Filed N1 down the Court last week for non compliance and damages as per above post.

Slightly confused here? I posted my POC. Should I be posting it somehwere else?

If I may add a small comment here about Lloyds. If you are claiming charges back on a current account and a credit card..... beware of the following. You will most probably win both cases if all goes to plan. They will credit your credit card with the charges refund and the same for your current account. The credit card balance will be reduced by the refunded amount, but the available to spend balance will remain zero if it has been closed. Your current account will be credited with the refund amount of charges too. If the current account is then in credit, and you still have an arrears balance owing on the credit card, they will apportion the credit balance of your current account to your credit card to pay the arrears. They are entitled to do this by means of their sneaky terms and conditions. I know this because I am claiming from 3 Lloyds TSB accounts and I have made a CLEAR stipulation and condition of settlement that they pay be means of a cheque and not an account transfer. I will then pay any arrears etc at my choosing and at an ammount I feel justifyable. Lets hope they see it my way..... Good luck with your claim

AC - Good Luck. Am holding thumbs for you. Keep us posted on the outcome.

We are filing against Argos today for non compliance and damages. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/store-cards/72935-mrs-martinix-argos.html I am more interested in getting the SAR details than the damages, hence the small amount.

Good luck with your claim.

We are filing our N1 today for SAR non compliance and damages. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/store-cards/72935-mrs-martinix-argos.html Good luck with your claim. It seems you're almost there.

In my opinion, I would go for the amount that is relevant to your account. After all if you did end up in court, you would be perfectly able to justify "Fairness and Balance" as well as "Mutual Reciprocality". If you were to claim a higher rate of interest, they could claim you were being exorberant or unfair. That is IF it ever got to court - which I doubt!

The post is a little confusing, as I am not sure if you made the 3rd party payment or not. No matter how much was paid in the previous month, a payment has to reach the account in the month in question and before the due date to be exempt from charges.

If you have to file the AQ - as i understand your claim is under £1500.00 there won't be a fee to pay for the AQ. Good luck with your claim!

Harley, The first thing I would do is tell them that you dispute the amount owed and send a SAR. This will give you all the relevant account information etc to see exactly what you are being charged and what has been added to the account. It may even reveal the amount that the debt was sold for. We were lucky in one of our SAR sent to a store card company, where the first line of my personal notes stated "There is no signed Credit Agreement for this account" Once you have all your SAR info, you'll be in a better position to decide on what course of action is needed. You can also then send the CCA letter so you can check the terms and conditions of your original agreement and the exclusions of the PPI policy etc.

If the 2 accounts are with the same organisation - you only need pay one fee. Just remember to include both account numbers in the SAR.

It's funny how in life there is someone in the exact same position as you are somewhere in the world. This is the letter I sent to our letting agency recently. The outcome of the letter is we have now signed a new lease for 12 months and we have been released from our 6 months deposit. As our landlord has spent or used the nice 4K deposit, we do not have to pay rent until August 23rd this year, as they are unable to refund it immediately.

In the Terms and Conditions or on the statements you receive, there has to be a reference to the amount of interest you will be or are being charged. This could be a monthyl APR or an annual APR. If there is no mention of it, they could be breaching the Consumer Credit Act, as a basic requirement of the Act is making clear the rate of interest charged.

Wendy, What is your monthly APR for purchases? 49% APR does seem a bit excessive. Maybe we can check it for you. Calculating the APR is the same for credit cards as it is for bank accounts, and the calculator will give the same result.

Breakdown of damages costs: Subject Access Request Fee £10 Subject Access Request Letter Postage cost via Recorded Delivery £1 Subject Access Request Reminder Letter Postage Cost £0.32 Subject Access Request Final Demand Postage Cost £0.32 Research, Letter writing and Stationary Costs £30 Travel and Transport expences to court - 36.6 Miles @ 0.25/mile £9.15 Total: £50.79 + £30.00 court cost. Is the above over the top or reasonable?

Thanx Ian. Appreciate the help. How do I know what value of damage is caused? I have written 4 letters - which I suppose I could add a value to. As far as inconvenience etc goes... I don't care about getting compensation - just want my statements and info. So I am guessing I will be issuing damages claim for say £30.00 for the 4 letters and whatever the court costs are. - does this sound reasonable?

Subject Access Request sent 15/12/2006 Letter reply received 02/01/2007 saying they do not recognise our account number and to resend info. SAR resent on 02/01/2007 SAR reminder letter sent 11/02/2007 SAR Final Demand sent 18/02/2007 Nothing - absolutely not a peep from them.... So in total it's now 67 days since the original request and nothing!

An article published Bank fined over insurance policies Bank fined over insurance policies FSA says it failed to provide enough information Capital One Bank was fined £175,000 today for failing to adequately protect consumers against the risk of being mis-sold unsuitable insurance policies. Between January 2005 and April 2006, the credit card firm neglected to ensure that 50,000 customers received important information about Payment Protection Insurance, the Financial Services Authority (FSA) ruled. As a result, consumers were unable to check what they were covered for or if the policy was right for them. The fine follows an investigation by the City regulator into the Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) market. It found that Capital One had inadequate systems and controls for selling PPI insurance and as such failed to treat its customers fairly. Insufficient information PPI provides financial cover for policyholders who are unable to pay bills due to ill health or redundancy. But critics claim that the product is vastly overpriced, difficult to claim on and in many cases sold to the wrong people. During 2005, Capital One sold approximately 335,000 PPI policies on UK credit cards. But as a result of inadequacies in its selling practices, the firm failed to provide sufficient information to more than 50,000 customers, the FSA found. Demand for better practice Margaret Cole, director of enforcement at the FSA, said: ‘We are determined to see much better practice in PPI. This fine, and other recent PPI-related enforcement cases, show we will crack down when firms fail to treat customers fairly in this area. ‘It is unacceptable for people to be put at risk of buying unsuitable protection insurance through not being given the right information at the right time. ‘And consumers should also remember that PPI on credit cards and loans is almost always optional and consider whether they need it before signing up.’ Last month the regulator handed a fine of £610,000 to store card provider GE Capital Bank as part of its crackdown on PPI failings - its largest penalty relating to the issue to date. Today's fine against Capital One could have been higher, but the firm qualified for a 30 per cent discount by agreeing to settle early. Improvement project A statement from Capital One said that prior to the FSA investigation it had already started a project to ‘significantly improve’ its sales and administrative processes concerning PPI. Sanjiv Yajnik, chief executive officer of Capital One Bank Europe, said: ‘Capital One values its relationship with its four million customers. ‘We consistently review our policies and practices and had made a number of significant improvements prior to the FSA's investigation. ‘The FSA has recognised that Capital One cooperated fully throughout the investigation.’ © The Press Association, All rights reserved.

An article published Bank fined over insurance policies Bank fined over insurance policies FSA says it failed to provide enough information Capital One Bank was fined £175,000 today for failing to adequately protect consumers against the risk of being mis-sold unsuitable insurance policies. Between January 2005 and April 2006, the credit card firm neglected to ensure that 50,000 customers received important information about Payment Protection Insurance, the Financial Services Authority (FSA) ruled. As a result, consumers were unable to check what they were covered for or if the policy was right for them. The fine follows an investigation by the City regulator into the Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) market. It found that Capital One had inadequate systems and controls for selling PPI insurance and as such failed to treat its customers fairly. Insufficient information PPI provides financial cover for policyholders who are unable to pay bills due to ill health or redundancy. But critics claim that the product is vastly overpriced, difficult to claim on and in many cases sold to the wrong people. During 2005, Capital One sold approximately 335,000 PPI policies on UK credit cards. But as a result of inadequacies in its selling practices, the firm failed to provide sufficient information to more than 50,000 customers, the FSA found. Demand for better practice Margaret Cole, director of enforcement at the FSA, said: ‘We are determined to see much better practice in PPI. This fine, and other recent PPI-related enforcement cases, show we will crack down when firms fail to treat customers fairly in this area. ‘It is unacceptable for people to be put at risk of buying unsuitable protection insurance through not being given the right information at the right time. ‘And consumers should also remember that PPI on credit cards and loans is almost always optional and consider whether they need it before signing up.’ Last month the regulator handed a fine of £610,000 to store card provider GE Capital Bank as part of its crackdown on PPI failings - its largest penalty relating to the issue to date. Today's fine against Capital One could have been higher, but the firm qualified for a 30 per cent discount by agreeing to settle early. Improvement project A statement from Capital One said that prior to the FSA investigation it had already started a project to ‘significantly improve’ its sales and administrative processes concerning PPI. Sanjiv Yajnik, chief executive officer of Capital One Bank Europe, said: ‘Capital One values its relationship with its four million customers. ‘We consistently review our policies and practices and had made a number of significant improvements prior to the FSA's investigation. ‘The FSA has recognised that Capital One cooperated fully throughout the investigation.’ © The Press Association, All rights reserved.

Lisa, I am not 100% sure on claiming over 6 years, as I am not sure on the Statuate of Limitations for claiming PPI. We are only claiming within the last 6 years.

Received Allocation Questionnaire today. Completed and sent to the court. As I am now aware that Cobbetts read our threads, I have sent you a copy too. Now come on Cobbetts, settle up - You KNOW it's the right thing to do!!

My claim has an averaged APR rate of 29.4%. In my POC though, I have 3 different schedules attached and I say to the court that if I am unsuccessfull at 29.4%, I claim at my lowest rate of 16.99% and failing that at the statutory 8%. I agree with UK and Glav. An average is the best way.

I used the spreadsheet in Vampiress Chambers. I used the basic bank acocunt spreadsheet.

The only thing to remember if you do that, is that you would possibly have to explain to a judge how you derived your figure. If your claim is on the basis of being mutually reciprocal, then you have to charge what they have charged you. PM me if you need any help.