customers to court etc. c) that the charges are a deterrent d) that the banks confirm that the charges formed part of the Banks' profits. If they covered losses why is there a profit? 5. So you argue that it is more likely than not, which is the burden of proof in civil courts,that the charges must be levied by the Bank with a view to profit. The facts will be different for each case but there will be some uniformity between the way in which the case is argued. It may be better to leave out the application for a declaration since this is implied in the request for the money back and with it out you can continue to use Money Claim Online and the case might stay looking like a simple money claim rather than a claim with potentially very widespread consequences that the Bank would be bound to appeal.