MSE News: PPI D-Day on Wednesday

124»

Replies

  • Hi There

    Can anyone tell me if Lloyds TSB credit card can charge me £6 a sheet for my statements?

    Quote:
    "if you have not retained previous statements we can order copies for you at a cost of £6 per sheet....."
  • di3004di3004 Forumite
    42.6K Posts
    Andy1234 wrote: »
    Hi There

    Can anyone tell me if Lloyds TSB credit card can charge me £6 a sheet for my statements?

    Quote:
    "if you have not retained previous statements we can order copies for you at a cost of £6 per sheet....."


    Hiya

    I believe it can work out more expensive.

    It may be cheaper to request a SAR, they have 40 calendar days to comply and send all data they hold on your account(s).
    This is for an enclosed payment of £10 cheque or postal order.
    SAR letter template below - you can tweak to your requirements if you want to.
    If you bank with Lloyds, then apply your account number, they should enclose everything you have taken out with them.
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=1475553

    However, if you do online bankin with them, I believe this may allow you to check statements going back about 7 plus years.
    That may be worth thinking about.
    The one and only "Dizzy Di" :D
  • Alpine_StarAlpine_Star Forumite
    1.3K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    dunstonh wrote: »
    Yes, I shouldnt have used "rules" as the word as its more principles and guidelines but they are still sufficient to deal with the existing complaints without brining in retrospective "rules".



    That doesnt require retrospective rule changes though as that could easily be handled under the normal rules.


    You are deluded if you beleve that the FSA brought in ''retrospective'' rules or that the Judicial Review challenge by the BBA was about the imposition of retrospective regulation in any sense.

    You needed to have looked beyond the BBA's press releases to have had a hope of understanding what the BBA's case was actually about.

    If the case was really about ''retrospective'' rules then you would have expected the judgment to have included the word 'retrospective' - or some deviation of it - at least once. Of the 264 paragraphs, it didn't feature once.
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides

Gin, gee-gees & groceries

This week's MSE Forum highlights

Team Blog

2for1 adult tickets to theme parks

Via selected £1-£3 Kellogg's promo packs

MSE Deals