Reclaiming Situation: which Option would you Choose?

TG82

Here's my situation:

In May 08 for the first time I sent a bank charges reclaim letter, going back exactly 6 years to May 2002. They told me the case was on hold and so on. Thus far, I am still biding my time and waiting to see what happens, even though I might well be able to claim hardship.

Options:

#1 The reason I am biding my time is because I have since read that you can go back as far as 2000, because the first reclaims were made in 2006. Therefore, I might be able to come up with a valid argument that I should be allowed to reclaim back as far as 2000.

Does anybody think this will work? The difference could be up to £400, I've estimated.

#2 I am a full-time student and am up to my maximum overdraft. Should I just have done with it now, going back no further than May 2002, and claim hardship?

#3 Should I compromise? They owe me roughly £1000 from May 2002, with interest. Should I settle at, say, £700? The only reason I lend something to this idea is because I have been so broke recently that I have made several withdrawals from my account even though a warning flashes up that they 'might charge me £25'. They haven't charged me. Therefore, I have in a sense agreed to the charge which, at their discretion, they did not make. It shows I have continued to be 'irresponsible' with my money since I initially tried to reclaim. I'm worried that if it goes to court, I could end up receiving less than £700.

Which option would you choose?

Widelats

not sure how far it goes back, i know if you settle at £700 you will get the rest plus all your interest when the courts have decided to settle it.

TG82

Seriously? That's really helpful if it's correct :beer:

Where does it say this? Know you it from past experience?

Orford

TG82 wrote: »

Where does it say this? Know you it from past experience?

FSA Waiver Directions sections 14,15 &16 (page 6) here:
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/disp_monthly.pdf

natweststaffmember

TG82 wrote: »

Here's my situation:

In May 08 for the first time I sent a bank charges reclaim letter, going back exactly 6 years to May 2002. They told me the case was on hold and so on. Thus far, I am still biding my time and waiting to see what happens, even though I might well be able to claim hardship.
The clock stopped on the 6 year rule when the OFT test case was announced. So it's 6 years from 27th July 2001.
Options:

#1 The reason I am biding my time is because I have since read that you can go back as far as 2000, because the first reclaims were made in 2006. Therefore, I might be able to come up with a valid argument that I should be allowed to reclaim back as far as 2000.
See above
Does anybody think this will work? The difference could be up to £400, I've estimated.

#2 I am a full-time student and am up to my maximum overdraft. Should I just have done with it now, going back no further than May 08, and claim hardship?
Being a student does not necessarily mean you are in financial hardship. If you have priority debt arrears(mortgage/rent, council tax, utilities) then you might be in hardship
#3 Should I compromise? They owe me roughly £1000 from May 08, with interest. Should I settle at, say, £700? The only reason I lend something to this idea is because I have been so broke recently that I have made several withdrawals from my account even though a warning flashes up that they 'might charge me £25'. They haven't charged me. Therefore, I have in a sense agreed to the charge which, at their discretion, they did not make. It shows I have continued to be 'irresponsible' with my money since I initially tried to reclaim. I'm worried that if it goes to court, I could end up receiving less than £700.
You don't need to go to court because if the bank acknowledge your claim then you are in the queue so to speak.
Which option would you choose?

None of the above. I would claim now from July 2001 and claim hardship and when the bank says no, I am certain my claim is in the queue awaiting for the OFT test case issues. Remember, the House of Lords case is only the half way mark in the case.

TG82

natweststaffmember wrote: »

None of the above. I would claim now from July 2001 and claim hardship and when the bank says no, I am certain my claim is in the queue awaiting for the OFT test case issues. Remember, the House of Lords case is only the half way mark in the case.

So you don't lend much weigh to the below, on this website?:

The Ombudsman’s guidance

Its advice is to reclaim as far back as you like, and it will decide whether or not all or part of your claim can be considered. It says it has yet to rule whether the court’s time restraints need to be adhered to on bank charges reclaims, largely because no bank has ever challenged a consumer’s complaint on the subject once the Ombudsman has got involved. The Ombudsman also points out that you can claim back any charge however far back within three years of realising you could complain. Given the bank charges bandwagon has been rolling since the start of 2006, you could quite legitimately say you didn’t know about the issue immediately, to ensure you stay within the three-year period.

natweststaffmember

TG82 wrote: »

So you don't lend much weigh to the below, on this website?:

The Ombudsman’s guidance

Its advice is to reclaim as far back as you like, and it will decide whether or not all or part of your claim can be considered. It says it has yet to rule whether the court’s time restraints need to be adhered to on bank charges reclaims, largely because no bank has ever challenged a consumer’s complaint on the subject once the Ombudsman has got involved. The Ombudsman also points out that you can claim back any charge however far back within three years of realising you could complain. Given the bank charges bandwagon has been rolling since the start of 2006, you could quite legitimately say you didn’t know about the issue immediately, to ensure you stay within the three-year period.

My personal opinion now is about financial hardship which is that banks can look at charges back to 27th July 2001. The current test case is about whether the OFT can assess bank terms under UTCCR 1999. with regards to how far you can go back on bank charges, I would suggest that the likelihood could be statute of limitations ie 6 years or with the FSA waiver 27th July 2001.
Remember it is your claim so it is your choice how you proceed. For me, it would as stated, but you might have a different view to me.

TG82

natweststaffmember wrote: »

My personal opinion now is about financial hardship which is that banks can look at charges back to 27th July 2001. The current test case is about whether the OFT can assess bank terms under UTCCR 1999. with regards to how far you can go back on bank charges, I would suggest that the likelihood could be statute of limitations ie 6 years or with the FSA waiver 27th July 2001.
Remember it is your claim so it is your choice how you proceed. For me, it would as stated, but you might have a different view to me.

Thanks:money:

What I think I'll do is try to obtain statements going back to Jan 2000 (I only have them from August 2001) and see how many bank charges are listed.

It could be as much as £400 for that 18 month period. I've already found £180 from August 2001 to May 2002!

If I have no success, I'll use your idea.