I do like that last link, that could be VERY useful!

Thanks for that info, Dave, this is one of the most useful sites I have ever come across, I await the updates with interest!

The interesting angle in my case is that they are charging me £38 a time for failed direct debits "due to insufficient funds". But it's the charges that took me overdrawn, not anything that I had paid out. More to follow of course but I'm more interested in people's opinions on the original post (and the topics raised since) at this stage.

Not sure if I'm allowed to post this, so please delete and accept my apologies if not, but here goes. I have 5 ING Direct vouchers, internet savings account, just £1 deposit to open the account, pays 4.5% AER. Each voucher gives the bearer a £10 bonus and gives me one too. PM me if you want one, I will be more than happy to donate my "commission" to this site.

Many thanks, much appreciated. No great rush, I haven't had the time to deal with it lately anyway (too busy fighting everybody else)

I think the real problem is, and you said it yourself, people just can't be arsed for the occasional £30 or so when they know they were probably at fault in the first place. It's like council tax, councils are legally obliged to spend their (our) money wisely but look at the waste! But does anybody challenge it? Same with parking tickets, unfair speeding fines etc. The government, banks and businesses make fortunes out of us and the apathy of the population in general towards these things amazes me. Most of the country just can't be bothered, and I'm not sure that a public awareness campaign would be money well spent in this way. After all, bank charges and obscene profits, along with multi-million pound payoffs to retiring chairmen etc. are all fairly common knowledge anyway. I feel that those who want to fight will eventually find their way to sites like this one, the rest just can't be bothered. I'm not sure you will change that somehow. I also feel that if the banks were forced to change their ways they will recoup their losses in other ways, such as reintroducing charges on personal accounts in the way they charge business accounts. As it stands, this may be a slightly selfish point of view (but not deliberately so), but the current situation is that those of us who fight get our money back, whereas those who can't be bothered miss out. This suits the banks and currently, to be honest, suits most of the members of this forum in terms of results.

That's pretty much what I am getting at. My argument with Equifax is that they are deciding what goes on my file and what does not; i.e. they are choosing to accept that the bank or company is correct and the customer is wrong. As a result I think that, due to inaccurate information, Equifax are directly responsible for the fact that I am, for example, paying 29.9% APR on my car loan because It was the best deal I could get. I would be grateful for more info on this.

Sorry if this has been covered but I haven't seen it. If you go overdrawn without an overdraft agreement, e.g. an unauthorised overdraft", the bank tells you that it is a breach of the terms and conditions for the account to be overdrawn and you are asked to bring it back into credit. Fair enough. However, if a bank then ADDS to that overdraft by adding charges for (for example) an unpaid direct debit, is the bank not then in breach of their own terms and conditions? This becomes even more relevant when the overdraft occurs (as in my case) as a direct result of the charges added to the account; therefore the bank are surely breaching their own terms and conditions by sending it into overdraft themselves by adding the charges. Surely the T&C's are binding between BOTH parties? Any thoughts on this, it's bugged me for a while.

I understand your point, but by publishing the information they are effectively "making a decision" about your credit worthiness, especialy when in the event of a dispute regarding the information they make available, they themselves decide that the information remains on file if the company/bank concerned says it is correct, i.e. you can say it is wrong but the agency will always "side" with the company. They have explitly refused to publish a comment from myself stating that the entry was incorrect and that I did not default on the account, and the total said to be owed to the company is incorrect. It is therefore ultimately Equifax (in this case) that are deciding what my credit rating is by agreeing to publish the information against me but not allowing my defence to be published.

That's what the credit reference agencies would have you believe! We all know that in all but name, a blacklist is exactly what is amounts to. Scottish Hydro Electric certainly seem to think so anyway. Here's an excerpt from a letter I recently recieved from them: "...Further action will affect your credit rating and could result in you being blacklisted." The bold type is theirs, not mine!

Call Credit is the third one. Contact addresses for all three: Experian Ltd Consumer Help Service PO Box 8000 Nottingham, NG1 5GX http://www.experian.co.uk Equifax Plc Credit File Advice Service PO Box 3001 Glasgow, G81 2DT http://www.equifax.co.uk Callcredit plc Consumer Services Dept Park Row House 19-20 Park Row Leeds, LS1 5FJ http://www.callcredit.co.uk

Interesting, since the NatWest are now part of the RBS group. I would personally be very wary of getting an account with another bank within the same group, presumably they have access to each other's database? For those with business bank charges in mind I was told recently that the Halifax are offering 12 months' free business banking, but Alliance and Leicester is not a bad deal at £10 a month. They turned me down, though.

I think it's an absolute disgrace how banks and companies can screw up your credit rating, but you can do nothing about them. The way the credit reference agency system works is ridiculous. For example, a company can place a default notice on my file saying that I owe, for example, £500 - yet that company might owe me even more if I take them to court for compensation I feel I am owed. I can ask the credit reference agency to remove the entry, but if the company does not agree, they won't. I think it's ridiculous that inaccurate information is allowed to remain on your file on the say-so of the company concerned, and I am considering threatening the credit reference agency for defamation of character for allowing inaccurate inforamation to affect my credit rating. I don't know if there would be any "mileage" in this but their response might be interesting.

As far as I know the banks are not allowed to make Payment Protection Insurance compulsory. In addition to trhis it can be cancelled at any time with, usually, 30 days notice. It's therefore my advice to opt for it when applying for the card, then cancelling it immediately the account is opened. Best way to use a credit card is of course to repay it in full each month. No interest payments and no need for PPI insurance.

It's correct that all banks have to offer a basic bank account by law, but these accounts don't include a debit card or cheque book. No charges if you stay in credit but no overdraft facilities. As an alternative for those with a bad credit rating, (especially if you need yo buy online), you MIGHT be able to get a credit card from Capital One. You will only get £200 credit limit AND you have to lodge a £200 deposit for as long as you have the account (so you're not actually getting any credit limit to begin with). After 7 months you can apply for an increase, I got mine upped to £400. The APR is VERY high, 29.9%, so ALWAYS make sure you repay in full, that way there are no charges. You WILL be charged £20 for a late payment and £20 if you go over your credit limit, even by a few pence. Yes, you can fight the charges but better to use the card to rebuild your credit score whilst at the same time ensuring you are not spending more than you can afford to. Works for me!

Interesting to note that they state that they have to charge £10 because of the amount of work involved. Funny that they can do all that work for £10 but charge £38 for the work involved in a single failed direct debit charge. I have often wondered in cases such as this if we are justified in charging them for the letters WE send? Could we legally do this?

This sort of payment protection insurance (PPI) is usually offered as an option, but "enabled" by default on many forms, you have to tick a box to opt out or it is charged automatically. This is also true of online applications, especialy for loans, credit cards etc., in this case you usually have to UNtick a box if you don't want it.

Good post. I'm in a similar position, although mostly because they are charging for direct debits that I have previously cancelled and I'm currently fighting about £300 of charges. Will go into this fully in a seperate thread at a later date, but some great info on this site. Some excellent info on this site too. http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/cgi-bin/viewnews.cgi?newsid1141050760,24632#reclaim