BTW The solicitor has stated that the debt has been assigned to TBI.

My colleague at work has a personal loan taken out a few years ago. Got into difficulty and so was passed on to TBI financial services. Since then it was passed on to solicitors. I advised her to write to request a copy of the original credit agreement. The solicitors have written back saying there isn't one. However, they are saying that 'My clients ( I presume that's TBI) are also aware that they are unable to enforce the agreement whilst a copy is not provided without a separate order of the court in this respect although my clients would not anticipate taking such action as payment will simply be monitored under the arrangement previously agreed. If appropriate, my clients would rely on the best evidence rules, the fact that you are clearly aware of the debt and have acknowledged the fact given the payment remitted and the age of the outstanding debt should legal proceedings be required. So does she... Tell them to stick it? Is there such a thing as best evidence rules? What's next? She has got all statements from the beginning

Hi, Just found this on Martins site. It was an E mail he received. Sounds good to me, and seems to be working for a few. Hope you can make use of it. "I know someone who works at HBOS sorting out people's requests to re-claim bank charges. There are some tight FSA regulations about replying to people within so many days of receiving their letter. As they are so swamped with requests the only way HBOS can meet this deadline (and avoid the FSA's wrath) is to automatically decline EVERY request in the first instance. This has been practise for a couple of weeks now." "I am reliably informed that when this happens all people have to do is ring the number on the top of the letter and politely ask for the case re-evaluating. This will be done almost without question and, while it means waiting another 4-8 weeks, it almost guarantees an offer of around 50% of the total amount. It's up to the customer to argue it from then on. The key apparently is to be polite and reasonable to the person on the phone (after all, it's not their fault personally that the banks make these charges)." "A trick for anyone who has not yet written to claim is to ask for an answer to a specific question. They will almost certainly not get this answer when HBOS responds and will therefore know the deline letter has been automatically generated, rather than being a specific response having considered the case - as it will purport to be."

B-in-law lives in Burnley and they are still sending them out

I was trying to say, that does this statement now prove that they are not 'fees' and are indeed charges??

any views?

Doesn't this go against all the banks are saying about fees? They are openley admitting you are in breach of contract Is this not what we are fighting for, or am I missing something?

Also: If you continue to manage your account in this way, future charges will be applied to your account ( not fees). We know you do not want this and would like to work with you to help you avoid these charges altogether.

I have a letter from halifax where a freind is reclaiming. They have refused point blank to consider any repayment. In the letter however, it says: Our terms and conditions explained that charges would be applied if you did not keep to the terms of the account. Surely they cannot now say they are fees for a service??

My sister has a case against Yorkshire Bankers. She got a judgment by default on 14 may. This came about because the bank applied to have the case struck out as they had no POC, although I'm sure the court must have sent it. So the judge sent another but with no timescale to reply. On 10 may, she rang the court and was told there was still no reply and so to enter judgment for £6.2K Now the bankers have applied to have the judgment set aside as they STILL have not received the POC. It is now with the judge. Is it likely he will grant this?

BTW is the stay letter the same as striking out the claim?

Whatever happened to This matter be listed on 4th July at 3-30 pm to consider striking out the defence as disclosing no reasonable prospect of success in the light of the recent decision of 100,000 cases like this over the last 12 months. How come everything judicial seems to swing towards the banks? Maybe I had better join the local Masons

Thanks Bookworm for your advice in your last post, makes it a little clearer. Where are all the T&C's ? are they in the banks particular forum?

Still sure it's not?? http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/94630-hull-cc-consider-striking.html

The problem now is though, what about all the court cases going on, how do we now prove they are Penalty charges. I would think the judge would say " sorry mate, you had your chance to get the T&C's, it's too late now"

Halifax, I understand are now sending out letters refusing to make an offer etc.. and turning down the claim point blank. However, in the letter it says: When you opened the account, you agreed to our terms & conditions which explained the charges would be applied if you did not keep to the terms of the account. Is this not an admission that it is a breach of contract??

"Most agree that a cap on current account overdraft charges is likely. From the date it comes in, current account customers will not be able to claim a refund. However, they will still qualify for a refund on charges from before that date for up to six years. " Now that's what I call an idiot. From the This is Money web site

they think they will lose are idiots Maybe they are just not confident enough ? There are hundreds of people who aren't..

as long as you get a judge who has heard of "cloaking the penalty", you can still prove your case. That's the problem though isn't it? If you don't get a judge..... as long as you can show that you HAVE committed a breach of contract, How do we do that without the relevant T&C's ?

What with Lloyds 2 cases under their belt and Halifax changing T&C's to 'fees'. I don't think these people who take on the banks are really researching enough, and it's making it very difficult for everyone else. I know heard that Clydesdale have been on the news saying that they are not paying out because of Scottish laws or something. I missed the snippet and would appreciate if someone saw it to let me know what was said. I would have thought that if the bank trades in England, it comes under English laws, unless the charges are applied to the account at HO, then would that be a get out clause? How do we now prove that the charges are a breach of contract when, clearly all the T&C's are changing and we cannot prove otherwise? Can we direct the Court to make the banks supply us with older T& C's? A lot of people I speak to have dropped their claim now before it goes to court as they feel they will lose. It sounds like the beginnig of the end to me. Any views?

It does state the time, which was about 15 mins after the Plod arrived

All the banks are changing their T&C's to relflect the new 'fees' regime. I think that they may get away with this for the latest charges, but this would not apply to earlier charges. To prove this, I imagine we would need older T&C's, but if the bank won't give them out, how do we fight them?

Sorry you've lost me there!

Hi rosy Gerties right. The copper didn't actually see the accident, he was driving past and, as we were holding up the traffic, he stopped.

Thanks maddy, But if they are now 'fees' for a service, they are not penalty charges. Does this make a difference? as in Kev's case against LLoyds?