.....and I would be very tempted to add on the cost of the 'phone calls to them asking for it back too!! I'm willing to bet it was a 'premium line' of some kind!!

Having heard some horror stories connected with AOL, I'm pleased I'm not connected with them at all (intentional pun there!). Although I'm far, far from being a 'puta expert', I also understand that removing AOL from the system is by no means easy.

I think 14 is more the norm. I think it also shows you're really trying to give them an opportunity to settle without resorting to court. I think we all know from experience how slowly the wheels of big business revolve - unless it's you that owes them money, of course!!

Surely though, the fact the many banks/credit card companies already do acknowledge that we've 'made a complaint' to them show that we've gone down this route and failed to get resolution. Certainly in my case both credit card companies I've approached so far have used the phrase "Thank you for your complaint" in their replies to me (one after S.A.R and the other after receiving my 'pre-lim' letter). I've seen similar responses in other Threads too. Also, although I'm more than happy to be corrected on this, isn't it the complainant's perogative to choose the methodology of following their complaint?

But don't forget to add the phrase "......and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgement" to cover the time from now until judgement is made.

That's as maybe, possibly I agree with your reasoning. However, the Law Society regulates solicitors and the legal profession but not the banks/financial institutions who are actually 'doing the taking'. As has been suggested earlier, possibly the best places for your complaint are either your MP, the FO or the OFT (who's original report last April brought this issue to more general attention).

Although I can usually write a reasonable letter, (not, though, to the standard of some here), I confess I'd be hard pressed to find the right words to 'thank' someone for 'giving me back' what's rightfully mine anyway. Even more so if the 'gift' had been taken from me unlawfully, as seems to be the case with most 'charges' described on here! That's even more especially so if I'd had to put up with some of the delaying tactics amply demonstrated in other Threads. However, that said, a carefully and tactfully worded 'acknowledgement of receipt' does seem to me to be the polite way to conduct business. The only circumstances in which I would actually 'thank' anyone for a repayment are those in which the institution concerned refunded me in full immediately (or soon) after receipt of my preliminary request. I think that would deserve 'thanks' for saving me the trouble of pursuing a claim, if nothing else. If the 'gift' came with accompanying 'acceptance terms' I would reject these as a matter of course. I seem to remember reading in a Thread on here somewhere recently that any 'terms of acceptence' do themselves warrant an additional payment to that claimed/refunded. In many places here the advice given has always been that repayments should be 'unconditional' and, in my opinion anyway, they should always remain so too.

Thanks for that nathal.

Nathal, I’m a little confused (unless I’m missing something vital). In your first post in this Thread, on 20th October, you say: “Car then broke down and was getting fixed but in the process the car was repossed in the state the car was in.” and “The collection team lifted the car from the garage while getting repaired and sold at auction nort driving.” Later, on 23rd October, you say: “the car was not driving, not sure what was wrong, but the warranty would have repaired the car” A part of the letter you’ve drafted to send to the finance company says: “As I delivered the vehicle to the collection team at (address) and the vehicle was driven away, the vehicle was of sound mechanical order and it was indicated at the time that the vehicle had no impending problems. Since the vehicle was mechanically sound and in full running order when I delivered the car to your agents, I am concerned that in the (short) intervening period between delivering the said vehicle and it reaching the auction house, it mysteriously developed a fault that was so serious it was sold as a non-runner, seriously affecting its resale value and increasing my indebtedness. As I can provide witnesses to attest to the fact the vehicle was fully capable of propulsion, I regret I cannot accept that the vehicle was disposed of in good faith, therefore any action you may contemplate against me will be robustly defended, and I wish to state that should legal action be raised, a counter suit for the appropriate amounts lost due to an apparently fraudulent sale will follow without further notice. I do hope this will not be necessary.” Now, while I hate to question you on anything you’ve said, as I read it those statements seem to contradict each other a bit. As I’ve said, I might be missing (or misreading) something important and if I’ve misunderstood the situation regarding whether the car was or was not driveable when it was re-possessed, I apologise now.

.......and, of course, the Sale of Goods Act overrides any 'warranty' given by a manufacturer/retailer too!

Caused me offence, bill-k? Of course you haven't, perish the thought!!! I do appreciate your concern though, thanks very much! My situation as a Creditor in this IVA is a 'one-off' as far as I'm concerned as it's far, far more usual for me to be 'on the other side' as a Debtor.

.....but I do admire your email a lot!!!

I was about to say "I ain't ever seen a bull with tits"....but then thought better of it!!!!!

Just as an aside to the more pressing needs of your friend, I found out yesterday that some insolvency practitioners don't even know about the whole question of unlawful charges by banks and credit card companies. I am a creditor to someone in an already-set-up IVA and was speaking to the practitioners concerned about another matter. As an 'aside' I mentioned the matter of unlawful charges as I knew the debtor concerned had incurred quite a lot from both a bank and credit card companies. I was somewhat astonished to learn that this was 'news' to the person I was speaking to! He/she had no idea that such things had happened and, I think, was somewhat embarrassed to be told of it by me. One thing that did transpire though was that any 'repayment of charges' would be treated as a 'windfall' to be shared among the creditors. I can see some 'black humour' here too; sue the bank to get charges back and they eventually get the same money back again as a 'windfall payment'! I suppose it puts another slant on the saying "what goes around, comes around"!!!!

Just a personal view but I think the Information Commissioner's office are seriously at fault in trying to give advice on a subject that's not within their remit. They actually admit this is not within their remit. Whether the information is right or wrong is immaterial, they're making pronouncements on matters which do not concern them. If I received a reply like this I would immediately copy it to the OFT and ask for their opinion.

Sorry for the delay getting back to you - some foul, four letter word beginning in 'w' and ending in 'k'.... and with 'o' and 'r' in the middle!!! Have a look in the Templates Library at this letter: 'Rejection of Settlement Letter'. Modify it where necessary and I think it will fit the bill for you.

Accept the offer as a partial settlement, ask for the balance and if they don't want to play ball, take 'em to court in the way described in these pages. To my mind, them offering something and you accepting it as a partial settlement looks god for the future.

If 'twas me in ths situation I would keep and cash the cheque but also immediately write back (1st Class Recorded Delivery) saying I accept the cheque as a partial settlement of my claim and look forward to receiving the balance of (quote amount) by such-and-such date. As far as the six year limitation is concerned I seem to recall reading on this site somewhere that there is an argument for beginning the limitation period from the date when you could have reasonably expected as a layman to be aware the charges were unlawful. To my mind this could set the date at April 2006 when the OFT reported. No doubt someone more savvy than I will correct me if I'm wrong.

Very interesting, thanks for the link! I can't think why complaints against banks should soar though! Surely, the banks are the most law-abiding, morally upright members of society? :rolleyes: Perish the thought anyone should think differently!!!

I agree! By switching the emphasis from 'penalties' for breaching the T&C's (overlimit, returned D/D etc., etc.) they're now imposing a 'penalty' for not putting an arbitrary, set sum of money through the account each month. To my simple mind it makes no difference what they call this £10 charge, it's still a 'penalty' at the end of the day. I'd love to see how a judge viewed it but, unfortunately in some ways, I'm not a FD customer.

The thin end of the wedge for many?

I do actually have a 'second signature' that I have used once or thrice on those occasions when I don't wholly trust the recipient.

I guess that Powergen, like so many other 'utilities', don't really know too much about what's going on in the real world and use the 'guesstimate' method all too easily. I read yesterday in a daily newspaper that they were taking someone to court over an unpaid bill for....wait for it.... £0.00!!! Quite honestly, if it happened to me I'd let them take me there and then explain to the judge how I was expected to pay the amount. I'm not at all sure how my bank would react to a cheque for £0.00 being presented for payment either!

The suggestion that credit card companies might bring back annual fees has no direct link to the OFT and their directive earlier this year concerning the level of their 'overlimit', 'late payment' etc., etc. charges. As the extract from this Forum's FAQ's I posted earlier makes clear, the £12 'limit' for charges is only the level at which the OFT would intervene on behalf of a consumer. It is for the courts to decide what represents a fair charge once the actual costs incurred by a particular credit card company are known to them. I think The Scotsman are somewhat misleading when they say: "Earlier this year, the Office of Fair Trading restricted the amount banks could charge in penalty fees for defaulting on credit-card repayments to a maximum of £12." As I've pointed out above, the OFT did not actually restrict anyone to anything, they merely set an arbitrary threshold over which they would intervene. I suppose to some this would amount to a restriction, but the OFT did not actually use the word as far as I am aware.

Have I missed something important from the OFT? I may well have done but, and it's a big but, as far as I'm aware the OFT have never said £12 is a reasonable charge for late payment etc. Below is a copy of a "Q&A" from the FAQ's on this site. Hope it helps and if it does, my scales are at the bottom left! "Q. I saw something about the OFT..... Can credit cards charge me £12? A. NO. The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) issued a directive to credit card companies to set a point at which they (the OFT) would intervene on behalf of the consumer. They did not state that £12 was lawful - in fact they stated that only a court can decide. "A fair default charge should not exceed a reasonable estimate of certain limited administrative costs which the credit card issuer reasonably expects to incur as a result of default" In other words - reclaim the full amount unless they are willing to show the evidence of what it does cost."