T4FF thanks for your advice, appreciate the link also.

As soon as I'm happy with my interest calculations I'll be sending off my initial request and update this thread.

Again, appreciate your help.

Cheers

Can anybody help with this please?

It's been a while since I was last on but since then I've been able to find my bank statements and intend reclaiming soon.

At the moment I'm going through calaculating the interest on about £400 worth of charges between 2001 and 2003 when I closed the bank account.

What I'm hoping someone can confirm is if I can claim the interest at their overdraft rate (approx 30% APR) on the charges since the account was closed in 2003?

I know that I can for the period the account was open as they charged me at this rate, however since then am I still entiteld to this interest rate?

Appreciate there's a lot about interest on the forum but I've not seen anything that confirms this one way or another so if anyone can point me in the right direction it would be much appreciated.

This is half statement, half question.

I've noticed that a lot of people have stated that the unlawful charges they have been reimbursed with have been credited to their account. Hopefully I will be joining the many that have been successful in doing so very shortly.

What strikes me though, is that the following may have happened to some of you guys...

Say I owe ABC bank £1,000 and claim, successfully, £500 back in unlawful charges, which ABC bank reimburse by crediting my account I should then have a balance of £0.00. This is based on a £500 balance after the £500 worth of unlawful charges have been removed from my debt. If I then use the £500 reimbursed to clear my debt I end up owing nothing.

Is this what has been happening to people or have the banks been sneaky and simply been reducing the debt - in this case - by £500.

Hello again Royco,

Hope you'll forgive me for posting another message.

I think you've hit the nail on the head regarding RBS trying to confuse you, and a massive number of other people, with legal jargon.

One thing you could do is simply respond to part a of their request as 'Yes' and to part b 'Because I believe these penalties to be unlawful based on the recent ruling by the OFT'. You might want to start the second reponse with a word other than 'Because' - I can hear my English teacher right now tutting at the use of the word;) and in relation to the OFT ruling be a bit more specific as I've been pretty vague by merely mention the 'recent ruling'.

Anyway, I hope some other users start offering their advice and help you in your fight.

Good luck.

In relation to each charge, please clarify the following;

a) Is it the case the claimant should not have been charged?

b)If yes; please explain why the claimant contends that the same should not have been charged?

c)If no; is it the case of the claimant that the same should not have been charged in this amount?

d)If yes; please explain why the claimant contends that the same should not have been charged in this amount and identify the sum the claimant contends should have been charged.

e)If no; please state the claimants case.

This is my thoughts on each of these points - I expect others may feel differently about these, especially someone with a background in law, but I hope for now some sense of these can be made.

a) Is your claim that you should not have been charged?

b) If yes to a; explain why you should not have been charged.

c) If no to a; is it the case that you should not have been charged this amount?

d) If yes to c; explain why you contest the amount you have been charged and identify the sum you should have been charged.

e) if no to c; please state your case.

I think this is a bit tricky as to how to approach this. On the basis that the charges are unlawful you must answer yes to a) in which case you must explain (as per part b) that you shouldn't have been charged these amounts as they are unlawfull.

On the othe hand you could answer yes to part c, but if you were to do this you would then have to 'identify the sum' you should have been charged. This is obvioulsy not too easy as these charges have been taken off of you unlawfully therefore you should be entitled to all of it back not just the difference between what you've been charged and what you should have been - whatever that would be anyway. I get the impression that they would follow the basis of the OFT ruling if you were to go down this route and refund the difference between what you've been charged and the £12 charge recommended (temporarily) by the OFT. Obviously this is not what you want.

I hope this helps for now.

Cheers

Hi Royco,

I'm pretty new to this so not going to take on the bulk of this.

If you pop 'cpr part 18' in to google you can select the following link which explains what this part of their letter relates to.

www.dca.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/practice_directions/pd_part18.htm

If you select this link and scroll down, section 1 relates to the rules RBS must have followed in constructing their response. Part 2 states the rules which you must follow in responding to them. It's not very interesting reading but I think by trying to confuse you RBS have actually given you a bit of a pointer on what is required of you in your response.

Rather than adding a huge long post I'll give you my opinion on what's in bold on your post in a minute.

Good luck!

Hello to all of you and thanks for all the great info held on this thread!

As you may see from my number of posts – I’ve just lost my CAG virginity having spent several hours reading through this thread and a couple of others, after a point in the right direction from one of my colleagues at work.

It would seem like everyone else, I was lured in to the (un)welcome trap due to a combination of circumstances that I have come to regret over the past two years.

I’m currently dealing with the Citizens Advice Bureau to try and reduce my monthly outgoings whilst still paying back my creditors, something that over the past year has been very difficult and nigh on impossible the past six months or so.

Anyway, enough chit chat…

I’m looking for a bit of advice before starting my full frontal assault on welcome and numerous other banks and lending companies.

Basically, by entering into a payment agreement with welcome and my other creditors through the CAB, am I in any way acknowledging that I am indebted to them or can I still pursue them down the CCA route. Not sure this paragraph makes sense but what I mean is if I request a ‘true’ copy of the Credit Agreement and I find that they cannot produce this in the time given, would the fact that I’m also seeking to agree payment terms with them, be seen as acknowledging my debt to them?

Finally, if I were to receive some form of payment (in relation to penalty charges) from welcome, as my account is seriously behind, could they insist that the ‘compensation’ is credited to my welcome personal loan? If so, presumably as these were illegally obtained penalties, could I not insist all money is paid to me directly?

In the meantime keep up the good work everyone!