A question of money: Hounded for a debt I had nothing to do with

But yours should not have been one of them, as you are not complaining about the level of charges, but the fact that they were wrongfully applied. The FOS could, and should, have dealt with your case and I'm not clear why it didn't. However, NatWest had, even before I contacted it, seen the light and refunded you the full sum.

For others complaining about the level of charges, there is still some way to go. The OFT's game plan is a long-term one. The test case is not about whether the level of bank charges is unfair as such, but about whether these charges fall under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations. If it wins the case, it will then go back to the court to seek a ruling on what the court deems "fair", and meanwhile it will be publishing the results of its own investigations. It will only be after the result of this "stage two" that the FOS will be able to get going on handling its complaints, and the banks start dealing with the ones they have. As for the likely timetable for all this, your guess is as good as mine - but keep your fingers crossed it will be before the end of this year.

Mix-up cost us Portman bonus

JW writes: Nationwide has refused to acknowledge that my husband and I are entitled to the bonus following the merger between Portman and Nationwide building societies last year and we feel we have been treated shabbily.

I have received a number of letters from readers who have, for one reason or another, missed out on the bonus, which was payable to investors with qualifying Portman accounts. The society, as is usual in such cases, followed its rules for payouts to the letter. There is usually no possibility of appeal to the FOS, as these payouts do not count as a "banking service" and fall outside the ombudsman's remit. Your case, however, is slightly different. You and your husband had jointly held a one-year fixed-rate bond with Portman since May 2006, and when this matured, had gone into a branch to discuss reinvestment options. You discussed with a member of staff how much you should leave with the society in order to qualify for the bonus and she recommended a transfer into a jointly held Portman Classic Account, to which you agreed. She filled out the application form then printed it out and handed it over to you both to sign. You did not spot she had put your two names in a different order to the one that applied in the case of the fixed-rate bond. This transposition meant, technically, that you did not qualify as it is only the first-named on a joint account who gets the bonus. The ombudsman is able to look at cases where specific advice has been given by a member of staff and I think, therefore, you have a good chance of both getting your complaint heard, and of it being upheld.

A&L has driven me to despair

RB writes: In 2005 I invested about £3,000 in an Alliance & Leicester bond which matured in December 2006. I phoned the bank asking how to withdraw the money and was told to make out a cheque payable to myself for the balance. A few days later I saw £3 was still in the account and again I phoned, and again was advised to make out a cheque for this balance. I heard nothing for months and then was astonished to get a letter saying I was £70 overdrawn. This sum was purely the bank's charges. I wrote and received a reply stating it would be investigated. Two months on, I have continued to get letters demanding payment and even threatening court action. By now the sum involved has mounted to £230.72. I am retired and on high-blood pressure pills and this is all causing me untold stress.

The only letter you received (other than demands) stated the matter would not be looked into as it concerned bank charges, and all such complaints have been put on hold. But your complaint is not about the level of charges, but the fact they should not have been levied at all.

A&L has now investigated and says its records show the account was reduced to a nil balance in February 2007 and should have been closed as requested. It was not - hence the initial charges, which transformed themselves into an unauthorised overdraft which then incurred yet more charges. This all stemmed, as far as I can make out, from a simple mistake by A&L. It has now written to apologise, to assure you that the account is properly closed with all charges and fees waived, and that if any adverse information were to make its way to your credit file because of this issue, it will arrange for it to be removed. A&L has agreed to offer you a cheque for £75 as a gesture of goodwill.

Bank's offer was a test of loyalty

CS writes: While talking to a Bank of Scotland representative about a query that was swiftly resolved, I was asked whether there was anything else he could help me with. Slightly tongue in cheek, I said yes - a cheaper mortgage. The rep then told me, without hesitation, that I could have a Personal Choice loyalty mortgage, and he would arrange it at once and details would follow in the post.

That was in June. In July, having heard nothing, you called, got profuse apologies and a promise that the paperwork would be with you forthwith. August and September came and went; you chased the bank again in October and got a letter promising that documents would be sent that very day. By the time you wrote to me in December, nothing had appeared.

Finally, in January, after I had contacted the bank, you did get the appropriate documents. It has promised to backdate the lower interest rate to the time when you originally applied, and is sending you £100 as an apology. You are accepting this although, to put it mildly, you are less than impressed by the level of service.

E-mail Diana Wright at the address below (no attachments please) or write to A Question of Money, The Sunday Times, 1 Pennington Street, London E98 1ST, giving a daytime telephone number. We cannot send personal replies or deal with every letter. Please do not send original documents or SAEs. Advice is offered without legal responsibility

questionofmoney@sunday-times.co.uk