egafd.com

I've got the forms through and was wondering if anyone here had tried it.
It's now No Win No Fee with solicitors.
I guess I've been charged 4 figures in the last 6 years.

You will win.If I get back you 4 figures will you give me a percentage?

I was recently sucessful in claiming back just over ?400 of bank charges using the following letter (template was on LBC website where James O'Brien ran a campaign against bank charges):



[Your Banks Address]

[Date]

[Your Address]

[Your Account Number/Details]

Without Prejudice

Dear Sirs

Due to recent media coverage on bank charges I am now aware that you, {your banks name} have been charging me bank charges that are contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Subsection 1(e) of the said regulations gives a non complete list of terms which may be regarded as unfair, such as a term which require me as a consumer who fails in his obligation, to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.

I believe that your charges are disproportionately high. Therefore they are contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999. In addition I believe that your charges are a Penalty. Penalty charges are irrecoverable at common law. The precedent for this was a Scottish case, Castaneda and Others V. Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Co (1904) 12 SLT 498. Along with the English case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor co Ltd [1915] AC 79. It was held that a contractual party can only recover damages for an actual loss or liquidated losses. It is clear that your charges do not reflect any actual or real loss.

Your charges appear to be nothing more than a lucrative profit-making scheme. Therefore I require you to refund my entire bank charges for the past 6 years, a total of [? ]. I hear by give you 14 days to refund the charges back into my account. If this is not done within 14 days, I will be forced to take legal action.



Yours Sincerely

Very interesting Bob.
Thank you.

Just to let you know, my bank paid up within a few days without so much as a struggle.

Banks know they are on dodgy ground and so long as it seems like you know your rights they won't bother waiting for you to take them to court as they know they're on to a loser, so why pay court costs etc on top of refunding your money?

I doubt you'll need your "no win, no fee" lawyer... that letter should be enough.

Anyone got a similar letter I could send a creditor who is charging me interest charges on a debt?

I got charged for going over my overdraft by ?4. They charged me ?12 (iirc) for clearing a cheque while overdrawn then ?40 ish for two Direct Debits. I called a chap on the indian call centre and politely ranted about closing my savings accounts with them and before you knew it he'd wiped off the charges.

The thing is, I don't normally keep that close an eye on my account and the bank don't charge then and there - they put the charge on at month end. You have to check this stuff each day - god knows how much I've been charged over the last year!

I sat down and worked out how much my bank had taken from me over the last few years due to my mismanaging my account (due to circumatances I had little control over) and it ran into a few thousands.... of course what they do is take the penalties from my a/c ensuring things that should have gone out bounce, and it hapens again and again... they are less than helpful
Anyway I took a copy of this letter to my branch on Wednesday and received this response: "In accordance with our guidelines I have forwarded your letter to our Customer Services Department who have responsibility for such matters
You should receive an acknowledgement from them within 48 hours and a formal response within five days"

...here's hoping I am successful....

fingers crossed for you matey, BUT the banks are getting wise to customers fighting back, I fully expect the bastards to worm their way out of paying you back in the thousands citing admin charges etc, but I TRULY hope I am wrong on this.

Be aware its not bank charges per se, its *penalty* charges the deal is about.

(at least thats my understanding from the newspaper report I read)