Unused Bank account fees

Lilmiz

Hi,

My partner has received a letter from Natwest saying that he owes them around £200 for £12.00 a month bank fees he knew nothing about. The account was set up a few years ago when he was married but when his wife left they withdrew the money and he thought the account had been closed.

Does he have to pay this and if he does can he reclaim it?

Thanks

~Beanie~

I assume that he had an Advantage Gold account? Did he actually ask for the account to be closed? Where were the statements etc being sent and is this the first letter he has received?

Tbh I doubt he has a leg to stand on but someone more knowledgeable might come along shortly and know otherwise.

jambosans

If it is an old joint accounts then both your husband and his ex-wife owe this amount. Unless he specifically asked for the account to be closed then the responsibility lies with him and his ex-wife (if it is a joint account).

mclaren32

If the account hasnt been used at all then you should have pretty good grounds for getting the charges refunded as its obvious that the benefits havent been utilised.

I assume you had an overdraft on the account and the charges have just been mounting up over time putting the account overdrawn?

rb10

jambosans wrote: »

If it is an old joint accounts then both your husband and his ex-wife owe this amount. Unless he specifically asked for the account to be closed then the responsibility lies with him and his ex-wife (if it is a joint account).

But the bank is entitled to pursue either any one of them, or both of them, for payment. Both account holders are equally liable.

jambosans

rb10 wrote: »

But the bank is entitled to pursue either any one of them, or both of them, for payment. Both account holders are equally liable.

The bank can pursue either party but surely there is always a case to be argued that being a joint debt, a sole party should not be expected to pay in full?

LongTermLurker

jambosans wrote: »

The bank can pursue either party but surely there is always a case to be argued that being a joint debt, a sole party should not be expected to pay in full?

Nope, it doesn't work that way - same with utility bills. Both are jointly liable for the whole amount, and the provider will chase the easiest one.

willo65

mclaren32 wrote: »

If the account hasnt been used at all then you should have pretty good grounds for getting the charges refunded as its obvious that the benefits havent been utilised.

I assume you had an overdraft on the account and the charges have just been mounting up over time putting the account overdrawn?

But in the time any mobile phone insurance that was registered will have still been in place - the breakdown cover still stands as does the travel insurance so a few benefits would have still been available.

jambosans

LongTermLurker wrote: »

Nope, it doesn't work that way - same with utility bills. Both are jointly liable for the whole amount, and the provider will chase the easiest one.

Chasing the "easiest" one is a bit of a loose term to use. I'm not going to pretend I know the exact debt collection process, however I assume it goes: bank; bank's collections department; debt collector; court. Surely if it ends up in court a sole party would not be held responsible (and required to pay) the entire joint debt?

Here's my plain simple thinking on this one: a bank can pursue one party as much as they want but only until both parties agree to repay the bank cannot force a sole party to repay the entire amount.

I'm trying to think this one out logically, and I understand what a joint debt is, but what I'm trying to clarify is how enforceable a joint debt is on a sole party.

mclaren32

willo65 wrote: »

But in the time any mobile phone insurance that was registered will have still been in place - the breakdown cover still stands as does the travel insurance so a few benefits would have still been available.

A lot of it will depend on how the account was left, if they believed the account was closed then obviously they wouldnt have benefited from them as they didnt think they were there and probably have seperate cover in place.

Due to how the charges are generated, the account can be left with a nil balance an account closure request put it but this cant be actioned as there are charges due to be paid. Why it would have taken so long to become apparent is another question.....

LongTermLurker

jambosans wrote: »

Chasing the "easiest" one is a bit of a loose term to use. I'm not going to pretend I know the exact debt collection process, however I assume it goes: bank; bank's collections department; debt collector; court. Surely if it ends up in court a sole party would not be held responsible (and required to pay) the entire joint debt?

Here's my plain simple thinking on this one: a bank can pursue one party as much as they want but only until both parties agree to repay the bank cannot force a sole party to repay the entire amount.

I'm trying to think this one out logically, and I understand what a joint debt is, but what I'm trying to clarify is how enforceable a joint debt is on a sole party.

It's standard practice I'm afraid

http://www.natwest.com/content/global_options/terms/Terms_Conditions.pdf

8.1.2 If you have a joint account , you will each be responsible for any
money owing on your account , both individually and jointly. This
means that if one of you is unable to repay the money owing,
the other account holder(s) can be required to pay the amount
due in full, even if your relationship has changed or ended.