Contributor Leaderboard

Mr Darn, it isn't always our fault when we are charged by banks. A while back I ended my contract with an insurer – paid off what I owed, cancelled the Direct Debit and left it at that, thinking it was all sorted. A while later I got a letter from the bank stating that I'd been charged £80 because the insurance company had tried to take a stupid amount of money out of my account – twice. In the end I got an apology from the Insurers, but the bank was adamant that I paid the £80. I didn't though – I went to the branch and told them that I refused to pay it. After about 20 minutes of arguing and feeling like I was getting nowhere, I just requested to close my bank account. Funnily enough, the clerk went scurrying off and came back with a manager of some sort, who politely said that he would be quite happy to write off the £80 for me. I would have had to pay the bank £80 for the mistake of someone else – it was out of my control. Today's ruling at the Supreme Court doesn't really bother me that much – it didn't come as a surprise. Bet it doesn't do anything for people's feelings towards the banks at the moment though.

Sent our dog there a few months back and came back a different dog! What a difference there was and the job they had done was outstanding. For only £25, the amount of pampering he got was unreal. Definitely will be sending him back again soon!

what can i say the graphics are splendid the game-play is tremendous and it took ages to complete well saying that i completed it but the game ain't half done its huge this is one game that you have to play.

It was a girl from my sister's school who was concussed from the collapse. She was with someone else, who also suffered fractured vertebrae.

It was damaged in the high/strong winds on Sunday night.

I just received this email about the Supreme Court Judgment for anyone who`s interested... Dear *** Supreme Court Judgment and what is means, Well I have just got back from London where I spent a lot of time trying to put right the media stories that the Bank's had won and this was the end for consumers, gladly I note that most of the Media have now reported that this case was not as important as many people thought is was: I am going to set out parts of the Judgment and explain what they mean if needed. After which I will outline what I think should happen next. The Judgment Firstly the Lord Walker highlighted the fact that many members of the public were not aware of the limited nature of the issue, which the court had to decide in the appeal. At Para 45 Lord Walker Said "…The Directive and the 1999 Regulations apply only to terms which have not been individually negotiated". Clearly the contract we all entered into with the banks has not been individually negotiated so the regulations do apply. Lord Philips Para 57. Stated the issue is whether the relevant charges constitute "the price or Remuneration, as against the services supplied in exchange†within the meaning of the Regulation. If they do not, the attack on the fairness of the term that is open to the OFT will not be circumscribed (restricted) by Regulation 6(2)b. If they do, then they will still be open to attack by the OFT on the ground that they are "Unfair†as defined by regulation 5(1) but that attack cannot be founded on an allegation that the Relevant Charges are excessive by comparison with the services which they Purchase, for that is forbidden by regulation 6(2)b So what does this mean, well it means that the Court has ruled that the charges for bounced direct debits and unauthorised overdrafts etc are part of the price for the services, therefore they cannot be tested for fairness under Regulation 6(2)b of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999, However the Court has said that the OFT can assess the Fairness of the price under Regulation 5.1. According to other criteria. (See Para 59) This point is further explained in Para 80. Lord Philips states 'it seems to me that this reasoning is relevant not to the question of whether the Relevant Charges form Part of the price or remuneration for the package of the services provided but to whether the method of pricing is fair. (My emphasis added) It may be open to question whether it is fair to subsidise some customers by levies on others who experience contingencies that they did not for see when entering into their contracts. If not it may then be open to question whether the Relevant Terms fall within Regulation 5(1)….†Clearly his lordship highlighted that the court may be persuaded that it is unfair for some consumer to pay for services that other consumers benefit from for free. What's more it is mostly the consumers who are on low incomes and struggling financially that are paying for everyone else. This is in my opinion not fair, and shows the banks have not acted in "Good faithâ€. Or as Lord Mance's suggested in the trial, that 'the banks were engaged in a sort of Robin Hood in reverse' (see Para 2) I would suggest he means the banks were taking from the poor to subsidise the rich. All the Lords appear to have agreed with Lord Walkers final Paragraph that being 52, in which he said '…This decision is not the end of the matter', as Lord Philips explains in his judgment. Moreover Ministers and Parliament may wish to consider this matter further. They decided in an era of so-called "light-touch†regulation, to transpose the directive as it stood rather that to confer the higher degree of consumer protection afforded by the national laws of some other member states. Parliament may wish to consider whether to revisit that decision.' So what does all this mean, well it means the following 1. The OFT can still look at the charges under UTCCR 1999, and always has been able to. They could now launch a new test case. (However, what must be asked is why was there a two year test case on a very narrow point of law? when the OFT already had the ability to assess the fairness of theses charges under Regulation 5.1 and others ) 2. All consumers who have submitted a claim using the Old Particulars of Claim, arguing that the price was unfair and or that these are a penalty charges. Needs to amend their claim to include an argument under regulation 5.1. (a new Particulars of claim will be live on the site tomorrow with full instructions on what you need to do) 3. We also need to put pressure on the Government to amend the Regulation so we all have the same consumer protection rights that other member states have. (So get writing to your MP's a template letter for this will be on the site within 48 hours) 4. I am sorry to say but I would like to see the stay remain in place, for a least a month. This will give consumers time to amend their claims and other consumer groups and I will be discussing the possibility of joining forces to bring a joint Class action. I feel this would insure that we could make sure that all the legal arguments are covered in full. I will update you all on this when I have spoken to the other consumer forums. Finally, I will explain Regulation 5(1) in more detail on the site for those that are interested. However, what was important in this news letter is to confirm that this was basically a set back to the OFT and not to consumers. Claims can still be filed. The FSA has also lifted the Wavier. I hope that the OFT if they do decided to bring a new action, that they will now invite the consumer groups to the table. Something we asked them to do before this test case, sadly that request was refused. To conclude, the test case has only resulted in us having to amend the Particulars Of Claim and resulted in a two year delay, other than that we are back to the position we were in two years ago. So was this test case a victory for the Banks, yes they beat the OFT on a small point of law, they did not beat the consumer forums and or the consumers. Warm regards Stephen Hone

Lidl - massively good and small 900/1800w fan heater with embedded ceramic element (none of that hanging hot-wire wire crap). Three year guarantee (provided you return it to Germany or wherever at your own expense ). Thermostat, safety knock-over switch on bottom, neon indicator lamp, and oscillating motor which you can turn off with separate switch. Only 20x28x14cm. Priced under seventeen euros. Plenty still in stock when I last looked, as people don't seem to know good value when they see it, and are buying the crappy conventional element one at twelve odd. Want one, or maybe two? Or maybe a container load to sell to Argos? You'll need a Shuko to 13A UK adaptor, or to chop the mains plug. P.S.: I tell a lie - probably! There is a UK service phone number on the guarantee card.

@Blank If you can prove you cancelled the direct debit, you would always get it back. Banks just hope you roll over and accept it. Good on you for perseverance! @Monsta I regularly get interest payments now. Granted its only a few pence, but its better in my pocket than theres!

I hate to tell you this, but banks don't give you money. You have to give it to them, they invest it, lose a fortune, and then tell you its all gone.

Haha no but I'm sure I've uttered words to that effect a few times.

That wasn't you I saw today with a little ginger pup was it? A lad on a bike wearing a cap and a Berghaus jacket, shouting "Git the !*!@# here man yi little !*!@# *ng d*ck!?� Cute puppy.

Two arms, two legs, white, and a head (not wearing a turban) - well of course you matched the description! Haven't you heard? They're looking for weapons of mass destruction to save teflon Tony's hide in the ever so long delayed Iraq war enquiry. 10 week old pups definitely fall into that category. BTW always ask for their rank and number and slowly and deliberately write it down and read it back for confirmation. "Just for the record, you understand". Check your watch for the time of 'the incident', and look to the sky to observe which direction you were proceeding in prior to being stopped. If they comment on this write their comment down too, and read it back to them for confirmation. If asked why you are doing this just say "sorry, force of habit - I'm a news reporter".

If you stay within your limits, and plan well, bank accounts are free at the moment. Its your mistakes that makes them cost you. I believe a choice should be made: either a free account with bigger penalties or a charged account where its not as extortionate if you do get things wrong. Personally, i'm doing well now with my banking, since i changed to a new system, so i'd be opting for the free account with higher charges. Dunno why i never thought of it before its cost me a fortune over the years!

What is racism? If everybody in the world is part of the human race then the race issue does not exist, cultural differences maybe.

Ah well that explains it, I thought for one moment you were going to send the cleaners in

Take the day off its snowing outside

This is much better Please do not stop on our account.

This threads gone very quiet

Please continue

No need for apologies I was enjoying the jovial banter between you two.