Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • For any who might be interested in a line of enquiry and wonder about pyramids .. Super mounds? We know that mounds preceded pyramids  - interesting with what we know about the legendary origins of Atlantis, snake worship and the 'double helix' staffs   Hers a few starters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benben https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ningishzida https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atum "In the Heliopolitan creation myth, Atum was considered to be the first god, having created himself, sitting on a mound (benben) (or identified with the mound itself), from the primordial waters "   Perhaps a step or two to far, and perhaps coincidence, but interesting nonetheless      
    • Make sure you post up the draft particulars of claim for us to look at
    • Rejection email with letter of claim has now been sent and copied to Martijn De Lange. Reminder in my diary for 16th March to proceed with Money Claim.    
    • Extraordinary that John Lewis are prepared to go to these lengths to defeat you. They will end up paying far more than it's worth. I think one of their very weak points is that they themselves are referred to the plug say they were obviously aware of it – just as you were – and it beggars belief that they would then allow the television to be placed facedown on top of the plug of which they were aware. Was the plug secured at all or was it just dangling around on the end of its cord?
    • It’s external - Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Complaint about Halifax new charges regime, template letters here.

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3094 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Ok, here goes, no 1.


Work in progress, and do tweak to your purpose, don't just blindly cut and paste. Some of you may get the higher charge than £1, change that. This is not one size fits all, it fits mostly. OK?



Make sure you READ it and UNDERSTAND it. I know it sounds obvious, but you'd be shocked as to how many just copy blindly and fall on their backsides when they get a reply.



Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 176
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic


Customer Relations

PO Box 548

Leeds LS1 1WU





[date] [sort code/account no]


Dear Sir/Madam,


I refer to your letter/leaflet of [date], in which you advised that my regular overdraft would be subject to a £1 per day charge from December 2009.


I wish to state my refusal of these unilaterally imposed terms. The agreement between you and me was that this overdraft was provided without a charge apart from the interest it attracts, and I have no wish for this to change, nor have you given me a choice in the matter.


I am in a situation where I can not just pay off my overdraft and leave, which effectively leaves me at the mercy of your iniquitous charges.


Please be advised that I am reporting the matter to the attention of the Office of Fair Tradings, as I believe your actions:


  • Contravene the Consumer Protections from Unfair Trading Regulations Act 2008 and are in fact prohibited under Part 2, section 3.-(3)(a) and (b): "(3) A commercial practice is unfair if—

(a) it contravenes the requirements of professional diligence; and

b) it materially distorts or is likely to materially distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer with regard to the product."

  • I also believe your actions contravene the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999, section 5. (1) to (4):

5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.


(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.


(3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract.


(4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was.

and I also refer you to


1. (k) enabling the seller or supplier to alter unilaterally without a valid reason any characteristics of the product or service to be provided.

I don't consider the "simplification" you claim is your primary reason for this change to be a valid reason.


Furthermore, I don't believe that your changes pass the test of transparency, as you have failed to give clear examples of what that daily charge equals in terms of the interest rate this equates to under typical amounts. Indeed, I believe that translated in a percentage, those rates would put your average loan shark to shame. Please feel free to correct those figures, but this is what I have seen reported:

£0.01 Overdraft: 3,650,000%

£100 Overdraft: 365%

£1000 Overdraft: 36.5%


Furthermore the change is going to hit the hardest the people in the worst economic situation, as those who can afford it will leave in droves whilst those stuck in the living-in-the-overdraft trap will be the ones worst hit, unable to leave and hit for those fees month after month after month. In a lot of cases, it may lead people to try and raise additional funds by taking on consolidation loans to pay off the overdraft, when they may not be able to afford it in the first place, which would amount to irresponsible lending and/or a breach of the OFT's guidance on Unfair Business Practices 2.6 (b) "pressurising debtors to sell property, to raise funds by further borrowing or to extend their borrowing". Whilst I can't be sure of this happening, it is not inconceivable that quite a few of your customers will turn to you to find a way to solve the issue and may get talked into additional borrowing against common sense and OFT guidance.


Finally, I believe that this very material change to your Terms and Conditions is a direct breach of the FSA waiver to which you agreed, in that you are not supposed to alter your T&Cs in a manner which will disadvantage your customers whilst the OFT v Banks test case is ongoing.


I reiterate to you my absolute refusal to this change of charging regime and await your proposal to resolve this issue.


Yours faithfully,









[your MP]

Edited by Bookworm
I am NOT good at maths!
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice work Bookie.



Please help us to help you. Download the CAG tool bar for free

HERE and use the search option for all your searches. CAG earns a few pennies every time !!!


Please don't rush, take time to read these:-






This is always worth referring to






Advice & opinions given by me are personal, are not endorsed by the Consumer Action Group or the Bank Action Group. Should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No 2, to OFT:


Enquiries and Reporting Centre

Office of Fair Trading

Fleetbank House

2-6 Salisbury Square









Dear Sir/Madam,


Please find enclosed a copy of the letter I have today sent to Halifax Bank. I know the OFT doesn't deal with individual cases, but I believe this blanket approach towards their customer base does come within your remit.


In this particular economic climate especially, this unfair money-making exercise is going to create even more poverty, more vicious circle of charges begetting charges, all this in a period when the consumer is unable to seek remedy due to the FSA waiver. Meanwhile, banks such as Halifax happily flout the very same waiver and unilaterally impose their changes on their customers at a time when they are not supposed to.


This is a request for the OFT to immediately start investigating Halifax Bank's disgraceful behaviour.


Yours faithfully,





Enclosed: [copy of letter no 1]

Link to post
Share on other sites

:!:HOLD THE FORT!!!:!:


I have just thought of something else to add to it as I was musing on the implications of the change. Don't copy the template yet!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent letter bookworm, just one thing though, in your example of interst rates you have got £100 listed twice with 2 different rates.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey thanks for this, goin to draft up for hubby. Can I ask though, the letter my husband received is not dated! so what shall I put where it says [date]?


thanks in advance


I just put the date I got it through the post , which was last Thursday.


The maths thing (previous post)...I did not spot that...and the letters gone...oh well...I think they get the gist of whats been said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Bookworm and everyone else too for this


huge thanks fab as always


wonder if any national paper would be interested to persue this,


just carry on everyone and lets make some noise!!!


have a sunny day all laters angel x:cool:

Edited by angel_1

Im happy to help with support and my own thoughts, but if I offer any thoughts to your problems please take it as from my life experience only and not of any legal standing. Always take further advice from the legal experts in your final action.:)


my new motto is,,,",Taking back control of your life and home - such peace is priceless"


This is all due to truecall device , have a serious peek at this you will be thankful like I am x laters angel :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

folks, I just created a facebook group to spread the fight against this a bit further. I hope you don't mind that I linked back to this thread from there?... I am going to be well out of pocket because of this... VERY VERY unfair!



  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

hiya all


have signed the government petition and now we can do facebook, fab


well remember when that lady spoke out about marks and spencer charging more for bras because more material and she did a facebook page, that worked a treat marks and spencer bowed down


so hey maybe this is the way to go too, fab idea gerrybhoy


laters all angel x

Im happy to help with support and my own thoughts, but if I offer any thoughts to your problems please take it as from my life experience only and not of any legal standing. Always take further advice from the legal experts in your final action.:)


my new motto is,,,",Taking back control of your life and home - such peace is priceless"


This is all due to truecall device , have a serious peek at this you will be thankful like I am x laters angel :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
What did they say about the issue on Watchdog? - missed it due to footy

The Watchdog feature was crap to be fair.


They simply stated the facts and said there were lots of angry customers interviewed by Martin .......

Link to post
Share on other sites
hiya all


have signed the government petition and now we can do facebook, fab



Can you provide a link to the petition as I can't find it on the govt website. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...