How do I reclaim late payment charges (£7.50 each) from BT? I've complained to them and had it declined. I've then passed it to the Ombudsman: Communications who says they cannot look at it as it's a commercial decision by BT. Why does UTCCR and the law on penalties not apply to BT?

Also, how long does an attendant have to observe a vehicle before issuing a ticket? In our case it was 1 minute.

Since our police officer asked the attendant not to ticket the cars, and later to withdraw the ticket, was there a contravention of the above?

Should I appeal for both tickets separately or as one, because the same circumstances apply, i.e. the police officer prevented us from leaving the court room so that we could move the cars, which is why he went and asked for them not to be ticketed. I don't blame him as he was trying to help which is why he was very annoyed with the tickets.

Thanks. The max time limit would be 4 hours and we paid for 1-2 hours rather than 0-1, the next one is 2-3 and 3-4. But i'll check on their board.

The police officer was pee'd off cos he'd asked the parking attendant not to ticket our cars because we were in the hearing. But he still did it. It was a sentencing hearing for the driver, who survived with minor injuries but two of his teenage friends died from the accident. He got a short prison sentence.

That's not a problem, the police officer is willing to give a statement of where we were (as he was with us at the hearing) plus it is widely reported in local media (paper and radio). I'll provide his details with the appeal letter as he's given permission for this.

Is it unlawful to buy another ticket if the first one is expiring? had I done this, I wouldn't have got the PCN as i would have renewed some 15 minutes before the expiry. I understand what you mean but am confused why it's unlawful.

Hi, I attended a sentencing court hearing for a teenage family member who was killed in a car crash some months ago. I paid for 2 hours parking as that would have been enough. However, the hearing went over slightly and I was around 15 minutes late. There was a PCN issued and it is a council car park across the court. As a victim family we have 2 police liaison officers who attended court with us. During the judges determination, when he went away to decide the sentence, I asked an officer if I could leave so that I can get a new parking ticket. This was about 20 mins before the first one was due to expire. He said no I can't, as the judge may come back any time, but he will go and give the car reg to the attendant so that it does not get ticketed, which he did. Arriving back at the car I had a PCN issued. The police officers asked if he can withdraw the ticket but the attendant said he cannot do anything because it is 'in the system' and that I would have to appeal under the normal procedures. The police officer has said I can refer to him for any information the council may require, such as to confirm I attended court and the hearing went slightly over but that he prevented me from leaving. My brother, whose son was killed, also got a PCN. The reasons are the same. It states £50 within 28 days or £25 within 14 days. Any advice?

so what to do when the FOS decide that ALL charges/fees are fair because essentially: (1) the bank has provided an estimate breakdown (2) they're in the terms and conditions so no refund is due .....

The FOS are terrible, i've had the same irrational decisions from them regarding mortgage charges being fair in their eyes, without them actually investigating them properly.

Citi say (correctly) that if a debtor is not informed of any transfer then the it is an 'equitable' assignment and that this made them the legal creditor again (wrong). What they won't answer is how a legal assignment can be completed without a Notice of Assignment to the debtor, which is what they are saying has happened. Since they now accept the assignment was equitable, their 'selling' the account again to Cabot is wrongful data processing, isn't it? Because they had no legal right to do this. End result, I now have Cabot chasing me for the same account under 2 ref numbers even though they're aware it's the same account. Citi say this is not their problem and to contact Cabot as the legal creditor.

Nobody will come but why don't you send them an invoice for taking the day off tomorrow, as you had to be home for Mr Russel?

was doing a schedule of my fees when I noticed something .... There are two transactions in 2005 under "capital transfer to new lender" and "capital transfer ex old lender", a credit and a debit which returns the balance to where it was a few days before, plus interest of around £50 because of "delay" between the two. The whole mortgage amount is credited and debited apart from any arrears balance (interest from the previous month or so). A "capital transfer" is done again around 5 years later in 2010. Obviously this is securitising and the 5 year period would suggest bond maturity. The first is 6 years after I got my mortgage and I always thought they'd 'sold' it before that. The questions to ask are: who was it transferred to and from on both occasions? My mortgage conditions state I can enforce the transferee's obligations if they fail in their duties but I don't know who the transferee is whilst they can enforce my obligations towards them, such as charging me fees and issuing court proceedings against me. Doesn't this create an imbalance within the contract? The bank has also applied "litigation instruction" and "solicitors costs (other than fees from solicitors)" in the same months, sometimes adding around £300 a month. The fees are also different and erratic, though there is a pattern to some. It's very hard to work out why and how they apply these fees thus the condition doesn't meet the 'plain english' criteria. The other fees are "unpaid item" and "arrears fee" and again sometimes one or both are charged.

I'm not home this weekend but i'll check the response but I think the letter said they'll ask for a breakdown as per MCOB 12.4.1R whilst previously they'd said the SC ruling arrears charges could not be challenged. This was used together with them saying they don't investigate these charges, they consider them fair as it's a market rate and that I agreed to the conditions (this they still say).

I've got this exact letter today .... though I am in contact with all my creditors and nobody would need to trace me. I've had a few letters from various DCAs this year all which turned out to be phishing exercises and the person they were looking for was not me.

Yes, I just got one of their vague letters today, asking me to help them to establish/verify info they hold and that no info is disclosed to any third party. I'm in contact with all my creditors so there's no-one that would be tracing me.

That's good ....

though this is an old thread, just to let you know that as soon as we issued an N1 in the local court, they paid up in full with costs. That was in Dec 2006 or Jan 2007.

Citi have got their legal team involved due to me saying they haven't been conforming to laws of assignment and passing account back and forth between them and Cabot and that it's not clear who legally owned the account during certain periods. Should I be worried?

The FOS is not really looking into the matter properly but this is the route they're on and seems no turns. Initially they said they don't investigate mortgage arrears charges but then changed their mind. But i'll push them to ask for a breakdown of every charge, as it should be reflective of costs for that instance only, but I don't think they'll listen. If the matter ends in court, maybe because the bank initiate repossession proceedings or I issue for the charges, then I can argue the points. But it may be the case that the court might not look into those charges already part of a balance when repossession proceedings were issued previously, as they may deem a judge has declared the balance enforceable even though the balance included arrears charges but these were not disputed by me, due to lack of knowledge but also because the bank has always insisted, in their terms and conditions, they are reflective of costs so I was misled. The FOS also tried to use the SC ruling but not anymore. However, the argument here would be that only personal current account terms and conditions were assessed and not mortgage conditions and that the SC did say a challenge could be bought by the consumer under Reg 5(1). It is also clear arrears charges are incidental to a breach and not a request for an informal overdraft.

This whole 'buy back' may also be unlawful. If the bank absolutely assigns the debt to the DCA, it would need to be absolutely assigned back to the bank for them to become legal owner and that means Notice of Assignment to the debtor. But this is never done as far as I know and the bank simply 'buy back' the debt. But under what legal process do they do this?

Does this mean we can claim charges and PPI from DCAs? Most of my credit card accounts were sold to DCAs and the balances include these plus more interest and charges from the DCA. Some I claimed from the bank and some refused to pay.

The info above about each charge being relevant to that particular breach only (instance of charge) is useful as I've been told otherwise from the FOS, so I will now ask them to get a breakdown for each charge as they are judging it wrong otherwise. Are there are FSA/OFT rules I can use for this? Also, the FOS has provided terms and conditions from 1995 and 2001 only and none when these were later varied, as they can't be lasting 10 years to date. Can I say that since I wasn't aware of the relevant condition at the time of the charge, because the bank did not inform me though it may have been the same wording, it is unfair and unenforceable? They've sent me tariff info from 1999, 2002 and 2010. My charges are between 2003 and 2009. They haven't charged me any for 2010 even though I am in arrears.

They won't send me the breakdown ESTIMATE because it's confidential they say. I don't know how it can be confidential when all it is an ESTIMATE equal to their published rate. So a SAR may be a waste of money but it may get me other useful information as I can include those other complaints which were irrationally judged. I have about 5 of these relating to credit card accounts.