Cagbotted !! Now I feel like a true Cagger !! PM

Still there ?!!! Maybe we should all take to slagging off the Banks in French ? PM PS: actually, I would quite like the posts edited, anyone looking up the words will find they are actually pretty offensive, and were just posted up for effect (and were not directed at anyone). I posted them up late last night, after having a few too many early Birthday drinks (It's my Birthday today) !! (also, I'm always normally quite mindful of trying not to let a thread slide off topic)

`Ooooh look at you with your bilingual cagbotting !! Does that mean if I say: "Merde", or " Fous le camp", or "Va t'empaler enculebe" I'll be cagbotted ? Pm (do a google)

Congratulations. Presume this is for the full amount now? Just subscribing and gonna have good read of this thread. Already had one settlement from Lloyds regards a Business account, and now decided I'm gonna sort out the Personal accounts too. These go waaaaaay back to the 80's, and through till about 2006. Story so far: Have sent of SAR's and LBA's. Have now filed an application order on N244 at court for compliance and disclosure. Plus application for costs, and a fine to be issued. Got a court date set for Nov 21st. Not heard a peep from them so far !! Imagine stuff will turn up on 22nd !! Pm

No Probs Caro...... I actually used to be a regular at the Princess Louise. Also no need for accommodation, as I live in London anyhow. PM

Well I was all up for the last one, and got lost on the way (see my post 502) on above !! This time, I'll be checking my A-Z first, and using the SatNav on my phone !! PM

Wetherspoons pubs are like drinking in the sale remnants section of your local homebase !! PM

I'm up or coming along too. I like the idea of the Princess Louise, it's a nice old pub with a bit more character than the usual Wetherspoons, and a damn site easier to find than the printworks (which I tried to find last year and got lost) !! Also it's more central, and better for transport for all, including those south of river, and allows for anyone coming into London for the day to then get along to much easier if they perhaps decide to come get into London earlier and get in some Xmas shopping during the day ? Like this idea. PM

Playing "Devils Advocate" for a moment. Of course the other way it could be looked at, is that the Government could now feel obligated on behalf of it's taxpayer "shareholders" to rein in such Banks liabilities & outgoings, and/or in some way to maintain such practices, in order to bring them all back into a profit situation ASAP ??

Flying pigs !!

Damn.... You've sussed the plan !! We were planning on telling claimants to go see their bank managers, and threaten to do a dance of the 7 veils in front of them unless they coughed up !! ... ah well, back to the drawing board !! PM

Okay, I thought I would just make a post here regards the current situation for Business claimants. Last week the judge (Justice Andrew Smith) made another announcement as part and parcel of the next round of the OFT case. As you may all recall, the first round of the case involved the judge making a decision upon whether or not there are grounds for claimants to claim; under either the UTCCR99, or using the contention that the charges amounted to penalties under common law. This first round was focused and concerned only with the Banks current T&C's that were submitted with regards the current OFT case (after all having been rather hastily changed) for the judges consideration. The Judge ruled that the charges were actually subject to the jurisdiction of the UTCCR99. Good news for those using this, (although in typical stubborn manner the banks shall be appealing this) ! (Remember, this was only a judgement upon whether the terms were subject to such law, not actually whether they break such laws, as that matter will be determined later). That was the good news. It could later give those claiming under UTCCR99 grounds for a claim, if the OFT go on to win the contention that the charges do and/or did break such laws. The bad news was that the judge also ruled that considering the banks current T&C's, the charges did not constitute penalties at common law. This was (potentially) bad news for Business claimants, as this is the basis of their claims, as their contracts were not and still are not covered by UTCCR99. However, the last judgement was only focused upon the current T&C's, and a further analysis of historic T&C's then still needed to be done. So, last week, this next judgement regards historic T&Cs was (sort of, and subject to a few T&C's still to be considered further) completed. Again the judge has disappointingly declared that the historic T&C's did not make the charges amount to penalties at common law. See here: BBC NEWS | Business | Early overdraft victory for banks So where does this leave Business claimants ?? Well, there are still a few contentious issues issues with regards this case, and how it all sits with business claims. Firstly in the broadest sense: Business claimants have always contended that the OFT case has no bearing upon Business claims. The grounds for the case are all based upon personal accounts. Indeed, throughout the course of this case, many business claimants have used this argument to get stays successfully lifted, and have also then gone on to receive full offers and refunds. So, this is an ongoing fact; that throughout this whole case, NOT A SINGLE Business account T&C has ever been looked at and considered, and we all know that Business T&C's, and the manner, name and method of application of charges are slightly different to personal accounts. So those still with Business claims in progress could still apply to have this consideration applied to their own case. BUT; Even though this is strictly speaking the case, many judges may now just take a laissez faire attitude, and apply the rulings made for personal account T&C's under common law to Business accounts too. They may then simply refuse to hear such claims. Even if they don't refuse, and do agree that Business account T&C's should be considered separately. Even though when faced with such a prospect in the recent past this has been enough to frighten banks into trying to avoid such an analysis, and just settle, they may just now have a little more confidence to actually see a business claim case through to court ? So, all in, this amounts to unsure times for Business claimants. My advice is this. Anyone with a Business claim in the pipeline that has been subjected to a stay should perhaps just leave things as is. Don't presently apply to have your stay lifted. Then as the OFT case progresses, and we have also had time to consider and compare personal account T&C's compared to Business account T&C's more, things may become clearer. After which time you may then be able to apply to have the stay lifted, or perhaps submit an amendment to your claim. Other than that, there is actually some work going on behind the scenes by some very knowledgeable, legally experienced bods with regards some new approaches to business claims. There is one particular completely new approach being considered which is looking highly promising and would be totally bulletproof (it'll also scare the pants off 'em). That is all I am prepared to say on the final matter for the time being, and no amount of pleas, PM's, emails, prompting or threats of assassination will get me to reveal any more....... so don't even try !!8)

Actually..... The total amount of the bailout is £500 billion...... NOT £50billion !! See my earlier post here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-charges-finance-industry/163239-its-not-50bn-its.html The Government are firstly bailing out the banks by buying £50billion pounds worth of shares in them (the bit that's being lauded as the part nationalisation). Then, they are ALSO underwriting a further £250billion of medium term debts. ie: acting as a guarantor for the medium term loans the banks have or will take from other banks or foreign investors in the mid term. This bit is to encourage UK banks (or foreign investors) to still lend to other UK banks. On top of this, the Bank of England is also providing a further £200billion by way of upping its special liquidity scheme from the previous level of £100billion, and this will take the form of exchanging risky mortgages for Treasury bonds. ie: Any banks that have given out mortgage to those who are in danger of defaulting, can exchange such mortgages for a BoE bond. Then if the lender defaults, the bank still gets its' money. This bit is to try to rejuvenate the mortgage market. The total bailout plan is £500billion not £50billion !! Or to put it another way> The potential liability of £500 billion amounts to more than a third of the annual value of the British economy and is approaching the almost £600 billion of total government spending. PM

And do you all know why Hatters were depicted as mad ? ? For those who don't. It relates to the fact that those who made Top-hats used to achieve the high sheen on them by polishing the exterior with Mercury. Mercury vapour is a highly toxic neuro-agent, and the effects of exposure are delirium and madness. So those who worked in such industry were regularly exposed and succumbed to the effects of Mercury poisoning and as such also the resultant madness. Nowadays, we know much more about the toxic effects of such heavy metals, and those working in industries that handle such exercise extreme caution............. .......Instead we prefer to mix the Mercury with amalgams and put them in the mouths of every man, woman and child, in the form of fillings !!!! Despite them being banned or highly restricted in several European countries; which is due to clinical studies and general concern (they are attributed to cause Autism, Alzheimers and other nervous disorders), their use is totally unrestricted and still quite common in this country. In fact many people are not even aware that Mercury is a constituent of the filling, as there is no obligation on the Dental industry to even inform them, or of the possible side effects. Scientists, health professionals and ministers in this country disagree and differ on the effects, the amounts required, the release rates and of their durability, so are sitting on the fence, and taking no decisive action. Not so in America, which is in the midst of an ongoing and controversial battle between proponents (who claim they are safe....and...surprise surprise... cheap) and the opposition who are trying to get a ban. .... As for myself...., Well, I've made my own mind up, and recently spent a great deal of time of money getting the damned things out of my own mouth... and would never have had them there in the first place if I'd known what was being used, and been given a choice. I predict that this could really all blow up in a few years time when studies are more conclusive, and then the proverbial will REALLY hit the fan........ .....or it'll all just get swept under the carpet by those trying to fend off all the lawsuits !! Dental amalgam controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia PM PS: Sorry to bring such a serious subject to a lighthearted thread, but I think these things should be known about a lot more.

Hands up ! This is not my own authorship, it was in an email that I received this morning, and is no doubt doing the rounds at the moment.

Following the problems in the sub-prime lending market in America and the run on Northern Rock in the UK, uncertainty has now hit Japan. In the last 7 days Origami Bank has folded, Sumo Bank has gone belly up and Bonsai Bank announced plans to cut some of its branches. Yesterday, it was announced that Karaoke Bank is up for sale and will likely go for a song, while today shares in Kamikaze Bank were suspended after they nose-dived. While Samurai Bank is soldiering on following sharp cutbacks, Ninja Bank is reported to have taken a hit, but they remain in the black. Furthermore, 500 staff at Karate Bank got the chop and analysts report that there is something fishy going on at Sushi Bank where it is feared that staff may get a raw deal.

Until recently, our contention regards business account charges was as such: Overdraft interest - Yes, but only that portion of interest incurred as a result of reclaimable charges. There are spreadsheets available to help calculate this. Including fee - Possibly ? If the fee was charged due to extending or exceeding your limit due to some item then we argued a certain yes. Otherwise, if your talking about a fee to negotiate or increase an overdraft, the need for which had been brought about over time due to an accumulation of reclaimable charges, then possibly.* Total Commission - What kind? If for currency conversions, then no. If commission for arranging a loan necessitated by past charges, then possibly* Account Fee - If it relates to a charge for a returned item, or an overdraft excess charge (either due to an item taking it there, or some charge for returning an item), then yes. The names and terms used may differ from bank to bank, account to account, and even time to time, but if the effect is the same ie: a charge for exceeding a limit or retuning an item, then this was argued as being an unlawful penalty. Unpaid cheq - As account fee. * Regards these items, then possibly... although this makes it a more difficult claim and relies upon claiming for consequential losses. However. The current OFT case against the major banks regards personal account charges has currently caused some confusion regards Business account charges claims. This is because Business accounts do not come under the scope of the UTCCR99 regulations (which is the main battle point and cause for claim in the OFT case for personal current account charges), and so instead had to rely upon common law principles to fight their lawfulness. (ie: by comparing them to precedents set by past similar court cases, then such charges should also be considered as penalties). However, with what has happened with the OFT case to date, the judge has very strangely so far decided that such charges do not constitute penalties under common law. This currently leaves business claimants in limbo a bit. It is not yet sure whether or not this point will be contested or expanded upon, so at present it leaves business claimants at the moment possibly without a cause of action. Until this is cleared up, or other angles of approach or arguments are devised, then my current advice would be to wait before claiming or submitting anything, and keep an eye on the current case. In the meantime, use your time to read up on the principles and law, total up your charges and be ready to pounce.

Dear Mr Gordon Brown, I was recently contemplating the following scheme in order to raise some funds for my pension, but given the current ban on "short selling", I was wondering if you could kindly inform me when it would once more be acceptable to implement it ? I have decided that I will visit my local Rolls Royce garage and "borrow" one of their cars on approval for a week. Then once I have it my "possession" I then plan to sell it on the open market. At the end of the week when the car is due back, I will buy it back at the reduced second hand rate, and then simply return it to the garage stating that I no longer wish to have it. I will then have made a very tidy little profit from having sold the car at market value, but then be able to buy it back at second hand rate. I know that officially the car would not have been mine to sell in the first instance, and that some may even consider such practice as a confidence trick; but given the governments tolerance of city traders "borrowing" shares, selling them at market value and then buying back at reduced rates before returning to the owner, I cannot see how the law can look upon my proposal any differently, or consider it as unlawful or illegal in any manner? I look forward to hearing back from you as to when the current ban on short selling has ended, so that I may implement my plan. Yours sincerely A. charlatan

Rachel, No offense taken, were all here to try and be helpful to each other if we can. Firstly, as Steven said earlier on, the fact that they were not in the FSA is irrelevant..... The fact is you were mis-sold the ppi under false pretences and/or not presented or given any indication that it was an option wether to take out or not. So this is a matter of law and fact, rather than a matter of their membership/ voluntary regulation with the FSA etc. I would actually suggest that you do not enter into any specific correspondence in reply to to their last letter. Do not respond to their points or argue your case at this point, in case you change your tactics or arguments etc. This way you will not have given them any ammo to bring up at a later date. Instead, I would suggest that you simply send them a "letter before action", which you can get from the templates library and modify for your needs. Then if this does not produce a satisfactory result (which is unlikely) then start your court proceedings. This way, when it comes to court stage you can be seen to have gone through the proper process. To be really honest, I have little knowledge or experience or ppi claims, and my previous advice was more geared towards the limitations aspect of the claim, which I do have some experience of. So regards the actual ppi part, you could really do with searching around the forums, asking about and seeking help from those with ppi experience. Steven may be able to give you some pointers in that direction by pointing you to the relevant forums and those with experience. Good luck and best regards PM

Rachel Hi, and welcome to the forums. Agreed, that you don't want to look a wally in court ! Okay, the Statute of limitations is an act of parliament that was designed to stop people from bringing "stale" claims against people in court. This is supposed to stop claimants in court cases from sitting on a claim (sometimes perhaps deliberately) and later clogging up the courts or waiting in an attempt to earn lots more interest, when they should have acted sooner. So, it limits peoples ability to bring a case that relates to an event that is older than 6 years. However, Section 32 is a section of the same Statute of Limitations act that basically provides a means to claim that you paid the ppi either due to the Bank concealing or by not explaining to you whether or not it was really necessary ... or that you paid it whilst acting under a mistake. It is a controversial tactic, and If you want to use this, then you must know what you are doing, and must understand the principles, because you might actually find yourself having to argue your case in a court. So, we could spoon feed you everything, the statutes, the links, the arguments, but this would not guarantee that you understand things. So, it would be far better for you to read up and find things for yourself, read the arguments, and understand things. As it happens, all the information you need is in this particular thread, or there are links to other info in this thread also. So, I suggest that you go to the very first page of this thread and start from the top, then read until your eyes turn red !! Best regards PM

Hi Meekle. The current OFT case was supposedly instigated with the intention of clarifying the law regards such charges being applied to personal accounts, and primarily under consumer law such as the UTCCR99. Thus their lawfulness was supposedly being examined under statutes that never did and still don't affect business accounts and such claimants cases. However, as part of the case there was also surprisingly some consideration of their legality in a broader sense under common law. The court has so far declared that it does not consider such charges as constituting penalties at common law (at least as far as current terms and conditions are concerned). To my mind (an opinion shared by many) their contested legality under common law (which has been the main backbone of business claims) has not been fought by the OFT strongly enough, nor analysed by the court sufficiently, with such possibility almost being consigned to a side issue. Also, whether or not the courts current opinion also actually includes business contracts, and if so; which, how many, and from what period were included for consideration? So it is also unclear as to how definitive and applicable to business account claims this current decision is, whether it can be contested, and how far back it should reach. The banks are obviously unsure about this too, which is perhaps why once many business claimants have managed to contest any stays, they have then often quickly received offers and settlements. So the whole issue of business claims has become a bit of a grey area for all concerned, and although we have indeed heard of some claims being settled during this current period, these were mainly claims that had been instigated before the start of the OFT case, and perhaps were settled for economic reasons ie. costs already incurred and continuing to accumulate, along with the potential greater interest liability over time should the claims succeed. The court is due quite soon to make some rulings regards whether older historical terms and conditions can be considered as unlawful or penalties (either by way of statute such as UTCCR or by common law), and perhaps a wider analysis of business accounts may then also be taken into account? Further announcements are expected fairly soon. Dependent upon what happens next, further consideration of the strength of cases for business claims will be made, and perhaps new strategies evolve. In the meantime, I suggest that you start to gather your evidence by way of adding up all of your charges (ever), start to read up on matters, and keep an eye on events. Then also keep an eye on the forums and you'll find out how to act when the time is right. I will also highlight your post, and ask for it to be moved into the business claims forum. There you will find a lot more info and news, and be amongst other business account claimants. I suggest once your there, that you perhaps read up a bit on the history of business account claims and then continue to watch out for any future developments. Best regards PM

Paul, Have you seen this ? Very interesting, and par for the course !! http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-charges-consumer-issues/159318-whistleblower-rbs-trains-staff.html PM

Sparkie, I can see your point. Your case is probably so unique that it's probably pretty easy for any of the opposition who may be watching this thread to figure out who the real "Sparkie" is. However, although your mainly just posting up stuff that they will inevitably see anyway, it may be an idea to just keep some of the rest of your game plan close to your chest and not publicly post it up ? ie; Rather than post and discuss on your thread how you are going to further reason and back up your currently posted arguments, perhaps try and get some one to one help. I'm sure the site team are already taking quite an interest in your case, as it breaks some new ground. PM

I gather that there is some work going on behind the scenes regards the current status and approach for Business claims. If you do not get a result from the FOS, then I suggest you wait a short while and keep an eye on this forum before escalating matters to a court claim. Best regards PM

Sparkie, Looks good, but I'm no expert, and I'm sure others will comment if need be. You may though just wish to remove any personally identifiable details from your post ? Never know who's snooping. Pm