Fair enough, but I am not doing this for a living and the applicants are personally acquainted with me. Also I have access to resources that they do not so we thought it would be best to work through me. We have been saying for years that bank charging was illegal. Just did not know how to prove it. Anyway UK retail banking is a defacto cartel (witness the OFT case). Lola

Question. What's a 'TS contact'? On Equidebt and all DCAs. I think they pass them around to create fees and charges - bit tricky for them that, under the FSA TCF initiative I would have thought. Also Equidebt raised a lot of cash to buy debts. If so I wonder at what price? If that was known or could be found out one could make an offer could not one. It can't be very much, especially on unsecured loans. I mean what would you pay? 10p in the £1? It woukd be very interesting to find out. Lolat70

...oh and another thing, I have a feeling that they may 'buy' the debt from Natwest or whoever. Certainly Equident raised a lot of private equity money to do just that back in 2005 (I think). In any event I always ask them outright whether they are acting as agents for a proncipal or whether they have bought the debt. I also always ask them whether they are recording our conversation. If they say yes, I say excellent. It may also help if you record the conversations. I think the law says that you have to tell them if you are. Lolat70

My business is subject to the new FSA 'TCF' regime and it's got me thinking. The point of TCF is that every FSA regulated business - or in my view those that are employed by them, e.g. DCA's - have to comply with TCF. Now TCF in itself is daft. It is a series of non rules. In effect the FSA can decide whether or not you are TCF compliant. You could do you best and still not be. But for the consumer it could be good news when dealing with banks and DCAs'. You could tell them you think their behaviour does not comply with the FSA TCF standards if they persist you will report them. I am NOT an expert in this but it might be another way of applying pressure, especially if the OFT/Banks case drags on and on. Anyone any more thoughts? Lolat70

I have had dealings with AIC. They are an agressive lot. They have failed to respond to a Data Protection Act request from me. However after one to many time wasting telephone calls I wrote to them saying that we no longer deal with them on the telephone and sent them anti harassment letter available on here. They went quiet. The next thing we get is a letter from Equidebt. They AIC have abandoned the case. I think what they actually do is pass the cases around creating new case fees and charges each time. Note I am IFA acting pro bono for clients on debt management.

This has got a bit stalled. I am not sure what to do next. The problem is that there is a loan outstanding that should be repaid but since this whole proces started in Oct 2005 the various DCA's have inflated the debts. Previously the total illegal charges execeeded the settlement figure on the loan! So how do I phrase the Preliminary Approach For Repayment Letter to make sure that we are only going to consider the balances as at Oct 2005? Help Lola

Hi, I have a little knowlege of th FSMA 2000. This effectively gives the FSA powers to ignore the 1980 Limitations act. In other words it looks likely that consumers can go right back to the 15 year longstop when claiming against financial companies (in re endowments and the like). So as the Babks are also regulated by the FSA I think that they are on weak ground with the 6 years business. Lola

Below is a draft of the letter we are proposing to send. I write on behalf of the above two people who are customers of your bank. I enclose replacement authorities in case you have misplaced those we sent you previously. We have been trying to sensibly resolve this matter with you since October 8th 2005. Mr C and Miss L were customers of your bank until the relationship between them and you broke down in October 2005. We will not entertain any discussion on any amounts from October 8th 2005 until now. We have told a succession of recovery companies employed by you the facts and they have all ignored them. The failure to resolve this matter in October 2005 is therefore entirely your responsibility and that of the collection agencies employed by you. In investigating this matter we have discovered that you have been levying what are now known to be unlawful charges against their accounts. Up to 8th October 2005 these amounted to £5,600. As at October 2005 the settlement figure for the loan account was quoted by your as £3,200. You will now be aware that the regime of 'fees' which you have been applying to their accounts in relation to direct debit refusals, exceeding overdraft limits and so forth are unlawful at Common Law, Statute and recent Consumer regulations. I would draw your attention to the terms of the contract which you agreed to at the time that they opened their accounts. It is an implied term of that contract that you would conduct yourselves lawfully and in a manner which complies with UK law. My clients are frankly shocked that you have operated their accounts in this way as they had always reposed confidence in your integrity and expertise as their fiduciary Additionally you have entered a default notice against their credit records. This default occurred merely in respect of unlawful charges levied by you or was the result of impecuniosity caused directly by the taking by you of penalty charges which you had applied unlawfully to their accounts. In addition to full payment of the sum mentioned above they require that you remove the default entry from the register. Please note that mere correction or amendment to the entry will not be acceptable. I therefore request that you repay Mr C and Miss L the sum of £5,600 or they will take further action to reclaim this sum from you. At the same time they recognise that they do owe you money for the loan account, but they dispute the amount of the settlement figure. If you can prove the amount of that debt satisfactorily giving a full breakdown of all the charges applied to the account up to 8th October 2005 then they will happily settle the loan. If any of the charges applied to the loan account are in any way unlawful they will not be required to pay them and a lower settlement figure will be due. We think that this is a very fair proposal to resolve this matter and we look forward to receiving your agreement in 14 days. Failure to do this will lead Mr. C and Miss L no choice but to pursue you for the recovery of the money you owe them. I am a reasonable bloke and I always think that if you are logical and reasonable people will co-operate - or am I just being naive in re the banks? In any event any comments would be gratefully received. Lola

I am now going to write to Natwest on behalf of L & C demanding repayment of all the charges plus interest. At the same time we will acknowledge the debt for the loan account and confirm that we are happy to settle that. But we want full details of the settlement figure including all charges applied to the loan before we agree it. The charges being demanded exceed the loan settlement figure by about £2,500. Is there anything I should be aware of? Will Natwest try and say 'OK we will write off loan if you agree to drop your action for the charges'? And if they do should we pursue them? On balance I think yes, as in effect we are in dispute with the bank and the reason that we have not settled the loan is because they won't pay back the charges. And we are not prepared to discuss anything past the 8/10/05 date when the relationship between NW and C & L broke down. Has anyone any experience as to how best to draft such a letter that demands back £x whilst achknowleging debt £y? Lola

Right. Now I have some time to properly fight this on behalf of C & L I am getting with it. Story so far. Debt has been passed around a range of DCA and I have told each one the same story that it is in dispute. Now got an outfit called AIC on the case. They are uselless and abusive. I have written to them to tell them that we will only deal with them by letter. Oh, I have caught them out in lies - all documented on file. Have established that NW charges for the perion to Oct 08 2005 are about 5600. These are on the three accounts held by C & L. Whom by the way now bank elsewhere. Loan account settlement figure was about 3300 on same date. ASIC now asking for over 4400 in total. No chance. So I am about to make claim to NW for charges plus interest. We will happliy settle loan account - but onky at the 2005 figure. I am also going to hit AIC with CCA request. they have just had SAR letters from C & A. I will have more to write soon. Love Lola (btw I am an IFA in Ipswich - this is pro bono work)

Yes I told the recovery people a long time ago that we were disputing the debt. The information I already have indicates that the default was caused by the charges. I shoud say that we have ALWAYS affered to pay back the capital plus reasonable ineterest. In re my thought on the bank - I have an equally jaundiced view of all banks. They are simply a utility who think too much of themselves - certainly at the high street level. They are one of the three weird sisters of the New Feudalism. The other two being employers and the taxman. Thanks for you input.

Right, we're off. I've spent the time studying the material and we have now submitted the SDAR letters for Laura and Carl. I've opened files for each of them and set up a chasing diary. I've also been fending off the recovery agency. Well , actually they called me and demanded money with menaces. I said that our position was the same as it had been for a year and that (a) the charges were profiteering and we were not paying and that (b) we would happily pay back the capital plus interest to the date it all went wrong, that is August 2005. They rejected this needless to say, so off we go.

Dear Natweststaffmemeber - I don't follow;- "Staff then get sacked but customers whose accounts have been affected rarely see that they are contacted to rectify a situation because the that would mean paying loan back and not being able to process the loan in the first place" Please elucidate. Ahh, do I understand that you do not think that they are running scared of bad debts and credit crunch? Lola

This is rather more complicated as you will see. Oh, I should explain I am an IFA and I am helping these two young people. Background L & C were co-habiting in rented accommodation. They had a joint account and joint loan account with Natwest. C had a sole account. They had no other credit at all. In October 2005 L lost her job, money became tight, Natwest became unco-operative and levied eye watering charges. Relationship broke down. They went their separate ways - but keep in touch. I was brought in and obtained copies of accounts as at a date in October 2005. Basically they owed about £5,000 of which a large proportion was charges. We began negotiations with Natwest but within four weeks it was all sent to a recovery agency. We have been happy at all stages to repay the capital and the settlement figure on the loan account (by the way professionally I think Natwest mortages and loans are c**p) but have been getting nowhere with the recovery agencies. At all stages we have been reasonable, polite, and consistent. It's now been a year and the claim against C has been 'inflated' to £5790 ish (C actaully 'owes' £1664. Not heard anything on L's account for some months. Needless to say they have defaults entered against them. But no recovery agency has ever even tried to take it to court. I am really annoyed about this as it has been a year and I am now going to go on the attack. Questions Is anyone aware of any special issues that this situation may bring up? If we agree to settle the loan and capital will we be able to remove the default notices completely? Do we need to modify the standard letters in any way? Should we now bypass the latest collection agency and go straight to Natwest? Can I act as their agent to help them (By the way I am doing this for nothing) or would it be better for me to supply them with all the neccessary correspondence in their names? (I think the latter). If the recovery agency takes them to court whilst we are pursuing Natwest can we introduce our counter claims? Or should we ask for some other action - like a stay whilst we sort out what NW owes L & C? All help gratefully received also if I can be of any help with specialist Financial Services knowledge - please ask. Lola

I can endorese the 'good eggs' theory. As an IFA I frequently have to argue with insurers and others on behalf of clients and invariably the foot soldiers are helpful and sympathetic. We find it helps enormously to be polite, cheerful and if possible humourous with them. Make them understand that you know that they are merely employees doing their job and stress that you are not getting at them personally but at their employers. Trade on their alienation, especially call centre staff. It's surprising what you can achieve. We deal with Banks as well. They hate it when we turn up with an authority letter and start quizzing them. After they are ONLY a bank. Just another supplier to you as an individual. The really sad thing is that our economy needs strong successful banks but the current institutions just feel that they are fireproof. What actually needs to happen is for one to go bust. That would make them think. On top of that they are now running really scared of a credit crunch and bad debts. I can categorically state thate their lending practices and loan underwriting procedures are catastrophically bad. End of rant. Lola