Bank Charges - illegal?

bookworm1363

Of course, they can.

But the moment they do that, they become a creditor just like any other, in fact, less than others as it will be a non-"essential" debt. At that point, you can negotiate to freeze the interest, stop charges, etc, as it becomes a different financial arrangement.

And mostly, you can negotiate how you will repay it. As with any other creditor, you should arrange that at a rate that will not put you in a situation where you might have to default. If the banks are not happy with that, that's really a case of their bad luck, I'm afraid.

And of course, you can always tell them to take you to court if they're not happy with the amount you propose. As many Moneysavers know, it will be a case of what you can afford versus what the bank wants, and it's not often the balance goes in favour of the creditor. You'd be amazed how quickly they accept your terms when faced with the possibility of a judge's decision in the matter...:D

groovemeister

Hi all. I have followed this thread for some time, and have followed the advice of others with regard to getting my charges back from NatWest (£2,345).
I sent the first letter (which I poached from this site!), and received an offer of £574. I then replied to NatWest that I was not prepared to accept this. I have now received the following reply. Can anyone tell me if it's another standard letter? Is now the time to start legal action?
I have copied the letter word for word (and it is a bit lengthy) so please bear with me. Thanks.

Dear Mr xxxx

Your complaint regarding charges has been passed to me and I am sorry we have failed to reach an agreement with you. Please accept my apologies for any unintended inconvenience or upset.

I regret that there is little that I can add constructively to previous comments but having reviewed your account, I can find no instance where charges have been applied when they were not properly due. They have all bee associated with a lack of covering funds in the account at the time items were presented for payment. Accordingly, the charges that have been applied to your account should stand.

That said, in the hope of forging a compromise and settlement with you an offer of £574 was proposed by xxxx xxxx as a gesture of goodwill and without admission of error or liability. This would be paid on the basis of a full and final settlement.

I know you have declined this offer but it is not to be increased and following your refusal is formally withdrawn.

We have considered the Office of Fair Trading's statement of 5 April 2006 and do not accept its findings in relation to the setting of credit card fees. We are concerned that the Office of Fair Trading has publicly called into question the setting of charges applied to other products, including current accounts. The Office of Fair Trading has restricted its investigation to credit cards and made no attempt to consult with RBS or the industry in relation to other entirely different products.

It is disappointing to note that you are considering legal action against the bank. Whilst I hope you will feel able to reconsider, should you decide to go ahead, please ensure that any Proceedings are served on out registered Office address which appears at the foot of this letter.

I suspect that this is unlikely to be the answer you might have hoped to receive bu nonetheless thank you for taking the time and trouble to contact us.

Yours sincerely

etc

oldwiring

One cannot say if a standard letter or not but my guess is that it is tailored. That it mentions your threat of legal action is the pointer for me. It does make it formally clear that the offer was

proposed by xxxx xxxx as a gesture of goodwill and without admission of error or liability.

and that the bank and that the bank does not accept the OFT's ruling. You are now left with your proposal to sue. ISTM that your bank at least would prefer to take a risk of losing rather than sort of die by a thousand cuts of discretionary refunds. If a case goes for them they and the industry will be strengthened over charges. If it goes against and thus case law set in the customers' favour, they will recoup costs and profit by other legitimate means. Unfortunately the well behaved may suffer along with the delinquent. I'd just make one point; letters can get hackles up. If possible always seek to discuss rather than demand. Thre's no gurantee things will turn out different but who knows?

oldwiring

bookworm1363 wrote:

Of course, they can.

But the moment they do that, they become a creditor just like any other, in fact, less than others as it will be a non-"essential" debt. At that point, you can negotiate to freeze the interest, stop charges, etc, as it becomes a different financial arrangement.

And mostly, you can negotiate how you will repay it. As with any other creditor, you should arrange that at a rate that will not put you in a situation where you might have to default. If the banks are not happy with that, that's really a case of their bad luck, I'm afraid.

And of course, you can always tell them to take you to court if they're not happy with the amount you propose. As many Moneysavers know, it will be a case of what you can afford versus what the bank wants, and it's not often the balance goes in favour of the creditor. You'd be amazed how quickly they accept your terms when faced with the possibility of a judge's decision in the matter...:D

OK, negotiate, if possible will be a bank's position; it wants to recover as much as possible, but consider that a certain amount is factored in to things ffor bad and doubtful debts and charges reflect that. However some times the hassle of recovery will be too much and a decision is made to write-off or sue for recovery. If result is court order debtor's credit is damaged and inconveniences like distraint or attachment orders are suffered.

BTW debts are not classified as essential and non- essential; the term is preferential.

steersb

Getting a bit worried. Filed a claim against Lloyds TSB for just over 2k and they Acknowledged it. This gives them 28 days. I have heard nothing from either the court or Lloyds since then. Am i suppose to have had more paperwork from the court?? or was the form i filled out online enough? I've read through the threads on here and other forums and people are getting offers by now.

steersb

Sorry they acknowledged it on 6th June.

ali82

steersb wrote:

Getting a bit worried. Filed a claim against Lloyds TSB for just over 2k and they Acknowledged it. This gives them 28 days. I have heard nothing from either the court or Lloyds since then. Am i suppose to have had more paperwork from the court?? or was the form i filled out online enough? I've read through the threads on here and other forums and people are getting offers by now.

Don't worry, I was in your position 3 weeks ago, they filed a defence, I then recived a questionare fron the courts I filled it in,went on holiday when I came back had a letter from their solicitors saying that are prepared to settle.

Don't worry they are just pushing you so see how long you can hold on for, don't give up it will be work it in the end. Just make sure you hand everything in ontime nand do as thoe courts ask.

Good luck (but you won't need it)

bookworm1363

groovemeister wrote:

Can anyone tell me if it's another standard letter? Is now the time to start legal action?
I have copied the letter word for word (and it is a bit lengthy) so please bear with me. Thanks.

It is very much a standard letter, yes.

If you have sent 2 letters giving them 14 days each, then yes, time to sue. It's scary, but also very very liberating.

bookworm1363

oldwiring wrote:

OK, negotiate, if possible will be a bank's position; it wants to recover as much as possible, but consider that a certain amount is factored in to things ffor bad and doubtful debts and charges reflect that. However some times the hassle of recovery will be too much and a decision is made to write-off or sue for recovery. If result is court order debtor's credit is damaged and inconveniences like distraint or attachment orders are suffered.

BTW debts are not classified as essential and non- essential; the term is preferential.

Thanks for that, the term keeps on eluding me, I don't know why...

As for your previous comments, well, the moment the bank calls in your o/d and closes your account, your credit is going tobe damaged anyway. That is why we advise every person to open a parachute account before attempting to reclaim their charges.

If you are negotiating a monthly repayment, then the bank will not recover as much as possible, it will recover the lot.(barring accident, death and so forth, I grant you)

If the bank has to go to court, they will have to show a good reason for it. If customer has made a reasonable proposal for repayment and has carried it through, the court will look very sternly on the bank for not mitigating their duty to mediate outside the legal system.

oldwiring

Banks have been known, at least in my day, to wait for an account to be in credit and then close it. Usually by advising that the bank will no longer accept credits and that until the stated date of closure the account has to be kept in credit. Officially no damage to credit is done, but naturally the unuusalness of a mature person requesting an account without previous history might just set the thought processess whirring.

I do not completely agree with your statement

If you are negotiating a monthly repayment, then the bank will not recover as much as possible, it will recover the lot.(barring accident, death and so forth

People have been known to default on such arrangements.

TBH, I ask myself if the victories many may win, will not in the end be truly pyrrhic. It needs to be understood clearly that a bank may choose whom it will do business with. Assume that corrrect data on an Experian type fileleads to no bank wanting a person. Further assume that an employer pays salaries direct to a bank. See my drift?