MSE news: Hold on bank charges claims extended until 2010

fred678

As members of the public are charged around £8.00 per day (HSBC) for being overdrawn without authorisation .....

Surely it is only fair to have an equivalent charge levied on the Banks because they are effectively running an unauthorised debt with anyone they have overcharged. Therefore if the banks loose this case they can look forward to handing out a fine of X years fees at say £8.00 day

What's good for the goose .....

Perhaps if we had a universal published 'Menu' of fines for orgainsation etc. then they would know the penalites and over step the boundaries at their own peril

i.e. how about £10.00 per individual infringement of the data protection act

All fines (proceeds) should go to a charity holding fund to be allocated over charities in the UK - none of this business of all fines going into government coffers to pay for second homes etc ........

RuthnJasper

Banks are being positively evil over these charges. My claim has been in for a few months now and they've done nothing but stall. I filled out the bank's "hardship form" - which was essentially a small book - and yesterday I received another "delaying tactics" letter, asking for MORE information (which I have already provided). They are my BANK, for goodness' sake - they KNOW how much my outgoings are each month and where the money goes! Gnyaaaargh!

But they are not going to defeat me. I worked hard for that money; it is because of one initial, single, unavoidable bank charge of £38 that my exceptionally tight budget has now gone awry (spawning one extra bank charge every month in a spectacularly cruel knock-on effect) and I refuse to let the grasping little Fagins at the bank defeat me.

I sympathise greatly with Matt (of the plinth). I suffer from depression too. I don't qualify for state benefits, have no wealthy relatives to lend me cash and now, thanks to the bank charges (£38 for missing a payment of £3.84 to start with, then next month £76 charges for £12.86-worth of missed payments, and spiralling down from there), I am trying to get by on only one meal per day, which is definitely not much fun. My GP prescribed increased medication for me - but I don't qualify for free prescriptions and I cannot afford the £7.10 for the medicine.

The suffering caused by these obscene charges and the pathetic stalling tactics of the bank as they try anything to avoid repaying them to me is, quite literally, killing me.

I do hope that as many people as possible follow Martin's tips for reclaiming the charges; it's so important to let the banks know that they cannot keep blithely sticking two fingers up at honest, decent customers who are struggling to survive so that Sir Bufton-Tufton on the bank's board of governors can wave his profits sheet about and buy his mistress the Porsche that she wants for Christmas.

JohnMT_2

I took my money back from Nat West, Nationwide and Abbey by using guaranteed cheques to to make payments or to obtain cash. I had about £2500 out of each bank.
Only works if you do not care about credit rating. Nationwide tried to take me to court but I countered with the Unfair Fees. Judge put the case on hold waiting for settlement of the OFT and bank ruling. Finally cleared any problem by going Bankrupt 18 months ago. Had 2 really good holidays in the sun ans solved lots of problems by taking their cash just as they did to me. One extreme solution without the waiting

natweststaffmember

chriszzz wrote: »

I have had my re-claim in with the halifax since last october. Am appalled that the banks can drag it out as long as they have.
The article is about the FSA Waiver which means that the banks do not have to deal with complaints unless the person is in financial hardship.
I personally dont like the fact that they are in control of our money, I would be more than happy to have my wages in a pay packet and use the post office to pay my bills, even if i have to pay for it!!.

I think I and other ppl who are claiming back bank charges have every right not to only charge interest but to charge £12 a month late payment fee, whats good for them to do is good for the consumer. :j
You can't because the contract as it is worded for a bank account does not allow a reciprocal charge to be made by you. If it did then you would have the right

There is so much crap on this thread and misinformation that I gotta start somewhere.

natweststaffmember

MarineGal wrote: »

I have lost my house through bank charges as to date they owe me £8000.00. I am totally disgusted by the bank and the governments attitude towards these charges

The Government(OFT) is the one taking the lead by suing the banks so they are doing something.

natweststaffmember

chriszzz wrote: »

Sorry to hear that you have lost your home due to the banks!! I think for what the banks have done to this country is an absolutely disgrace and to add insult to injury, us the tax payer have bailed them out, and they have a cheek to want to charge us £39 for going over by 1p, they should be grateful to us for helping them out!!
The logic makes no sense, they charged those fees prior to any bank bailout and will make charges after the OFT test case is over.

I have really got no trust in any of the banks i think there greedy fat cats, not just the banks but all your other household utilities they are all ripping us off but thats for another thread!
I hope you can recover from your loss and wish you luck!!

I share your last sentiments btw

natweststaffmember

Tangoman1978 wrote: »

The banks are evil <insert expletive of your choice>. Why are the FSA allowing the banks to have the waiver extended, and the OFT not appealing it. Why can the OFT, not apply for charges not to be applied against accounts until there is a final outcome.
The deputy Master of the Rolls agreed to a stay on claims in the County court as a reasonable step. The FSA Waiver is a reasonable step since the OFT test case is not over. To clarify it for you and everyone else:
FSA Waiver 9.2(b)
"(b)
resolution of the test case. For this purpose, resolution occurs when judgment has been entered in relation to all issues in dispute in the test case (including, for the avoidance of doubt, any issues which the Court agrees should in future be introduced into the case by way of amendment or otherwise) and the resulting orders either cannot be the subject of appeal or have not been the subject of appeal in circumstances where the time for doing so has expired, or when proceedings are otherwise discontinued."

I seriously think the banks' next move (after they lose) will be to claim they cannot refund the unlawful charges because of 'the recession'. Lets hope they don't try to play that one, and if they do, that it is pointed out to them, that when the first of these claims were put on hold under the waiver that they had insisted on; there was not a recession at that time.

RBS Group insured £250 billion debts earlier this year so I wouldn't agree with the idea that the recession has anything to do with the outcome or that any bank will suggest this.

natweststaffmember

bullwinkle wrote: »

I put in a claim in June 2008 but did not add interest thinking that this would make things simpler and quicker. With the banks' ongoing prevarication I'd like to resubmit my claim and add interest. Does anyone know if this is acceptable?

No reason not to ie update your claim.

natweststaffmember

Matt_Watkinson wrote: »

I was on the Fourth Plinth on Sunday night, highlighting mental ill health, one cause of which is financial hardship. I'm still trying to reclaim almost ten grand - £10,000 and the Abbey says even though I earn (now) just £100 a week, I'm not in hardship. The FOS is pressing my case and Abbey gave me almost £500, reducing me to zero credit again, it claimed. That seems to be the limit of its responsibility. However, being £2,000 overdrawn, all it really did was reduce me to a minus zero credit. I didn't name them when I was on the Plinth but I wish I had done. Horrible, unkind, uncaring and yet their boss sponsors Lewis Hamilton in his racing car and buys art like it's going out of fashion. I'd wanted to be his one hour piece of art last Sunday but I'm too decent. Or at least, I was...
My mental health has suffered so much some days I can barely move for the pain the anxiety causes me. Well done, Abbey!

Your case sounds familiar so I have either advised you here or on another forum.

natweststaffmember

Harry_Powell wrote: »

What makes it worse is that there is a statute of limitiations on financial claims that allows people to only go back 6 years. If the banks had any sense they would have changed their policy on bank charges when the court case started, so that when the decision is finally made (possibly after a couple of year's deliberation), they would only have to pay back 4 year's worth of bank charges instead of 6.

If they managed to tie it up for 6 years, then they wouldn't have to pay back a penny. Quite a clever scam, really.

If your post was factually correct you would be totally right however, you are commenting on an article about the FSA Waiver and haven't read it or even the templates or reclaiming guides here. Under the FSA waiver, the clock has stopped at 27th July 2007 which means 6 years starts from that date so if you have charges you go from 27th July 2001 until todays date which if the test case goes on for 4 years means 10 years worth of charges can be reclaimed.

FSA Waiver 13.14
"(14) the firm must not take into account the period between 27 July 2007 and the date of termination of this direction (the “stay period”) for the purposes of relying on any limitation period (or periods) or time limits within which complainants must:
(a) make relevant charges complaints;
(b) refer relevant charges complaints to the Ombudsman; or
(c) bring claims before the court;
and the firm must not otherwise limit any redress that may be due to the customer, when complying with DISP or otherwise, because of the stay period;"