Terminator, Two issues are getting confused and must be seperated. First is the meaning of the legislation as clarified by the MP. This is clear and on re-reading all the relevant legislation there is not reasonable scope to interperet this is any other way that the court will accept. The courts take things quite literally. Second issue whether there is any evidence of a contract between the parties outside of the signed agreement itself. Banks will be able to show whether someone has been paid a loan and if so where it has been paid to, ie another bank account in the borrowers name. If the agreement is for a credit card or overdraft then the bank will be able to show the financial history and usage of the account. They will also be able to show all of the correspondence exchsnged over the years. The courts are not stupid and will infer from reasonable evidence that you do have an account or loan with them. On a more important note you should realise that in any contract with a bank there is a clause saying that you will indemnify them for any costs they incur in recovering monies from you. If you force them to go to court on the basis of (1) a clear missinterpretation of the legislation which you ther is no chance of winning on, and (2) by just denying that you have any contract with them just to be difficult, then you should be aware that this will not be looked upon very favourably by the judge and will end up paying costs that could be substantial. I am not saying dfon't do what you want to do but these are jsut a couple of important points to remember.

You guys seem to be issing the point, the £10 is for a services, i.e. operating an account with the bank. It is not charged for a breach of contract and therefore not a penalty. Their t&c's will allow them to amend their terms and conditions unilaterally to include a term such as this. On the unfair terms angle - UCTA is not applicable as this £10 fee is not an indemnity and do not belive UTCCR will cover this in any way.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with going for everything that you are legitimately owed. The problem here is that people now appear to be trying their hardest to escape debt that they have run up in revenge for someting or other. It just seems that some peope think they deserve everything in life for free. The sad part is that the rest of society pays for those peoples financial irresponsibility. The interest rates banks will charge will all go up for everyone. Everyone has an obligation to act responsibly, whist we are trying to make the banks do this WE SHOULD SET AN EXAMPLE.

I think that people are starting to miss the point. There is absolutely nothing wrong with tryong to recover charges you have paid that are unfair and in breach of statue or common law. What I think is wrong ias people borrowing money and then deciding that they are not going to pay it back. That is theft, plain and simple. I think that anyone who has taken and spent someone elses money and now decides that they want to try to get out of their responsibilities on a technicality is a deceitful, dishonest and slightly stupid and naive. Even if the technicalities you raise work, which I seriously doubt they will, you will still be bound to repay the debt under common law. On basic principles of equity (fairness) the courts are not going to let these people take other peoples money and let them off without having to pay it back.

Thats not quite right. Loans are occasionally sold as part of a portfolio from one lender to another but that is an entirely different matter to securitisation. Securistisation is where the process by which the owner of receivables, ie a stream of income such as mortgage payments they receive from loans they have created, raises capital through the issuance of bonds against the income stream. This happens in many industries with all kinds of incomes from music royalties to credit cards and mortgages. The key difference is that there will be no change of legal owner of the mortgage compared to a whole loan sale where the legal ownership will change. Kensington is nothig to do with Brittania.

They are making the application for the claim to be struck out therefore they are the claimant and you the defendent. Make sense?

Sorry. I didn't get that from your statement above and thought that others might interpret your statement as an absolute. No offence meant.

I think their argument is probably covered by s.4 UCTA ie they can not ask you to indemnify their loss on a commercial risk they have freely undertaken. Zoot Zoot, I think it is important to clarify that this is not entirely correct as you can do this provided the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.

I have starteda claim to recover overdraft fees but I ma worried that HSBC might attempt to close my account. I have an overdraft with them and still require this. Do they normally close peoples account or cancel their overdrafts? Would be very grateful for peoples thoughts as a little concerned as don't know what I will do if they ask for repayment of the overdraft.

Do you have a copy of the counterclaim itself?

Zoot, I may have an old ERC from about 8years ago, I am also sure that some old penalty payments were added to the mortgage. I am unsure whether to claim because of the time limits you mention. Can you explain me why I can't claim for an ERC but can for penalties. I have found a copy of the Limitation ACt but don't really understand it..... Help please....