Well, no problem with the AQ fee - they should pay that to you. On the earlier charges you will need to plead that the six year period under the Limitation Act commenced only on the publication of the OFT report in April 2006. Prior to that LTSB had concealed the true nature of the charges they were making and you were thus unaware that they were unlawful.

Hi I'd endorse all nic says, but i'd also advise you to write to LTSB saying thank you for the £750 gesture of goodwill which you are accepting as just that - their gesture towards recreating a good customer relationship only, and not as part payment of your claim to a refund of the charges. J

Hi Why are they disputing £1437 of the charges? Were they either calculated wrongly by you (doubtful?) or beyond the six year period before which they claim the Limitation Act may apply? J

No, theoretically one solicitor is as good (or as bad) as another - the difference will be in their "people skills" and how quickly they deal with your claim.

I suspect this simply means that LTSB are overwhelmed with claims and are outsourcing the legal work to any other solicitors that can take it on. SC&M are the LTSB "house" solicitors.

Hi Purple I agree with you. If you are anxious about arguing the case in court then it will be best to accept what you have been given. But I think you may still be best advised to attend the hearing to be able to tell the court that terms for settlement have been agreed which can then be encapsulated into a court order - just in case there is a delay in you receiving the remainder of your money?

Hi Copylady I wish you all the best with your claims. Can you say how much of your total claim amounts to the charges element alone, and if all the charges are within the last 6 years? John

Thanks Gary. So that I can understand this a little more, can you run through this with me? Assume that a bank customer is constantly running their account within an agreed OD facility. As such the interest rate on the debit balance will always be at an authorised OD rate. Any charges debited to that account will then form part of the balance on which interest is charged, and which in terms of an increasing OD balance, would be compounded? Am I right in understanding your point that the lifetime of an interest calculation on a particular charge will last only as long as that charge is not "paid off" (effectively) by a credit going into the account? John

I think that I have probably underclaimed against LTSB in the sense that I have not included the OD interest (at the "authorised" rate) in terms of calculating the true extent of the overall penalty, to which I would then add the 8% statutory interest. I am confident that this could be argued with SC&M in terms of settlement prior to a hearing if necessary. My bargaining point, I am hoping, is that SC&M have not pleaded against this aspect in their defence and I can use that to "horse trade" with them. Or dou think I am better amending my POC at this stage? J

Gary On LTSB overdrafts there are two rates of interest - "authorised" and "unauthorised", depending on whether the overdraft is within an agreed facility level or not. Where a customer is constantly operating on an overdraft basis he will effectively be charged a rate of interest on the penalty charges at a "contractual" rate of interest - the rate of that being dependant on whether the overdraft level is within an agreed facility or not - but in any event that will be a rate of either around 18% or 29% which will in turn be compounded. That is a considerable difference to the simple statutory rate of 8%. In my case I have claimed a refund of the charges plus the contractually charged interest - at either the 29% or, in the alternative, the 18% rate - at the discretion of the court. As I was at all times operating on an overdraft basis (sometimes within the agreed facility, sometimes not) I cannot see how the court could rule that those interest costs (charged by LTSB and wholly attributable to the incidence of the unlawful charges) are not refundable. Have I got my understanding on this wrong? John

Gary As ever, your wise counsel puts matters into perspective. I agree that any litigant commencing court action should be very clear about the prospect of it going "all the way" and understand fully the preparation that is required. Part of my point on the CI aspect was to reflect, I suppose, that inevitably the claim is not based solely on the "mutuality and reciprocity" angle, but also on the basis that, de facto, interest at that higher rate would often have been charged and therefore validly forms part of the claim to repayment? John

Hi Purple The fact that they returned your call today shows, I think, how they want to try and persuade you to accept their offer and avoid the issue going to court. I am sure others will have some input, but I think the points in your favour at trial would be: 1. That LTSB have not hitherto mentioned in correspondence or any documents submitted to court that they are defending your claim for contractual interest. Their defence has been solely against the charges - which they are now apparently prepared to pay in full. 2. As your case is in the small claims arena there will be no costs awarded against you if your claim to CI fails - unless the defence tried to persuade the judge that your actions in the case have been unreasonable. I doubt very much if they have. The major point against you proceeding with the matter in court will be having the "nerve", if you like, to argue your case through to a conclusion in front of a judge. If you only end up walking away with your charges + 8% interest + court fees (and no CI interest) you will be no worse off - other than losing half a day at Court. But if you agree to LTSB's terms now and don't pursue your claim, what might you be losing....? I'm afraid, on balance, only you can make that decision. I'd be interested to see what others think. John

Purple The next move is really yours and not theirs, so I wouldn't be unduly worried about them not returning your call. I think you should immediately (by fax if you can, and post) reply to their letters confirming that you have received the cheque and point out that it does not cover the full amount of your claim, with which you are continuing, but that you will accept the cheque as a payment towards overall settlement. The hearing is on Wednesday 25 April so it would be interesting to see what their next move would be. It's probably going to be a game of brinkmanship for both sides - it just depends how much you want to pursue this at this stage? John

Hi Purple Thanks for the details of what SC&M have said to you. Did they plead that in their initial defence to your claim? If they did not then I believe they must seek leave of the court to amend their defence? As your claim in total is less than £5000 you would be able to argue this in court, if you wished, without fear of a costs order being awarded against you. If I remember rightly, the CI aspect of your claim is not insubstantial? In any event, it is likely that you have as a matter of fact been charged interest by LTSB at the rate of 29.8% on (at least part of) your overdraft and, had the bank not debited your account with their unlawful charges, the interest suffered by you overall would have been reduced by that element. John

Hi Gary I know that is sensible and pragmatic advice. My query, however, was I suppose more to do with court process and protocol. If Purple holds out for the contractual interest would LTSB be allowed (by the court) to argue or defend that aspect at trial if it had not previously pleaded the issue in it's defence to the proceedings ab initio? John

Hi Purple So was there anything in their settlement letter to say why they were not paying you the contractual interest? In their defence to your claim, did they address the issue of the CI at all? If they didn't, and you are not accepting settlement on the basis of statutory interest alone, do you think they are able to amend their defence at this stage? Well done on getting this far! J

Thanks for your answers. Can you tell me if there is a legal requirement for the RK address to be shown as the residential address, at which the driver/RK can be immediately locateable? J

Hi Mim Well I suppose that's a victory isn't it? I'm still really bemused as to why LTSB even let their representatives attend court when they then do not reasonably defend their position. Why don't they simply pay up well before it gets anywhere near court? John

I own my own car and keep it all the time at my residential address. However, it is insured through my business. For the purposes of the DVLA, which address should be used as the registered keeper's address - home or business? Can anyone point to the legislation on this if it is the residential address that should be used? J

I think it would need a direct question from a shareholder at the AGM, but even then the question could be avoided on the grounds of commercial sensitivity. The accounts themselves would not necessarily have to separately disclose the amounts being paid - "write offs" of amounts (bad debts etc) are happening all the time and these will probably fall into the same category.

Hi Debbie Well done again - enjoy your time in Brighton and have some well earned relaxation if you can. John

I suppose that, just maybe, there is a commercial angle coming into all this? Perhaps the bank's original stance was to try and face out all the claims but with the increasing number of successful claims, a sensible cost-saving approach would be to settle all claims before they get to the court stage - without the additional costs of court fees, interest and their own solicitors fees and at the same time retaining customer goodwill? I'm sure there are many unhappy LTSB shareholders around wishing the bank were not wasting their profits! J

Hi Debbie Well done! I'm sure you didn't quite know what to expect on your way to Court but it's worked out well after all. It really does make you wonder what LTSB and SC&M are up to though, doesn't it? John

Debbie The suspense is awful...... J

Debbie Well I certainly don't think the Judge should be too impressed with that, although if they do not appear today, it may be that the Judge will err in their favour and either postpone the hearing or issue an order requiring them to comply with the earlier directions. The best advice would be to calmly set out your position and show how you've invited the defendant on several occasions to discuss a way forward but to no avail. Do not be too pushy, just let the Judge draw his own conclusions as he will be well aware of the position but must still be seen to exercise fairness and reasonableness in the absence of a party (who knows what reasons they may come up with for non-attendance?). Ironically it will be better for you if they do appear, as they will have some explaining to do to the Judge over their non-compliance. Hopefully you have someone going with you for moral support? I wish you the very best of luck! John