I also like the quote by a Barclays spokeswoman: "If customers continue to run their accounts as they are now, we will earn less money than before from overdraft charges," said a Barclays spokeswoman.

Anybody else see this story ? BBC NEWS | World | Asia-Pacific | Cannabis blunder at Tokyo airport .... I do hope the case belonged to some bank manager on their way home after a business trip !! Imagine trying to explain that at customs ?

This is an interesting point also. Why, are the banks currently handing out the biggest bonuses ever to it's senior staff (around £12bn) , whilst simultaneously asking the BOE for this money? Is the BOE bail-out being used in part to fund the bonuses, that are in actual fact just going to those who have evidently failed ? Perhaps they should have looked closer to home before turning cap in hand to the government and taxpayers. Here's one journalists view. Unions demand inquiry as City bonuses hit a record £12.6bn - despite credit crunch | Mail Online

Heres a very useful link and tutorial created by Steven4064. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/145027-interest-tutorial.html

Can you tell us which papers, and/or if there is a link online.

Can someone please explain the listings of current active users? On the home page for active users it says: 946 (111 registered users and 835 guests) ..... are their really currently 835 "guests"..... and if so who on Earth are they all ? Or is the guests a cumulative total over all time, or some other such calculation ? PM

Okay, How can the following NOT be considered as being an adverse change in the billing structure ? These are my calculations with regards how Lloyds "new & improved" charging regime could now effectively work out in practice. If one month, you were to say inadvertently go over your overdraft limit by just £26, for just a 10 day period, then you would incur the following: 1/ A £15 one off "unplanned overdraft fee" 2/ A daily fee of £15 each of the 10 days. TOTAL that month: £165 !! For just inadvertently over borrowing by £26, Then, on top of that, you would also incur interest at unauthorised rates (probably around 29-30% APR) on the whole sum (ie; the £26 + the £165 in charges). This would then also mean, that the following month, you would be left around £200 short..... so if unable to pay this (which is actually quite a lot to find for some people), you would then incur another: 1/ A one off £15 monthly charge, 2/ Plus another 10 days of charges, but this time at £20 per day. So another £225 in charges, (again PLUS interest at the unauthorised rates of 29-30% APR). By my reckoning, if this debt trap carries on for 12 months, this would potentially accumulate a whopping total of around ........ £2640 :o just in charges (not accounting for the Unauth. interest) !! ..... just for borrowing £26 over your limit. If my maths is correct , then this would be equivalent to about 10,153.85 % interest on borrowing the original £26 !!!!! ....and even then, this does not account for the compounded monthly interest at around 29-30 APR %. So in actual fact, it would effectively be much higher !! Remember, that before this "daily charging" business, if you had a similar situation (ie: an item that was allowed to clear and then took you over your limit) you would pay a one off unauthorised overdraft fee. This was £38 Total that month = max £38. (Still gross, but an easier debt to dig your way out of than the newly imposed £165 debt.) If as above it was allowed to snowball, it would then incur another £38 on any subsequent month you were unable to rectify the overlimit situation. But that would be it (apart from the interest). So, if left or 12 months, as in the example above, this would have incurred around £456 in charges before the interest. Still shocking and gross, but when compared to the new regime, it shows there has now been what amounts to nearly a 6 fold increase in the potential charges for the same occurrence. Now, tell me this is not an obvious adverse change.

Regards materially adverse changes to the charging structure, I came across this on the Telegraphs website (as originally published on moneyfacts): Taking what the FSA ruled as terms to allow the waivers to stay in place, and have further re-iterated by response to Bigmacs questions ie: "In the waiver, each firm agreed 'it will not make materially adverse changes in the level of its unauthorised overdraft charges (or in ways that it applies such charges to its customers' accounts) which could amount to customer abuse". .... I would say looking at the new charges, rates and fees structures, that the rates have evidently risen, the charges have increased, and the ways that the charges are now applied have ALL changed on all of these fronts ....... thus, this could definitely be considered as customer abuse, and so should be deemed that the terms governing the waiver have certainly been abused ! For the sake of clarity, it would be interesting if someone could perhaps post up a similar list (or link to similar list), showing what the charges were just prior to the waiver being granted. PM

Feel free to use what I have posted if of any use (though do remember to look into it for yourself and verify it's applicability to your own case, and do also remember that it only represents my opinions rather than being a statement of law) Had a look at your own thread, and subscribed. (recommend that you all do) Looks like it could turn out to be an interesting case, particularly interested to see what the banks come up by way of providing info on costs. Could have some interesting implications for a lot of Business claimants. If you do start to receive any offers, or any further correspondence then please post them up. PM

Subscribing. Haven't had a time to fully digest what you posted, but on first glance it looks like they have behaved despicably. I'm also very interested to see that the judge has ordered a disclosure of their actual administration costs, and it will be very interesting to see what happens here. It will be interesting to see if they do comply, or if they start to make offers ? DO DO please keep us all updated on what happens here, as the outcome of this could provide some interesting info for all business claimants. Feel free to PM me at any time also.

They're appealing because they're the Banks... !! They're the ones who really run the country. Unlike a Government they're not answerable to strict process, the voters or the Queen. They have longevity, so they do not just have a short 5 year term in which to create and implement policy, or be dammed at the polls. They have autonomy over interest rates, They loan the government vast sums of money, who by return bail them out with taxpayers money when they make a mess. They can make or break a government and so influence it's policy, which means they're the ones who really run the economy, so vis a vis the country...... and how dare their downtrodden subjects question them !! That is the Dragon we all face...... ....... Where's Saint George when we need him !!

Okay, if the banks drag things on, even whilst knowing that there is a good likelihood that once this business is all sorted they will just simply have to pay back all the charges taken...... ...... then on the face of it, to a lot of claimants this may not seem to make much sense? But actually, as far as the banks are concerned, when they do have to give back what they took, they will still have profited from the benefit of the money (investing it, lending it out etc) in the intervening period. My suggestion is that everyone now revise their claims to include interest at commercial compounded rates as a matter of course. After all the in-depth discussion on CAG and elsewhere about this subject, I do now personally think that there is a way to do this, and that there is enough basis in law. (I shall not post it here, firstly because if someone is serious about doing it, then they must search it out and understand it, and secondly, because I don't want to take this thread off topic). All I shall say is that I know of several business claimants who did indeed get pre-trial settlements paying out interest at such rates (and received some very sizeable sums, with the interest portion often being several times the size of the actual charges received back). This confirms my belief that not only are such rates chargeable, but that also the banks themselves believe that this could very well eventually turn out to be the case. By claiming using the argument that the money was conceded whilst acting under a mistaken presumption such money was due to the bank, we can also claim that this created an unjust enrichment on behalf of the banks (and it most certainly has) ! So If more and more claims are seen to be calling for a total restitution of all the benefit gained from the money, then the Banks may see less benefit in dragging things on ? Just an idea ? PM

See Bookie's earlier post.

Ask the Debt collection agency to provide you with the account details ? PM

Here's what the BBC currently have to say regards what may happen tomorrow. BBC NEWS | Business | Banks may challenge charges case IMHO, If the OFT do appeal on the judges ruling regards the penalties at common law aspect........ then it may be all "game on" again for Business claimants? Although, how this would then be dealt with practically is speculation at the moment. The banks may decide to once more start dealing with and settling Business claims if they have some uncertainty as to the final outcome of this. ie: if they think it may possibly be reversed, then they may decide it better to start to settle some business claims, rather than to let them continue to accumulate more interest, for what could possibly be quite some time. Then again, they may be stubborn, and just drag things on, refusing to settle and hoping that the outcome may still be in their favour, or just thinking that by dragging things on some business claimants will get disheartened and drop their cases. If the OFT do decide to appeal on the common law aspect, then it would be interesting and helpful to other Business claimants if anyone here with an ongoing Business claim could post any communications they then receive from the banks.

Here are some of my own earlier posts on the issues regards Business claims post OFT judgement. Remember, these are only my own views, and are not definitive.

Subject to any one claim in any 10 year period. Subject to you account being in credit by at least £10,000. Account fees subject to rise at our discretion, without any reference or notification to yourself. Subject to a full biopsy to be conducted upon account holders regards the suitability of their organs for transplant. No interest payable on credit balances. The value of investments may rise, (in which case we shall take all such benefits), otherwise if we P@@s your money away on some high risk venture, we'll either send the bailiffs around to take your home, your children, your pets, and the clothes off your back...... otherwise we'll just get the government to bail us out. You may wish to seek the advice of trained legal professionals' before agreeing to such terms (but it'll do you no good, as we'll fight you all the way to the feet of St Peter, before which time we'll hope you'll have just died or given up anyway).

Josh, Funny you should mention that, as I too offer a referral service. I specialise in arranging accounts that entail a trifling monthly account fee of around £45 (subject to raise at any point) ..... but they do have the added extra benefit of incorporating added insurance. That insurance being (and limited to) a bic biro insurance service. If you open one of these superb accounts, you will receive no greater service or benefits than with any of the free accounts on offer elsewhere ...... however, should you ever lose your 39p Bic biro whilst you have one of these accounts, we will replace it totally free of charge !! .....excellent value for money, if I do say so myself (which of course I would say ..... as it pays for my yacht in St Tropez). PM

Have a look at this thread. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/6986-data-protection-act-non.html You'll also find lots of useful stuff on the thread below here, it gives you links to the step by step process, and links to cover pretty much any scenario. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/consumer-forums-website-questions/53182-cant-find-what-youre.html

ccgale IMHO, I think you should stand your ground. You are in a position of power on two fronts. Firstly, you work in law. Secondly, they have and continue to enjoy a significant monthly profit from your other account. If I were you I would ring around some other banks today, and ask them if they would be interested in having your Business account, tell them what the turnover is, and how much you normally require by way of chargeable services such as currency fees etc. Then go to your branch tomorrow and sit down with the bank manager, remind them of both of the above facts (ie: how much they normally make from you each month, and also your experience and lack of fear in dealing with matters using the law) then simply state that either ALL the charges (no halfway deal or compromise) resulting from this episode are refunded, otherwise you will 1/ Close both of your accounts. 2/ Take action through the courts to recover the full sum with legal costs (and were not not just talking about the court fees, as perhaps given your job you may also justifiably be able to charge them for your time as legal professional). Plus interest on the whole sum. If he/she then starts to try to analyse or justify the cause of events for the original charges, and/or tries to reach some sort of compromise, then do not get into a discussion. Just simply repeat what you wish to happen, and your intended actions if they fail to comply. They should hopefully see sense, and realise that not agreeing to this will actually cost them significantly more in the long run. Regardless of whether or not you have accepted any sort of liability for the cause of the original charge, the amount charged and their reasoning is unjustifiable. Do not concede to it. If they fail to see sense, then do close your accounts, and do take actions to recover the money. Have no remorse or reservations in doing so. After all why should you wish to continue doing business with a company that treats you in such a way? PM

Josh, I sort of see what your saying, in that the latter half of the first paragraph of section 4 does not clarify whose breach of contract is required. However, in circumstances such as dealing with a payment that would make an account in excess of its' limit, in what way could you claim that the bank have themselves broken the contract? They claim they are just responding to a situation in a manner that they themselves have laid out in their contracts (but if such response as set out in the contract is deemed to have been triggered by a breach, they would be unlawfully doing so, according to UCTA), but I can't see how they're actually breaching any contract term themselves. This is why the banks are so rapidly now trying to claim that it is not an indemnity (recuperation of costs) that they seek in such circumstances, but rather it is a service fee (but we now know what the courts think of that argument). One possible scenario that I could perhaps see covered by this part, where their own breach or negligence could cause a loss to another (including yourself according to sec 2b), and so according to the statute you should not be expected to shoulder the cost: You instruct the bank to stop a cheque or you cancel a DD. They pay it out anyway. In such circumstances, they were negligent in paying it. If they are unable to recoup the funds, then the loss is theirs, they still have to refund the money into your account, as you cannot be expected to indemnify the bank for a loss arising from their own negligence.

Subscribing (as I have done also to Pauls thread). I've got a few bones to pick myself with RBS at some point soon............. as so far they've been just a little to unforthcoming with information when requested. Unfortunately, I've got other fish to fry just at the moment......so this ones on the back burner at the mo', but the more I learn about these peeps the more I realise there's a big can of worms just wriggling to get free, and so I'm not looking forward to opening the lid ! PM

There are some very useful bits of advice and a guide here. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/consumer-forums-website-questions/53182-cant-find-what-youre.html You may find this section particularly useful (I think letter D may suit your circumstances) http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/20758-creditors-dcas-letter-templates.html I'm no expert in this area, and I'm just trying to help out a bit, so maybe try sending a PM to one of the Mods or site helpers for more detailed help on this. Can you post up a few fact about these debts too (don't post up anything that could make you personally identifiable though), so when they come to your thread they will have more info. ie: 1/ How old are the debts? 2/ When did you last make payments regards them? 3/ Do any of the debts relate to credit cards or bank accounts which had charges applied to them (eg: late payment charges, unpaid item fees etc)? 4/Have any of them threatened you with court action? 5/ Are the debts being called in by the lenders themselves, or through a debt collection agency. Have the agency added any charges or interest of their own onto the debts? Good luck PM

Tiglet, Thank you, didn't mean to sound like I was directly contradicting you, I was just trying to re-affirm to splosher the importance of not making any payments or giving details at all. As an aside, I've just taken a look at the act again, and I'm trying to get my head around figuring what type of loans would section 6 (special loans) would apply to ? It appears from this, that in the case of certain types of loans, the cause of action only accrues (and so the 6 years only then starts) once a request for payment is made? Could someone please enlighten ? What type of loans would this typically cover ? PM