Since 1988 we have been victims of fraud by a Building Society – now part of a major bank. In 2006 we exposed part of the fraud ourselves; the FOS upheld our complaint; on the same day the Building Society registered their displeasure by surcharging us an amount equal to twice the refund ordered by the FOS. Evidence discovered subsequently via the FOS (using the Freedom of Information Act) showed there had been other infractions by the Building Society. The City of London Police declared there have been fraud; we now have a case number. They asked us to forward details to the Financial Conduct Authority. Our mortgage was redeemed precisely on the prescribed date but, unknown to us at the time, the amount was split by the Building Society and used for other purposes. By way of explanation to the FOS, the Building Society claimed that an endowment policy had been inadequate. However, there had been no endowment policy used in the settlement. That had been the third piece of false evidence they had submitted to the Ombudsman. A surcharge valued at 10% of the mortgage was made against us by the Building Society soon after. There had been other such sanctions by the BS totalling over half the capital amount of the mortgage. At the time of our invoking the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Bank seemed to be aware there had been earlier transgressions by the Building Society, for some pieces of information had been redacted. We have notified the ICO. Our numerous letters to the Building Society asking them to address these issues have been ignored for the past 7 years, They have however continued to charge us £40 routinely, now amounting to over £11,000, all of which is based upon a fake debt, contrived by the Building Society. Action Fraud have explained they are too busy to progress our case. The FCA do not deal with individual cases. I, at the age of 77, do not have the funds to confront a major bank at court. We have been given to understand that the Statute of Limitations (the 6 year limit) which is available to defendants at the FOS, should not be available in cases of criminality, and so our case was not suitable for the FOS to deal with, either in 2008 or again now. 1. Is there anyone who finds this at all familiar? 2. Does anyone have a useful suggestion on which way I should turn next for help? For reasons of brevity there is much I have not explained here, but I have compiled a chronological and more comprehensive account, cross referenced to a compendium of evidence.

Airlines are within their rights to charge a supplement to customers checking-in their luggage, a court has ruled. The European Court of Justice ruled that airlines faced extra costs storing and processing checked-in luggage. But it added that hand baggage was necessary for passengers and should not face a price supplement. The decision is a boost to low-cost carriers that have made optional charges key to their business models. The court upheld a challenge by Spanish budget carrier Vueling Airlines against a Spanish law that prohibits airlines from making people pay for putting their suitcases in the aircraft's hold. The airline was given a 3,000 euro (£2,362) penalty by authorities in Spain for adding 40 euros to the basic price of four tickets bought by one passenger for return tickets between La Coruna in Spain to Amsterdam in the Netherlands. A Spanish court referred the case to Luxembourg to see if it complied with EU law on pricing freedom. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29253383 Huge blow for passengers as EU's top court rules budget airlines CAN charge travellers extra for checked luggage Court said checked-in baggage is not considered 'compulsory or necessary’ Vueling Airlines challenged Spanish law that prohibits extra fees Court of Justice ruled the law is in breach of European Union rules http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2760637/Victory-Ryanair-easyJet-EU-s-court-rules-budget-airlines-CAN-charge-passengers-extra-checked-luggage.html

I apologise if there is already a thread on this. I thought there MUST be but couldn't find anything. Is there any guidance available on where to complain if I believe an airline is not conforming to the Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations by charging excessing credit card fees? I often use Aegean Airlines to travel between Greece and the UK but I notice they are still charging £7 per booking for any payment card other than their own when all other airlines, as far as I know, have brought their charges into line with the new regulations and charge around 2% of the cost of the booking. Even Ryanair have conformed so, if even THEY can't circumvent the new rules then they MUST be pretty much unbeatable. I have contacted Aegean about this but just received a standard email saying what an amazing and great value company they are with a link to their booking engine. How do I go about complaining? Do I have to have actually been 'caught' by this, i.e. actually made a booking? Does the fact that they are a foreign company matter? I would think not as I am trying to buy a ticket while in the UK, in sterling and originating from London.

On Saturday, 6th April 2013 the government introduced a BAN on "excessive credit and debit card surcharges" thereby preventing companies charging anything more than it actually costs them to process payments. The new regulations are certainly not before time and the Consumer Affairs Minister; Jo Swinson stated the following: "The practice of excessive payment surcharges has been ripping of consumers for far too long" Charging a fee for making payment by credit card ( or, to a lesser extent..a debit card) was a practice that was typically used by companies when consumers booked concert tickets, theatre seats, car hire and airline tickets etc. For reasons that were unknown, bailiff companies decided that they too could charge a credit card fee when accepting payment by credit card with the WORST OFFENDER ( as far as I am aware) being PHILIPS Ltd who not only charged a credit card handling fee of 6% but unbelivably also charge 20% vat on the fee !!! It beggars belief that this practice has been allowed to go on for so long. unchallenged. The Office of Fair Trading has provided examples of the maximum amount that can be charged for using a credit card and for instance; on a transaction of £100 the "surcharge" should be no more than £2.10 and on payments of £250 a maximum of £4.94 The new rules will be covering all of the European Union but have been introduced in the UK earlier than the rest of the EU because of the concerns that were first raised by Which magazine. NOTE: New companies and very small businesses will not be subject to the new rules until June 2014. Complaints can be made to the Office of Fair Trading. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22042309

Before the 1st October 2012, there was a £15 Victim Surcharge on a conviction (for most railway offences). When The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Surcharge) Order 2012 came into force, this changed the £15 amount. As most railway offences are punished by way of fine(s), the following new charges apply: Under 18: Stays at £15 for a fine, Other sentences between £10 and £20. Over 18: If fined, minimum amount of 10% of the fine. E.g. £500 fine = £50 Victim Surcharge costs. Cannot exceed £120. Must be more than £20. Conditional Discharge = £15 Community Sentence = £60 Other sentences = £80-£120 Example: So, Mr. F. Evader, an employed person is convicted for breaching Byelaw 18(1). He had plead not guilty and is sentenced accordingly. He is fined £300. Ordered to pay costs of £120 to the Prosecutor, £5 compensation to the Railway for the unpaid fare and has the new Victim Surcharge of £30 added. Total cost: £455

Wizz air introduces new cabin bag charges. If anyone is confused about why some airline companies have reduced card surcharges following the OFT investigation,then even more confusing is how some are seemingly already taking measures to recoup any shortfalls by introducing new baggage charges. Now traditionally the major airlines have included hand baggage within the base ticket. Up until 9th July Wizz Air did so too...and 10kg at that. Today they announced their so called "New Cabin bag policy" So for those who are wondering,Wizz are now defining between a small cabin bag and a large cabin bag. A small cabin bag is what they deem as 42x32x25cm or smaller.The weight allowance of 10kg remains the same. This size bag will be free from further baggage charges from 9th July. Any bag that exceeds this size,will now cost 10 euro. But it still must be the same size as the prev limits for fitting into the overhead bins. Wizz say they are introducing this new baggage policy as a trial to "Incentivise passengers to bring smaller baggage aboard the aircraft " This seems odd since there are very few passengers who board flights with only a laptop bag. Wizz claim this trial on selected routes will improve on time performance and result in better travel experience... although they are not so quick at how they have arrived at this amazing feat of ingenuity. They add; With fewer large items onboard, the cabin will be less crowded and the boarding process will be easier and faster for the benefit of all our passengers. Now assuming that the smaller baggage will all be under the seats (which they tell) that means LESS space around the seating. No I am afraid I am not convinced at all. Even if they were to scrap the £14 per return card surcharges...they will still be 6 euro in pocket. Nice try. They have not updated their website either with this as of 16.49 on 9th.July. The notification has gone out by emails. http://wizzair.com/en-GB/useful_information/baggage