Funny you should mention this. Only today I was reading an article in The Times about this. I'm seeming to err on the side of the opinion that it may be a poor idea. It limits the scope and remedies available in individual cases, by forcing upon them binding judgments that have been reached whilst using too wide a brush, takes an inordinate amount of time to conclude, and is horrendously difficult to organise, with ultimately only the lawyers being the winners. It is also not available where another route or body has scope to intervene otherwise (eg: OFT ). But found it an interesting read. Class actions: why are we waiting? - Times Online PM

I'll be expecting his call LOL !!!

Thanks Alpha, The SCT limit is normally £5k, so if I specify such it should keep it within SCT. However, as we all know, other factors are taken into consideration when courts come to allocate track; complexity of claim, etc. I could even just submit for just £500 and still find the court allocates to Fast if it thinks the claim is complex or contentious. So, I may as well submit for the top level of SCT at £5k on the presumption and hope it does go SCT, and then when it comes to AQ time also submit a plea for SCT with draft directions. Thanks PM

If I were to submit a specific amount for compensation I am thinking of adding something along the lines of: 1/ In King v British Linen and Co (1897) the loss to credit rating was valued at £100 where no specific damage could be shown. In 2009, this figure equates to over £9,975 (2008 estimate).
 2/ In Wilson v United Counties Bank (1919) the award was £7,500 which would translate as over £17,000 with a current price index.
 3/ In Richard Durkin v DSG Retail and HFC Bank (2007) provides a more recent guide with regards to the damage suffered as a result of a default and the claimant was awarded £8,000 plus an additional sum for the loss suffered in not being able to use credit in a normal manner.
 Any thoughts ??? PM

Guys, Some advice here please ? Have now done a POC for claim against SP. Now about to fill in N1. However, as my claim includes a claim for damages/compensation which I have not specified a sum for. ie: I have indicated that this should be for the court should decide dependent upon remedies available etc. What do I put in the boxes for "Amount claimed" & "Total" ?? Can I put something like TBA or such ? Or should I amend my POC, and put in an actual claim sum ? Any thoughts or advice here ? PM

I certainly DO plan to apply for damages here !! This is not just my venting my spleen and spending hours dealing with this just to end up back where I started.... yet having wasted lots of valuable hours of my life !! Please tell me a bit about Durkin ? Links etc too if poss ? I also recall that there is a limit of £1000 for a claim for dmages in Small Claims track. Anyone know anything more about this ? Thanks P

For anyone interested, here's what I've done so far regards a POC. POC REMOVED WHILST LITIGATION IN PROCESS.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaggggggggggggggh hhhhhh!!!!!!! Scottish Power !!! NEVER have any dealings with these charlatans !! Basically, was lured into switching my utilities to them last year after all the press and speculation about huge hikes in Gas and elec prices. They promised me a monthly DD of £XX for Duel Fuel (which I have in writing). I provided all the info they needed. They then cocked up the transfer of the gas supply, and informed me they would be amending the DD to £YY ish per month to cover just the elec in meantime whilst it was sorted. Then once gas was sorted, they informed me that DD would actually be £WW per month. Wasn't happy with the change, but as it was only a minimal change was still a saving on last supplier, and decided to continue. Spoke to them, and they confirmed the DD would now be £WW pcm for duel fuel once gas transferred. Then one day they took both the £YY AND the £WW by DD form my account on same day.. effectively meaning they were double charging me ... and, which also caused another DD to fail (with charges) !! So, furious I cancelled the agreement citing section 1 of the Misrepresentation Act, and that the the contract was rescinded. They didn't like this, and then tried to bill me for cancellation charges (and final bills based upon estimates) !! Got into a bit of a battle with them, by telling them that due to heir own actions the agreement was null and void, and likewise also any provision for cancellation charges. They're now threatening court, bailiffs etc, despite my offering to pay them any genuine liability based upon true usage (but no more, and no charges). Short of it is, that I've now threatened them with court action also. Basis of claim will be CPUTR08 offences (luring me into a deal under false pretenses etc) and Misrep. etc. The crazy thing is, the difference in what I've offered compared to what they claim is only about £50.... which some muggins may have just paid from the off in order to get them off their backs. But I'm not prepared to let them get away with this, as doing so gives them carte blanche to treat all customers same way, and this means millions in unlawful gains for them. They've also registered defaults on my credit file, so another reason why I need to go to court. They've committed so many offences relating to their obligations to handle matters too. Sorry to ramble...... but they've just made me soooooooooo ANGRY !! Photoman

In line with the recent email sent out by the campaign, asking subscribers to write to individual charities and organisations. Here is a link to The Royal Society of Medicine. Patient support group links - The Royal Society of Medicine On this page, they give a list of some of the various support groups and charities. Go to the various links, and then find the contact details for the society, charity or support group related to your illness. Then write to them, asking if they are aware of the Green Paper, and follow the guidelines offered by the last email:

Subscribing. BTW: Bilgrantmac .... How to tell if a politician or Civil servant is lying..... Their lips will be moving !! They may be offering some reassurances now, but even if true that DLA would not be affected at this current juncture, this is just the tip of the iceberg. If something like this went through with little resistance, then that would be considered by the politicians et al as licence to get the axe out for all manner of essential life supporting benefits (in order to fund their bailing out the incompetent and greedy bankers etc).

Agreed. And don't forget that Business accounts also often have regular monthly or quarterly "service" charges too. In fact this this could all actually be where Business claimants have an advantage over personal account claimants? The fact that these regular charges for honoured payments are actually indicated by their own admission to cost such low sums is damming when compared to the "costs" incurred for essentially what is the same process but simply in default. I have mentioned this before, and in fact in my own claim Lloyds tried to use the old "we normally provide the claimant with free banking" argument. They soon had egg on their face when I filed a response to defence and reminded them of both the monthly and individual item charges, and I think such a poorly thought out contestation was instrumental in their relinquishing their whole stance and settling my claim. PS: Hello Gandolfi. Can't recall whether or not I've posted on your thread before (have a felling I have as I get alerts). Watching your claim, and will contribute as and when I can. PM.

have read of this too: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/180864-finding-faulty-cca-agreements.html

See Banker_rhymes _with earlier post on this. If as you say, after the loan had paid off various loans and overdrafts, there was about £1000 left in the account, (which was available to use however hubby wished), then this would have made the loan a "multiple" agreement. As such, this means that the agreement may very well have been improperly laid out on the paperwork, so that it would not have complied with the CCA74, and so much so that it would have been entirely unenforceable. Basically, if it is the case; Then they could not have enforced the agreement, they should not have applied to have it enforced, and also a judge should not have agreed to it. I don't however know what the situation would now be, as a judgment has been issued. I guess that perhaps you may be able to get the judgement reversed, and if so, this would then mean that the loan is unenforceable.... in it's entirety, ....and no further payments due !! Have a look here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/171037-multiple-agreements-falling-within.html regards PM

Probably only kept the judges attention 'cos he thought there were 19kg of Semtex in his case !!

When they were doing the team building session, trying to hype them up with the cheesy rendition of "When the going gets tough", I really was expecting Ricky Gervais to pop out at any moment !! If I had been the reporter, my cover would have been blown there and then, due to my rolling on the floor in tears of laughter ! On a more serious note. A shocker of a programme, and all publicity of such practices is well and good, but I do think C4's motives and bias was bit too much on the sensationalist journalism side, and it should have been balanced out by dropping in some more practical advice. More suggestions of where and how to get advice and help (and also bear in mind that there are a lot of people in need who either aren't computer and internet literate, or simply can't even afford the hardware or broadband costs).

The initial question of whether the banks have a right to charge for returning an S/O or D/D is also intertwined with the question of whether they have a also right to charge if they do clear them? If the clearing of such is done at no cost to the consumer, and the two go through much the same process (i.e. the same resources and infrastructure), then the refusal should be without charge too. On the other hand, if you agree that there is a right to charge for refusing, (even just at cost), then the argument then raises the issue of whether the clearing of such should also be charged. You see where I'm going here? There should be a parity of cost for two. If you feel that there is a right to charge for one, then the same applies to the other. Likewise if you feel one should be free, then the other should be too. Agree that there is a right to charge for refusing one, with no clearly demonstrable additional cost over the other, only leads to the question of whether the other should be charged for too ? Thus raises the ogre and threat of an end to "free" banking.

Yes, IMHO they should be able to charge. But that is not the true issue. It is whether they should be entitled to vastly profit from such circumstance. They should be only allowed to recoup any extra cost arising from such an event. Otherwise, if allowed to profit, it distorts the decision making process. If allowed to profit from such an event, then they will be more predisposed to take the profit option, rather than simply the more justifiable recuperation of costs option. Imagine an analogy: The postman tries to deliver a letter to you, but the amount of postage paid is inadequate. He has two options: 1/ He can knock on your door, and ask you for the difference. 2/ He can instead fill in a card informing you that he attempted to deliver a letter, but as postage was insufficient, the item has been returned to their depot, and to release it you will have to pay not only the difference, but also an extra unexplained fee. He then posts the card instead of the letter. The postman had still only made the same trip, still only been put to the same amount of effort, and still only delivered a single item Would it be justified if the post office had a policy of encouraging the postmen to favour the second option above the first, because it made them more money? Would you feel as if you had received good service, and one worth paying extra for ?

Great news Paul. Will all be waiting for update. PM

If you own a Public house, and just prior to the smoking ban coming into effect, had drafted and signed agreements with all your customers allowing them to smoke in your pub, does this then allow them to continue smoking after the ban came into effect? No. The effect of a statute is absolute and comprehensive. It covers not only new contracts drafted after the date of its' effect, but also requires that all existing contracts also comply. They must either be adapted or new contracts issued. Otherwise, any terms that do not comply with the statute are remiss, and can be challenged.

soo.... Originally Vos was making out that "free banking" was actually being financed by the interest foregone by those in credit (in an obvious attempt to deflect any accusations that "free banking" was actually being financed by such charges). Now... he is denying this ?? So, HOW is he now proposing that "free banking" is actually being financed? If he is now asserting that its' not being financed by interest foregone by the minority with credit balances, and they also still maintain that its' not being financed by these charges... ...then how ?? .... fairy dust perhaps ?? .. or are they just so generous that they are picking up the tab themselves ? IMHO, he has now opened himself back up to the possibility of the original accusation, and/or have to explain why those good enough to actually keep their accounts in credit are receiving such poor rates. I hope some of the lords pick up on this, and ask for an explanation as to how "free banking" really is actually financed !!

THANKS YB, But still doesn't quite answer my question ? YB (or anyone else): What were Vos' original comments on foregone interest ? (precis, or a link will do) Thanks

POSTED BY YOURBANK: "Vos also admitted his previous (april 08 comments about foregon interest not being part of the price and said it was irrelevant anyway - so feck knows why they bought it up yesterday" Could somebody please post up what this refers to? ie: is it regards to interest that the consumer has had debited or foregone as a result of these charges ? Pretty please... ?? PM

Also interesting to note, based upon postage time, that their reply must have bee drafted within record time of getting my letter !! They really want nothing more to do with this one !!

Just received back a reply from IQOR. To paraphrase: Dear Mr XXXXXXXX Thank you for your letter dated 18/06/09 Having reviewed our files we note that we have recently closed the above mentioned account in your name, and returned control to HBOS. We understand that our client will contact you directly regarding this matter. Please be assured that we had no intention of causing you any upset in our attempts to contact you to discuss repayment of the above account. IQOR has acted in good faith and on our clients instructions in our attempts to collect the balance that our client believes outstanding. Please be advised that IQOR is no longer instructed to to act on behalf of our client in this matter. We trust that this matter is now resolved, however should you wish to discuss the matter further we respectfully suggest that you contact the client directly. Yours sincerely Pontius Pilate * * ie: We don't really understand the contents of your last letter, but you do actually seem to know what your on about, and may actually have a good case ! So, any whiff of the prospect that you could win this one, may report us, or could even start counter litigation for harassment, and we're handing this particular "hot potato" straight back to our client !!! Will now be interesting to see whether HBOS do actually contact me direct, or if they hand it to someone else etc, and how whoever then respond to my contentions. PM

This is the issue I am trying to bring peoples awareness to: Consider an example scenario: You have an account, and run up a £1000 overdraft. Say for example £500 of that O/d is charges. First off that means you pay for example 18.5% p.a. interest on the extra £500, (which we all do presently try to account for in our claims) You then take a consolidation loan to repay the £1000, at say 15% p.a. which will be paid by monthly installments from the original account. This means that you are paying an additional 15% p.a. (compounded over the course of the loan) on the initial £500 and also on the extra overdraft interest you've already given them. PLUS... because you are repaying it each month from your account, this could mean, that because of all the extra interest, you are more overdrawn on that account than you should be, and so also end up paying yet another 18.5 % p.a (compounded over the period of the loan) o/d interest from your original account to cover the extra interest you are paying out on the loan. So in short: They give you penalty charges & charge you interest on them. They then charge extra loan interest on these charges and interest. They then charge you extra o/d interest on the extra loan interest. This means they have hit you 3 times over with additional interest (all compounded) on the initial charges. Then of course there is the increased repayment insurance, because the loan is bigger than you really needed... along with the extra interest on the bigger premiums you need pay for the insurance !! .....It's not so obvious that all this is the case, until you start to analyse it this way..... and that's probably just the way they like it !!