I'm absolutely not an expert, but my understanding is that the banks admitted to the supreme court that they actually make 30% or so of their profits through charges, which obviously contradicts what I presume they told you repeatedly, that their charges were based on their administrative costs for processing transactions which lead to 'unarranged overdrafts'. So if you have a copy of a letter in which they say the charges are based on admin costs (they sent me loads, but I've recycled them all, like an idiot ) then you should be able to proceed. I hope this gives you some encouragement, or at least it will bump your thread to the top and perhaps someone with more expertise than me will arrive to correct me!

I have an outstanding complaint with RBS about my charges, which was stayed pending the Supreme Court case. Unfortunately, being an idiot, I've chucked out a load of correspondence from the past few years in which RBS represent their charges as being proportionate to the amount it cost them in administrative fees. I do have a letter from them after the court case in which they state that "We do not believe that there is any other legal basis on which the level of these charges can be challenged", and also that "the outcome of the legal proceedings confirms our position". This is clearly contradictory to the third sentence of the judgement: " “It is therefore appropriate to spell out at the outset that the Court does not have the task of deciding whether the system of charging personal current account customers adopted by United Kingdom banks is fair.” I have searched both here and elsewhere for a copy of the older RBS terms and conditions, which represent the charges as being to cover their costs, but I've not had any luck. Does anyone here happen to have a copy they could PM or email me? Or would bluffing them by quoting the letter I have, and implying I have T&C's or correspondence in which they state their charges are to cover costs, have a chance of success? Any advice gratefully received

The cheque would just be the first instalment of a payment plan I can afford now, not for half the amount. Sorry that wasn't very clear. If I can do it that way it's far better for me than having to save up half the outstanding balance, as that will take 2-3 months at least. On the plus side I have S.A.R. pending for credit cards and a store card, and also bank charges to reclaim, and I'm learning to have fun with DCA's on the phone, instead of dreading their calls. :grin: ES

Cheers for the reply. I read on this forum a nice trick which I'm hoping will work, writing to them enclosing a cheque and an offer of a payment plan, stating that I will consider their cashing of the cheque as an acceptance of these terms. I should be able to save up enough to make the payment of half the balance, but it'll take a couple of months and I'm worried I might be cut off or have a prepayment meter fitted in the meantime.

I owe Npower a fairly substantial amount of money (for my means anyway), but the last time I spoke to them they demanded payment of half the overdue balance, before they'd agree to a paymen plan. Are they entitled to do this? If not I'd like to go down the route of repeating the phone call and recording it for possible use against them. Cheers, ES

Hope so, I could do with the money! Cheers.

Just sent off my S.A.R. to Capital 1, now the waiting begins. In the meantime, I'm off to learn about compound interest.

Apologies if this has been discussed elsewhere on the forums, but I've had a look round and I can't find anything on it, so here goes......... When my bank sent me a letter in response to my LBA, offering around 2/3 of the total claimed, "in full and final settlement", there was a clause included saying "However our terms and conditions will continue to apply and any charges that accrue in the future must stand.". Is this legally enforceable? Surely having agreed to the (unfair) terms and conditions when I opened the account, then challenged them, what is to stop me challenging them again when and if more charges are applied to my account, whether I agree to them again or not? To my layman's understanding I don't believe it can be enforced, although I am relying on common sense rather than a specific knowledge of the laws. Any help would be appreciated, and I stand to be corrected if needed.