MSE news: Hold on bank charges claims extended until 2010

natweststaffmember

fred678 wrote: »

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
Under the Data Protection Act 1998 the bank can charge £10 for a subject access request. By the way, if there was a Data Protection breach of my data, I would want more than £10 compo
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 ........

You cannot do the above because the contract does not allow it. If it allowed it you could do that. If the bank make an error on your account then you are allowed to ask the bank for compensation to put you back into the position should the error not have occurred.

natweststaffmember

RuthnJasper wrote: »

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.

Which bank? I would send an Income and expenditure form and explain the circumstances above and the outline since the bank would be unaware you aren't able to claim state benefits. Furthermore, you need to send them notices of your priority debt arrears(mortgage/rent, council tax, utilities).
On the brief outline of what you have written there are elements of financial hardship, ie lifestyle change or error caused the charges, which are spiralling and are effecting your day to day living.

Harry_Powell

natweststaffmember wrote: »

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;"

Is the suspension of the 6 year limitation effective just for those banks (and one building society) who are involved in the court case, or are ALL banks and ALL building societies subject to this suspension?

natweststaffmember

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Is the suspension of the 6 year limitation effective just for those banks (and one building society) who are involved in the court case, or are ALL banks and ALL building societies subject to this suspension?

ALL 28 firms(I believe that is the number but I can double check) where the waiver is in force.

andrewramage

I put in a claim to Lloyds TSB for some £330 of charges back in 2007 (after the July hold date) and have received sporadic correspondence from Lloyds since describing the latest with the court case.

However I have since switched to Alliance & Leicester and closed my Lloyds TSB account - does anyone know whether this means I am still entitled to make the claim?

Thanks in advance..... Andy

chriszzz

yes! your still entitled to claim bank charges from Lloyds TSB

mrsgready

What I can't understand, and maybe someone can help me on this - is why does it take so long for the powers that we are waiting for to come up with a decision? Surely, given the facts and the arguements (as this has been around for soooooo long) they could decide within a fairly short time. It seems that there is a case for this to be finished once and for all. All the talking and thinking must have been exhausted by now.

natweststaffmember

mrsgready wrote: »

What I can't understand, and maybe someone can help me on this - is why does it take so long for the powers that we are waiting for to come up with a decision? Surely, given the facts and the arguements (as this has been around for soooooo long) they could decide within a fairly short time. It seems that there is a case for this to be finished once and for all. All the talking and thinking must have been exhausted by now.

The evidence the banks are relying on is volumous so the verbal arguments are one thing and the written evidence is another one. For example, in the house of lords appeal there was over 3000 pages of written evidence apart from the 18 or so hours or verbal evidence. For me and you, I would have flipped a coin and said, off you go on your merry way and then the kids would have argued best of 3 or 5. That is kinda how it going really.

mrsgready

Ok, I understand that the evidence is huge on both sides. Let's cut this down then. I can read an average 300 page novel in one evening. So at 300 pages a night, 10 days to read, say another 10 days to deliberate. Sorry, still can't see their problem. If they have been following this case at all then they already know the main arguements. I still think they need a prod in the posterior! :think:

I sympathise with the really bad off posters, over the last few years my bank has had several thousand off me, which they very kindly converted to a loan! I now just about keep my head above water, even though I've had to raid both my kids accounts on several occasions. I would just like a resolution either way to end this and end the hoping!

natweststaffmember

mrsgready wrote: »

Ok, I understand that the evidence is huge on both sides. Let's cut this down then. I can read an average 300 page novel in one evening. So at 300 pages a night, 10 days to read, say another 10 days to deliberate. Sorry, still can't see their problem. If they have been following this case at all then they already know the main arguements. I still think they need a prod in the posterior! :think:
Add the case law to that evidence and forming a judgement plus the fact that you are also reading other novels and case law since you are not just dealing with one case only at the same time.
I sympathise with the really bad off posters, over the last few years my bank has had several thousand off me, which they very kindly converted to a loan! I now just about keep my head above water, even though I've had to raid both my kids accounts on several occasions. I would just like a resolution either way to end this and end the hoping!

The House of Lords part of the case is the half way mark. This part is whether the OFT can assess terms for fairness. We may then see further litigation about which terms are unfair so the case may still be ongoing this time next year.