Hmmmm, very interesting. I stand corrected! I suppose there would not be much point in calling it a cheque guarantee card if it was not properly guaranteed. What happens if the bank writes to you and cancels your card - would they still honour a cheque written with it?

Yes, but bound by whom? I'm not certain, but I reckon if you check the small print it will say somewhere that the guarantee part is actually discretionary. It's difficult to imagine the banks allowing themselves to get into a situation where they are compelled to pay something, regardless of how much is in the account - especially since it's their contract you're signing in the first place.

Hang on! I don't agree with your last point Bankfodder. How can you spend money from an empty account without the bank's cooperation? I think it's safe to say that no money leaves the bank under any circumstances without the bank's permission (except maybe during an armed robbery). They can hardly say it was 'unauthorised' if they released the money. Nobody is forcing them to let you go over your overdraft, it can only happen with their permission.

Send in £10 with a letter to their head office saying the following: Dear Sirs, Please send me all of the information which I am entitled to under the Data Protection Act 1998. I require you to enclose copies of all bank statements. Your faithfully They have 40 days to comply (which they will, quite happily). After that add up all the charges and send them a letter threatening court within xxx days if the money isn't returned.

My advice to you is not to get involved in an argument with these people. Bear in mind that this lady probably can't authorise a full refund anyway. All you have to do is fill in the court claim forms and be done with it. Once they receive the summons you'll get your cash back. Just make sure you have an alternative account set up first. In my experience there is absolutely nothing to be gained from arguing with them. Keep it simple, and don't back down. And remember, it's not a 'refund', you're demanding your own money back which they improperly took from you. Keep focussed on that, and you'll get your money back.

They're probably trying to placate you so that you won't go after them for the £577. Their reasoning might be that these new charges could very well be the thing that tips you over into actually starting proceedings, so better just to refund them. I wouldn't worry about harming your claim - the chances of them defending such a small amount are zero.

Just a suggestion eeloojon, but I wouldn't use their website's email system to send documents which you might need in court. Far better send stuff to them by traditional post, preferably registered. That way there can be no ambiguity about 'acceptable formats' etc. Also, if you go into any business with multiple outlets, you will almost always see a notice giving details of the business, including an address "where documents can be effectively served". I think it is best to make sure everything goes to that address, so there can be no misunderstanding, and so that you can be sure that your communication is going to someone who matters.

I think this issue might be quite simple, but I must first confess that I don't know a great deal about it. As I understand it, the early redemption penalty is there to protect the lender in case interest rates go up (or is it down?) and you bail out early. Apparently they make some sort of investment to cover your mortgage in case interest rates move in an unfavourable way for them. Essentially, my take on this is that if interest rates have stayed the same, or gone down during the redemption period then the lender is getting a better rate out of you than the 'norm' - in which case they have no basis for charging a penalty if you leave early (because they haven't suffered a loss). However, if interest rates had gone up and they were getting a lesser rate than the 'norm', then I think they have a basis for charging you, because by leaving early you are denying them the opportunity to recoup their 'loss'. This is obviously a back-of-a-fag-packet hypothesis, so feel free to shoot it down!

Christian, see my post in "Me vs Nationwide", my experience is quite similar to yours. Open a basic bank account with either HSBC or Cooperative, apparently they don'y levy charges on them. (and HSBC won't mind your Default)

eeloojon, I am currently in a dispute with Nationwide, and I think my experience to date might be of use to you. I had an loan of £2000, which I was paying at the rate of £100 per month. I added up all the charges I had ever had (about £900) and told them I was deducting them from the amount owed. So far, so good. At this point they got irritated with me and demanded payment in full. I continued paying my monthly amount while Nationwide started their very tedious debt collection routine - endless phone calls; crass, threatening letters - the usual stuff, until eventually they got round to sueing me for £1500. A few weeks after starting their action, they posted a Default notice with Equifax, which is categorically in breach of The Banking Code. At this point I stopped paying them (still with £600/£1500 outstanding. Anyway, after I received the summons I put in a defence based closely on the one from the Govan Law Centre's website, and waited for the case to call. Eventually the case called and Nationwide's lawyer stood and asked me how much of the outstanding amount I was prepared to pay, to which I responded "Nothing". He then said that his fall back position was for Nationwide to abandon their case, so long as I abandoned my counterclaim (I had counterclaimed for damages stemming from them trashing my credit rating). This is where it gets tricky, because I refused point blank to drop my case until they removed the Default altogether from my credit file, but they said they were only prepared to mark it as 'settled', which is no good. So now we are in a bit of a stalemate, because the judge decided that the matter of whether or not they should have sent the Default notice to Equifax should be decided by the Financial Ombudsman Service (not an organisation I have much confidence in), and the case has been put on hold until this is decided. The curious thing about the whole case is that Nationwide were prepared to walk away from the entire loan, even the bit which was not disputed. Anyway, the whole thing is on hold for now. I'll let you know how I get on. The important thing to remember however, is that Nationwide have absolutely no intention whatsoever of allowing their charges to be examined in court.

Good for you Alison... If you need help with letters, the Govan Law Centre in Glasgow have an excellent resource: http://www.bankcharges.info/. I forgot to mention something in my previous post. You have to make sure that they REMOVE any default notice from your credit file, not just mark it as 'settled'. THIS IS CRITICAL!!! Otherwise the Default will still sit on your credit file for the next six years. In general, I word it along the lines of "remove any prejudicial information which they may have passed on to third parties", which pretty much covers everything.

I agree with Dave, you need to make sure they don't trash your credit rating by posting a default notice. For help with this, see section 13.6 of The Banking Code, which explicitly states that they won't pass on information to credit reference agencies "...if the amount owed is in dispute". You must be firm on this point, and don't accept any cr*p about it being difficult/impossible to do. Your bank has unlimited electronic access to your credit file and they can put what they like in it. Bear in mind as well that if they breach The Banking Code and you complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service, they will incur an automatic £700 fee from the ombudsman just to look at matter - a measure intended to encourage them to settle matters amicably. Never underestimate your bank's desire to stay well away from court proceedings.