Just take it a step at a time Jimi -TJey , , use the PPI website, open a thread for yourself , ask for advice on template letters etc .,and you should be fine. Be aware the banks may try to discourage you at first ... and put you off ... they have 12 weeks to deal with your claim from the date of your first letter ... make sure they stick to it .. .if they don't , a threat to bring in the Financial Ombudsman should do it... because it costs the banks (I think It's about £400) for each complaint , whether it's upheld or not ...

Hi Jimi T-Jey , welcome to the forum ... If you separate your claims into PPI and Bank Charges you'll find it easier to manage .. I , personally , would say if you've got the time do the claims yourself .. I'd start with PPI bcause banks etc are paying out at a great rate of knots on this at the moment . Have a read of the recent PPI threads... http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?111-Payment-Protection-Insurance-(PPI) I think you'll find it's easier to claim than you thought , without going through a company who may rip you off big time .. you just tell them what you think they owe you .. and ask for it back .. with 8% Statutory Interest ... Open a thread for yourself on the PPI forum and just ask for advice .. someone will answer .. and it won't cost you a penny As for bank charges .,, they're at a bit of a standstill at the moment ... but . nothing ventured nothing gained .. doesn't hurt to ask ...

Hi , everyone ,, been a while since I posted on here , but thought it might give encouragement to others to hear this story . Some weeks ago I encouraged my Son -in -Law to chase HSBC for refund of PPI .... he was in an employment(actor) for which they would never have paid out ... They kept putting him off and waffling about how long it would take and it wasn't really worth bothering about .. so I told him to write a letter , give them a deadline -12 weeks , which they (reluctantly )admitted that FSA had given them to deal with these claims ... then 10 days before the deadline I got him to telephone and remind them of the due date , and if they failed to meet it , it would be reported to the Ombudsman ... Well ,, 7 days before the deadline .. he's had a cheque for the full amount + 8% Interest ... and he's over the moon ... The message I think is, , tell them what you want ... when you want it by .. and be sure they know you're prepared to carry out the reporting threat ... that way you don't languish at the bottom of their pile ...where all the non-complainers go .... this is what happens ... if you don't make a noise they'll ignore you .... Hope this helps to get your money back folks ... don't let 'em off the hook ...

[Do you mean blanket all DCA stating that HSBC have not complied with request for CCA? Yes , and of course point out that they also have not sent any documentation to prove you owe them anything I would also consider writing to the Ombudsman , to report HSBC for passing on a debt which is "in dispute" , contrary to regulations .... and for repeatedly trashing your Credit Rating with defaults , also while the account is in dispute ... Are there any templates for this at all?/] I don't think so as such , but if you phone FOS , state your case and ask for advice , they'll advise you of the best way forward and send you a complaint form , which is more likely to be dealt with anyway IMHO..

Hi Julian , i think it maybe time to send a "blanket" letter to these DCA s .... a "once and for all|" notification (recorded delivery) that as they have failed to comply with your repeated requests , you will not deal further with them until they comply. I would also consider writing to the Ombudsman , to report HSBC for passing on a debt which is "in dispute" , contrary to regulations .... and for repeatedly trashing your Credit Rating with defaults , also while the account is in dispute ... Have you asked HSBC to remove the defaults? (sorry, I haven't read all the way back on your thread ) . That may be worth a try first , informing them that failure to comply will result in a report to the Ombudsman on both counts ... The FOS likes you to have exhausted all other avenues before you contact them .. so any hard copy evidence willl help ..

Maybe time to shake their complacency a bit caro ... there is another petition I saw today managed to get 100,000 signatures .. and should now be investigated by parliament .. soo we need to aim high .. get everyone involved ..an ACB ! (all Caggers Bulletin ! LOL )

Good for you Termi ,, I remember that starting ... go for it ... I'll certainly sign it ...

Hee hee ..you're right RDM .. but the suspense is killing me !

seems awful quiet on feedback for this one ... ... just have to hope Mike Dailly or someone enlightens us I suppose ...

I agree caro ,, but when you see the constituency Mark Hoban represents (Fareham , Hants ) , I shouldn't think many of his constituents will be howling about Bank Charges rip-offs . He is quite safe in stonewalling the way he did with Martin Lewis ... i.e. let's move forward and forget the people who were ripped off in the past ... GRRR! . btw I'm sorry I can't make the meet on Saturday ... but I wish you all a convivial evening ... regards to yourself Caro , Pete , PD ,Termi Tills, and anyone else who remembers me from two years ago ... family commitments mean I can't be there ...

I think that says it for us all Night Owl ....we await the result with interest ... Mike Dailly has worked sooo hard for this ... he deserves a favourable result ...

Hi jfadeyi1, If you've got the letter which says that they will remove the default ,, then beat them over the head with it ! Write, enclosing a copy of course, and tell them they've got 14 days to remove it .. or it's court ... Also , if you think that by failing to remove the default they have lost you something ... i.e Mortgage , grant or bank loan or anything ... tell them that too .. and ask them to send you their compensation claim procedure ... It may be a long road, but the first thing is to get them to remove the default as promised .. then come back and ask again .... someone will answer , who may be more up on the Compensation angle than I am . ....

Hi BD , It's OK to have a "rammy" if there's something to argy aboot ...lol ! ....but this was hieroglyphics disguising an Advertisement for something or other ... and I've had 3 e-mail notifications of different ones through CAG under this thread ... .. beginning to think I've been hacked somehow ... .. But no doubt they'll give up and b****r off eventually ... LOL !

Ah ! looks like that iffy post has gone ...well done mods |!! LOL !

Good morning CB and Caro ... Great work .... my e-mail has gone already to my MP ! My son still has a "Stayed" case in court .... hope this moves things along favourably ...and hopefully the Scottish cases will be favourably resolved soon to add weight to the claims ...

Hi panther I'm think that they may have dropped themselves in it , (maybe someone else can clarify this for us).... they have admitted knowing it was for full and final settlement ... and , as it was a third party cheque ,, should have been returned if it was being refused as such ... not used as an instalment ..

well pointed out Night owl ... In which case it was given without even monitoring being considered ...i.e . negligently ... had it been monitored , and properly checked , someone would have realised it was the wrong stuff ..

Hi Herofad , If you want the negative markers removed , I would suggest ringing the Financial Ombudsman (not the ICO) explain the position and ask them for advice. ... It'll take longer , but if you've got a strong case they will support you ... and if HSBC think that the Ombudsman is becoming involved they may just fold .... also it costs them £400 - 500 just because the FOS is involved , no matter what the outcome FOS should send you Complaint Papers so a template at the moment is not necessary ... The other option of course is to accept their offer then try to get the markers removed ... I think that might muddy the waters somewhat though .. in the final analysis , it's up to you .... but let's know how it goes .. it'll help others

Hi Panther , You could enclose a copy of their letter , saying ... you've told me you've got nowt to do with me any more , so why are you demanding money from me ? Or , as shadow says , treat it as an aberration of their system .. i.e. template letters which come at a certain time ... no matter what ... LOL Personally , I would let them stew ... if they did go to court (which they never will!) you've got the letter to prove Moorcroft've got no right to collect anything .. by their own admission ....

Good idea Termi , I think our Zippy (your ziggy ?LOL) is a bit of a wind-up merchant ... and it's not a subject for that kind of response IMHO ... if we just ignore him he may go and try someone else ..

I totally agree with you Night owl ... that was what I was trying to convey ....the importance of dealing with an error of this sort .. you put it so much better than I did !

As has already been pointed out to you zippybgr, no one has mentioned money in this case , just an aim to ensure that this is dealt with so that it doesn't happen again with even worse consequences .. I fail to see how one can over-react to a potentially life-threatening occurence ,, especially when such a vulnerable, poorly infant was involved ..... the situation must be addressed urgently , and this was Tilly's intention ..for which she asked help, not innuendo... Maybe you should operate the first part of your handle a bit more ...and zip it !

Hi Sam , Things are in limbo at the moment ...awaiting the outcome of some of the Scottish cases ...just keep an eye on your case if it's stayed to make sure the bank don't try to sneak a "strike out" application ... and if the court come and tell you they're considering striking it out ... write and tell them you are waiting for other case results ... so would like it stayed further until these materialise .. I think there's one due to be heard in July .... through the GLC , so hopefully not long to wait .. you may then be able to submit amended POCs to suit ....

hi herofad , Sounds like the usual waffle to me ... and I think I'm right in saying that they are not allowed to put conditions like that on their settlements ... can you imagine what they'd say if you said to them .. "okay I'll pay your charges this time , but don't come looking for any more "... You are fully entitled to reclaim PPI if you think you are due refunds .. go for it ... I would think that if the "market practices changed " then so did the criteria for giving you a DN ... I would press them to wipe the slate clean given the statement in their letter ... don't think they'd like to argue it in court ... They were doing this sort of thing before the Test case ... people on here were advised to delete the condition that you wouldn't pursue further claims and send it off .... and they paid up anyway ... albeit claiming that it was a "Goodwill" payment .. Maybe someone else will have suggestions on this too .. but that's MHO ...

Hi chunkylinc, This is the gist of the letter my son sent . He actually did include Reg 5 in his original POCs so maybe that could have a bearing on para 4 ... but you could always say you'd like to reserve the right to amend your POCs to include Reg 5 if the cases in train at the moment are successful. btw .. he sent this to the court ... by his deadline date ... however they haven't come back with a yes or no yet apparently ... but it must still be in court or they'd have notified him .... hope this helps .... : " DATE : xx xxx xx CLAIM NO. xxxxxxxxxxx XXXXXXXXXXXXXX Vs HSBC With reference to the order received from the court dated xx xxx .2011, I respectfully request that the order be amended and that the stay remain in place. My reasons for this request are as follows Although the Supreme Court decision found in favour of the banks, the Law Lords in their summing up went to great pains to point out that the case was focused only on regulation 6 (2) (b) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. In addition the law lords also pointed out that ‘the charges might still be open to assessment on other grounds under regulation 5 of the UTCCR 1999 UTCCR 1999 REG. 5.—(1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer. My Particulars of Claim include a challenge under Regulation 5 and this issue remains unresolved. I strongly believe that the defendant has acted in bad faith and that it has caused an imbalance in rights that has been to my detriment. At present two cases are being taken through the Scottish courts by the Govan Law Centre, Sharp vs Bank of Scotland and Reid vs Clydesdale Bank Plc and are in large part based upon Regulation 5 being used to challenge the fairness of bank charges. As the banks were granted a stay in regard to the ‘Test Case’ at the Supreme Court, in the interests of fairness I would like to request that my case remains stayed until judgment has been made with regards to the above cases and until the legal position in regards to Regulation 5 has been clarified. Yours etc. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx