talkmagic.co.uk

good luck ID, a few grand always comes in useful. Just think of all the nice things you can buy me with that

erm.. meh!! I can think of better things to do with it

Ill kindly send you a picture of lots of shoes so that you can spend your days imagining the ' what if I.D have actually bought me these ' type scenario..

Your not as pretty as you used to be though Lommy... you've put on weight and that scarf looks terribly old fashioned..

And I always liked you as a brunnette.. blondes do nothing for me..

We can still be friends though right?

*just kidding obviously *

My missis reclaimed her bank charges and it all cleared a week before they decided to go for the court thingy. She got 400 notes.

I wish I'd done it now.

youcanstill put your claim in ... you just have to wait while the test case finishes..

the likelihood the courts will rule AGAINST the banks.. there is a possibility apparantly that banks will have to refund all bank charges to all their customers regardless.. but I dont no about that..

Im due just over £3K. ill take em to court seperately.. I am not waiting for this test case.. ill deal with my claim myself and make them pay out.

i got about £800 back was so pleased about that

Can I just ask... how does this work? Do you present these people with a load of bank statements and they do the rest? Or is it just a case of you give them your account no. and they go to it?

Never understood the mechanism.

if you do online banking its ideal

You go through your last six years statements.. and any fees( overdraft charges, bounced cheques, direct dibit return fees ) anything like that, highlight them or put them on a spreadsheet..

then send that in along with a letter sayign that you want to claim back all your fees over the last six years as they are unlawful charges that are contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Regulations contracts 1999 schedule 2(e).

The bank will then either rfund your fees or write and refuse. You then file a claim with the small claims court.

So far NO BANK has yet tried to turn up to court, they just pay out at this stage as the banks cannot justify the charges.

It only cost banks a maximum of £2 per returned direct debit so they lawfully should only be abl to charge you the £2 it cost them.

As banks cannot justify fees, they would rather pay you out than have to justify their costs to a court judge.

You can actually charge the banks statutory interest on all the accrued fees too

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6170209.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6507865.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6989510.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid ... 372&news=1

I certainly agree that some kind of community service should come into play for the unemployed. I know it's a cliche but what about litter picking - clean up our streets and it'd be more like working so hopefully they'd be a bit more motivated to find a job that suits them better.

It really is worrying to think where we're headed as a country. Does anyone else think there is a link between this and how children are behaving? Surely the fact that mum and dad and grandma and grandpa (who are probably only in their late 30s) have almost never worked a day in their lives and get given a house, given benefits for dropping sprogs etc. is partially responsible for the "me first, the world owes me a living" attitude seen in so many kids?

I think you might be right about Blair, monsieur Freddie. I don't like widespread Blair bashing, but he has ushered in an age of politically correctness and looming litigation that means every ignorant lad thinks he's number 1.

I don't agree particularly with you though Lomster that "it's so much better for the mum to be at home with the children" - I suppose I would say that being the child of two professional people! But there are pros and cons - if anything, I feel that I value my parents more because it wasn't always my mum being tired, slamming down my plate of peas and mash or whatever - the nanny doing the grunt work meant that the time with my parents was more special, but by that I don't mean "rare", I just looked forward to mum coming home rather than throwing my schoolbag at her and running for the nintendo!
I don't know about other families but our nannies became part of the family more than keeping it apart - sometimes they'd come along even if my mum was there just as an extra pair of hands - again, so mum could play with us instead of having to spend her whole afternoon wiping noses etc.
The idea that "the natural thing" is for mum to stay at home with the kids is actually not entirely complete, and is certainly not international - in many cultures they have retained the system in which the grandparents look after the children mostly while the parents get on living their lives; they then look after their grandchildren etc. Most societies have come up with a way to communally look after children, the fact that nowadays we don't want to impose on our families and pay someone else isn't such a far stretch.

...So perhaps paying mums to stay at home with the kids is actually detrimental in some ways!

some good points there Farlsborough, I guess alot depends on the parents. A friend of mine is a nanny for a couple who work in the city. The parents are out of the house before the kid is awake and home after she's in bed. Quite often my friend will also be working weekends because the parents want to go swanning around the city with their friends and aren't interested in spending time with the child.

Yeah, that's a bit naff.

I went to parties with my parents... I went to a party a couple of nights after I was born! I think this is why I have never really considered myself a child - I'd sit in my booster seat at dinner parties and give my four year old's opinion on all sorts of things!

I.D wrote:
Your not as pretty as you used to be though Lommy... you've put on weight and that scarf looks terribly old fashioned..

but my boobs are bigger

I.D wrote:if you do online banking its ideal

You go through your last six years statements.. and any fees( overdraft charges, bounced cheques, direct dibit return fees ) anything like that, highlight them or put them on a spreadsheet..

Or save all that hassle just send the bank £10 and request a list of all your charges for the last 6 years, most will return the £10 anyway.

Its worth doing it now as when the test case goes through if they lose then there will be a huge amount of people doing it and you will wait ages, if you do it now you will be considered as having registered your interest and will be armed with all you need to claim all those "unlawful" charges back with interest if you so desire

I.D wrote:
I am not waiting for this test case.. ill deal with my claim myself and make them pay out.

You can't its the courts that have stopped all the other cases whilst this "test" case goes through.

If I've overstepped the mark, then please don't say so, but I think, rather than innocent animals being used for vivesection and testing of cosmetics, then why not use the people who fail to seek work instead?
It will give them a use in society and after having shampoo squirted into their eyes they would have certainly earnt that plasma television and Sky dish.
If this idea was announced by the government, these KFC scoffing scroungers will realise what a tracksuit and trainers are really for as they run down to the job centre so fast you'd think their ar$es were on fire.