Has your bank (esp Lloyds) ignored your hardship claim?

jazz1955

nat west told me that my charges are all "fair" and they dont see me as a hardship case even though im now unemployed classed wth a dissability and long term illness and in agreement with all other creditors except themselves (there taking me to court as they want more money each month than the court said i have to pay) so well done nat west. what else do u have to do to get bank charges back........................

zigzagzen

h_p_swymm wrote: »

10. Those cases currently claiming hardship; hardship under the FSA waiver; or hardship due to a vulnerability such as a disability of some sort; or any other viable hardship situation: - the bank is immediately obliged to look at the case from this point of view, but it does not mean that the bank was responsible for that 'hardship'. A payout would only result if the customer could show ((or the bank was exposed to showing by their own records that there was an occurrence of either - bank errors; or that the historic bank account information or possibly even lack of information/action or misinformation as a possible cause for their customer's hardship, either when they initially examine the claim or when the case is examined by FOS later)) that it was the banks actions that contributed to the customer's situation thus causing or worsening the hardship that the customer was in.

WRONG.

Absolutely untrue. If you are assessed as being in hardship the bank will pay your claim or some of it because WHEN they lose the court case they do not want to sustain additional financial burdens due to worsening your situation.

Remember the Banks have already lost this case twice and are on final appeal. It is not looking good for them and if they ignore people in hardship now they will pay out more when they lose. As they expect to. It's called "risk management".

ZZZ

natweststaffmember

zigzagzen wrote: »

WRONG.

Absolutely untrue. If you are assessed as being in hardship the bank will pay your claim or some of it because WHEN they lose the court case they do not want to sustain additional financial burdens due to worsening your situation.
I don't agree with you on this one since the banks don't have to payout even 1p of your claim under Financial hardship. They can suspend charges/interest as well and that would be sufficient under financial hardship.
Remember the Banks have already lost this case twice and are on final appeal. It is not looking good for them and if they ignore people in hardship now they will pay out more when they lose. As they expect to. It's called "risk management".

ZZZ

ZZZ, awful for me to have to do this to you but your second to last paragraph is wrong. The Supreme Court(formerly HOL) decision is on whether Bank Terms can be assessed for fairness under UTCCR 1999 and not whether the terms themselves are fair. It is an unfortunate misconception of many that the next decision means that firms will have to pay out ie October. They won't.
The majority of his post on the part you quoted is pretty much FOS Standard ie lifestyle change leading to charges and the charges worsening an already reduced income/expenditure situation meaning charges are contributory factor to priority debt arrears.

h_p_swymm

Thanks to all for the feed back on my original post "Bank charges stuck in the mire?"
Rather than using the 'Quoting' button I am replying to the returns below: -
　
-Natweststaffmember
(1.) and they always completely ignore the fact that there was a set of terms and conditions when they signed up for the account.
I was actually with you up to the point you said the above in bold which is what the OFT test case is about, ie are the terms under which someone has been charged assessable for fairness under UTCCR 1999. You do not appear to understand.
I understand the situation - however it would be better if customers had kept the documentation they were given and could see their starting point, not because I expect a legal opinion from them, but it might have coloured the way they expressed their complaint. There is an advantage by insight in understanding where your 'enemy' is entrenched before you start your battle.

(2.) For instance, if I were to look into a claimants account and I see a history of overspending, I am hardly likely to believe that it was the bank's fault that the customer was now in debt. They knew they were over spending.
What about the reasons behind that? Did you ask?
No I didn't ask (no time, time and the brownie point system do not work well together). When I look into a claim, I look back through the whole six years or more. I,ve looked at many hundreds.
(6.) Depending on the bank I would think that it must now be almost impossible to get any help directly at a branch regarding a claim. Banks are now, if they were not from the beginning, dealing with bank charges claims from centralised adminstration offices purely because of the vast numbers of claims.
Banks should at branch level be able to provide a central point for all claims of hardship otherwise we are into FSA Waiver breach territory.
Don't follow you on this, not sure what you mean.
(9.) Those cases where the customer has made a claim and been told that their case is 'on hold' awaiting the outcome of the Court case will of course receive a result when a 'decision' is made by the Court, which may be in October 2009.
No they won't as this is stage 1 of 2 ie the Court will decide if the OFT can assess terms for fairness and then we are into the final part of the case.
OK. Things may go on for longer, I did say ‘may be’. There is an up and a down to everything, and letting this situation drag on is definitely a down.
　
esmerelda
13. no they wont pay out on octobers judgement theres the next stage to go yet, and when they do it will not be six years - it will be back to july 2001 - however long the test case takes. It shouldnt be to some degree either - it should be the entire amount plus interest charged on those charges, plus compensatory interest (probably 8% PA) - as if the terms are deemed unfair they cease to have ever existed.
You are very sure of this, I couldn't possibly be, see above.

14. could be in the region of 54 billion if entirely equitable, thats doubtful tho so looking at 20/30 billion.
Ouch. Don't think this Country can further stand the embarrasment really. Risk mangement would dictate an ‘influenced’ decision as soon as possible. I know I shouldn’t say spooky things like that, of course there is no influencing the high court.

15. not really - as you said earlier - they have computers and already have systems in place or being put in place to deal with the refunds expeditiously (as per the waiver) IF its an automatic refund to every customer of all charges since july 2001 (which is the right and legal outcome that should happen) it will be a computer programme sorting all accounts and charges calculating interest nd applying refunds to accounts if still in use or printing cheques if not (obv that might tke longer to get sent out) but otherwise shouldnt take more than 6 months.
You can't write a computer program until you know what its supposed to do.
If its going to be a refund on application then of course it will take years there will be DPA requests and letters to go first and half the people who are due refunds won't apply. refund on application would be completely ridiculous IMO, butits down to the courts,banks, fsa and oft to decide how it happens.
I didn't say 'on application', I meant that the refund would have to have some element of human intervention, because each bank is different in the way bank charges have been applied.
-For instance to different types of current accounts, which have had differing events occuring midterm through the life of the account. By events I mean anything that has caused a knock-on effect on customer's circumstances; personal loans to convert overdrafts; overdrafts and charges, and so on.
But look at the upside of human intervention to make sure the payment is spot on right. Everyone will get paid - eventually. It will be boring news after a while so the 'news services' will forget it and the Nations embarrasment will be momentary and fade fast into the background. The Country gets to spread another whacking great bill over a number of years, and a staff of hundreds of thousands (across all banks) get to be employed at a time when our service industries need to employ people. Unemployment is probably at about five million right now, when you count ALL the unemployed and don't rely on Government statistics. The banks can view their extensively increased salary bill as a way of giving some of the taxpayers money that they have swandered, back; or at least putting it to good use.
　
zigzagzen

10. Those cases currently claiming hardship; hardship under the FSA waiver; or hardship due to a vulnerability such as a disability of some sort; or any other viable hardship situation: - the bank is immediately obliged to look at the case from this point of view, but it does not mean that the bank was responsible for that 'hardship'. A payout would only result if the customer could show ((or the bank was exposed to showing by their own records that there was an occurrence of either - bank errors; or that the historic bank account information or possibly even lack of information/action or misinformation as a possible cause for their customer's hardship, either when they initially examine the claim or when the case is examined by FOS later)) that it was the banks actions that contributed to the customer's situation thus causing or worsening the hardship that the customer was in.
WRONG.

Absolutely untrue. If you are assessed as being in hardship the bank will pay your claim or some of it because WHEN they lose the court case they do not want to sustain additional financial burdens due to worsening your situation.

Remember the Banks have already lost this case twice and are on final appeal. It is not looking good for them and if they ignore people in hardship now they will pay out more when they lose. As they expect to. It's called "risk management".


a. The hardship has to be proven to have been caused by the bank (as I say above). Otherwise it is nothing to do with the bank. A customers hardship could be the result of many different causes or life events, none of which may be the fault of the bank. FOS would appear to agree.

b. I have looked at hundreds of FOS presented cases this year, and I have to say that the customer is obliged to prove enough of their claim to enable FOS to draw the conclusion that if the bank had responded to the customers financial difficulties sooner the outcome would have been less damaging to the customer. In other words the bank should have taken action and did not do so even though it knew enough about its customer to know that help of some sort was urgently needed. They have thereby ignored their fiduciary duty and are complicit in the customer's situation by default.

c. FOS can only act on information, the customer must supply enough information to tip the balance of doubt. The bank must supply all the paperwork information so the customer's story/allegation can be weighed up. The customer needs to convince FOS that the bank knew the customer’s situation, that the bank’s actions were contributing or causing the worsening of the customer’s situation and the bank responded by either doing nothing or not enough at the time.

d. Those customer's who often went into their branches for arranged meetings and kept records of those meetings and also checked that the problems they were expressing were recorded in the notes made on branch computer systems, may be streets ahead in pursuing their claim, because evidence may be easily accessible.

e. To check what information the bank has about you, you can make a DSAR, (cost ten pounds per person per corporate entity (beware banks and insurance companies are often collections of a number of separate companies so it might be best to go for the head company i.e. sent it to the Managing Director of the whole show, thereby including all sub-companies, group organisations etc.) (DSAR = data subject access request, as provided for in the Data Protection Act). A DSAR correctly targetted should produce transcripts of all telephone calls, all paperwork and electronic records on the banks systems form all departments that may have used or had access to your personal records and information that could be relevant to your request.

[*]Request Eg. Dear Mr Managing Director, CEO - In accordance with the Data Protection Act's provisions regarding Data Subject Access Requests and in respect of my claim against your company for the refund of my bank charges, please send me the information that you have relating to any bank accounts/products I hold or have ever held with your bank or sub-division or sub-company of your bank, (excluding savings and investment accounts unless these have transactions listed in the complaint account (see below)), for the period of time from 01/01/2001 to the present.
This must include any information exchanged with any other department or company within the bank, or outside the bank, (eg. information you have given collection agents), where the information relates to or may have implications on these accounts. This will include information on all bank credit cards, personal loans, or any other related products or product information if income or outgoing transactions are listed in the complaint bank account(s), inclusive of records of direct debits, standing orders, any debts and mortgages; all transcripts of all telephone calls, all paperwork and electronic records on the banks systems from all departments, related companies, sub-companies, and companies within the "so and so banking group" that may have used or have had access to my personal records and information as I deem that this information could be relevant to my complaint. Please adhere to the intent of this request and supply all relevant information which will include any information not listed/identified above but if its existence were known, could be significant to this request. Please accept my cheque for ten pounds in payment for this service. Thank you.

This second paragraph above might be considered over-kill, but I don’t think so.

I do not guarantee the accuracy of my views expressed here - h p swymm

natweststaffmember

h_p_swymm wrote: »

Thanks to all for the feed back on my original post "Bank charges stuck in the mire?"
Rather than using the 'Quoting' button I am replying to the returns below: -
　
-Natweststaffmember
(1.) and they always completely ignore the fact that there was a set of terms and conditions when they signed up for the account.
I was actually with you up to the point you said the above in bold which is what the OFT test case is about, ie are the terms under which someone has been charged assessable for fairness under UTCCR 1999. You do not appear to understand.
I understand the situation - however it would be better if customers had kept the documentation they were given and could see their starting point, not because I expect a legal opinion from them, but it might have coloured the way they expressed their complaint. There is an advantage by insight in understanding where your 'enemy' is entrenched before you start your battle.
I wonder if you know my original original signature {"I am the enemy you killed, my friend" Wilfred Owen quote). Someone I knew was told "sign here and here" and thank you very much. No documentation was given.
(2.) For instance, if I were to look into a claimants account and I see a history of overspending, I am hardly likely to believe that it was the bank's fault that the customer was now in debt. They knew they were over spending.
What about the reasons behind that? Did you ask?
No I didn't ask (no time, time and the brownie point system do not work well together). When I look into a claim, I look back through the whole six years or more. I,ve looked at many hundreds.
July 2001 is where you look back to under the FSA Waiver on Bank Charges. See note 13.5 and further, are you aware of the March 2009 letter from the FSA to all firms who deal with the waiver?
(6.) Depending on the bank I would think that it must now be almost impossible to get any help directly at a branch regarding a claim. Banks are now, if they were not from the beginning, dealing with bank charges claims from centralised adminstration offices purely because of the vast numbers of claims.
Banks should at branch level be able to provide a central point for all claims of hardship otherwise we are into FSA Waiver breach territory.
Don't follow you on this, not sure what you mean.
FSA waiver on Bank Charges, Annex 2 part 5(waiver is on my signature if you want a quick reference point).
(9.) Those cases where the customer has made a claim and been told that their case is 'on hold' awaiting the outcome of the Court case will of course receive a result when a 'decision' is made by the Court, which may be in October 2009.
No they won't as this is stage 1 of 2 ie the Court will decide if the OFT can assess terms for fairness and then we are into the final part of the case.
OK. Things may go on for longer, I did say ‘may be’. There is an up and a down to everything, and letting this situation drag on is definitely a down.
　
esmerelda
13. no they wont pay out on octobers judgement theres the next stage to go yet, and when they do it will not be six years - it will be back to july 2001 - however long the test case takes. It shouldnt be to some degree either - it should be the entire amount plus interest charged on those charges, plus compensatory interest (probably 8% PA) - as if the terms are deemed unfair they cease to have ever existed.
You are very sure of this, I couldn't possibly be, see above.
UTCCR 1999 states that a term deemed to be unfair is unenforceable in its entirety. That means that anything taken from the customer is refundable to them. It is for the National Courts to decide how far back. The original litigation agreement and FSA Waiver means that banks cannot use Limitations Act ie 6 years argument for charges going back 6 years from the announcement of the OFT test case which is when the clock stopped.
14. could be in the region of 54 billion if entirely equitable, thats doubtful tho so looking at 20/30 billion.
Ouch. Don't think this Country can further stand the embarrasment really. Risk mangement would dictate an ‘influenced’ decision as soon as possible. I know I shouldn’t say spooky things like that, of course there is no influencing the high court.

15. not really - as you said earlier - they have computers and already have systems in place or being put in place to deal with the refunds expeditiously (as per the waiver) IF its an automatic refund to every customer of all charges since july 2001 (which is the right and legal outcome that should happen) it will be a computer programme sorting all accounts and charges calculating interest nd applying refunds to accounts if still in use or printing cheques if not (obv that might tke longer to get sent out) but otherwise shouldnt take more than 6 months.
You can't write a computer program until you know what its supposed to do.
You can write the basics of knowing which charges are eligible and which ones aren't eligible, ie packaged fees. The basic programmes are already in place at the banks but the issue will be how much and what processes are in place for the refunds.
If its going to be a refund on application then of course it will take years there will be DPA requests and letters to go first and half the people who are due refunds won't apply. refund on application would be completely ridiculous IMO, butits down to the courts,banks, fsa and oft to decide how it happens.
I didn't say 'on application', I meant that the refund would have to have some element of human intervention, because each bank is different in the way bank charges have been applied.
-For instance to different types of current accounts, which have had differing events occuring midterm through the life of the account. By events I mean anything that has caused a knock-on effect on customer's circumstances; personal loans to convert overdrafts; overdrafts and charges, and so on.
But look at the upside of human intervention to make sure the payment is spot on right. Everyone will get paid - eventually. It will be boring news after a while so the 'news services' will forget it and the Nations embarrasment will be momentary and fade fast into the background. The Country gets to spread another whacking great bill over a number of years, and a staff of hundreds of thousands (across all banks) get to be employed at a time when our service industries need to employ people. Unemployment is probably at about five million right now, when you count ALL the unemployed and don't rely on Government statistics. The banks can view their extensively increased salary bill as a way of giving some of the taxpayers money that they have swandered, back; or at least putting it to good use.
　
zigzagzen

10. Those cases currently claiming hardship; hardship under the FSA waiver; or hardship due to a vulnerability such as a disability of some sort; or any other viable hardship situation: - the bank is immediately obliged to look at the case from this point of view, but it does not mean that the bank was responsible for that 'hardship'. A payout would only result if the customer could show ((or the bank was exposed to showing by their own records that there was an occurrence of either - bank errors; or that the historic bank account information or possibly even lack of information/action or misinformation as a possible cause for their customer's hardship, either when they initially examine the claim or when the case is examined by FOS later)) that it was the banks actions that contributed to the customer's situation thus causing or worsening the hardship that the customer was in.
WRONG.

Absolutely untrue. If you are assessed as being in hardship the bank will pay your claim or some of it because WHEN they lose the court case they do not want to sustain additional financial burdens due to worsening your situation.

Remember the Banks have already lost this case twice and are on final appeal. It is not looking good for them and if they ignore people in hardship now they will pay out more when they lose. As they expect to. It's called "risk management".


a. The hardship has to be proven to have been caused by the bank (as I say above). Otherwise it is nothing to do with the bank. A customers hardship could be the result of many different causes or life events, none of which may be the fault of the bank. FOS would appear to agree.

b. I have looked at hundreds of FOS presented cases this year, and I have to say that the customer is obliged to prove enough of their claim to enable FOS to draw the conclusion that if the bank had responded to the customers financial difficulties sooner the outcome would have been less damaging to the customer. In other words the bank should have taken action and did not do so even though it knew enough about its customer to know that help of some sort was urgently needed. They have thereby ignored their fiduciary duty and are complicit in the customer's situation by default.

c. FOS can only act on information, the customer must supply enough information to tip the balance of doubt. The bank must supply all the paperwork information so the customer's story/allegation can be weighed up. The customer needs to convince FOS that the bank knew the customer’s situation, that the bank’s actions were contributing or causing the worsening of the customer’s situation and the bank responded by either doing nothing or not enough at the time.

d. Those customer's who often went into their branches for arranged meetings and kept records of those meetings and also checked that the problems they were expressing were recorded in the notes made on branch computer systems, may be streets ahead in pursuing their claim, because evidence may be easily accessible.

e. To check what information the bank has about you, you can make a DSAR, (cost ten pounds per person per corporate entity (beware banks and insurance companies are often collections of a number of separate companies so it might be best to go for the head company i.e. sent it to the Managing Director of the whole show, thereby including all sub-companies, group organisations etc.) (DSAR = data subject access request, as provided for in the Data Protection Act). A DSAR correctly targetted should produce transcripts of all telephone calls, all paperwork and electronic records on the banks systems form all departments that may have used or had access to your personal records and information that could be relevant to your request.

1. Request Eg. Dear Mr Managing Director, CEO - In accordance with the Data Protection Act's provisions regarding Data Subject Access Requests and in respect of my claim against your company for the refund of my bank charges, please send me the information that you have relating to any bank accounts/products I hold or have ever held with your bank or sub-division or sub-company of your bank, (excluding savings and investment accounts unless these have transactions listed in the complaint account (see below)), for the period of time from 01/01/2001 to the present.

This must include any information exchanged with any other department or company within the bank, or outside the bank, (eg. information you have given collection agents), where the information relates to or may have implications on these accounts. This will include information on all bank credit cards, personal loans, or any other related products or product information if income or outgoing transactions are listed in the complaint bank account(s), inclusive of records of direct debits, standing orders, any debts and mortgages; all transcripts of all telephone calls, all paperwork and electronic records on the banks systems from all departments, related companies, sub-companies, and companies within the "so and so banking group" that may have used or have had access to my personal records and information as I deem that this information could be relevant to my complaint. Please adhere to the intent of this request and supply all relevant information which will include any information not listed/identified above but if its existence were known, could be significant to this request. Please accept my cheque for ten pounds in payment for this service. Thank you.

This second paragraph above might be considered over-kill, but I don’t think so.

I do not guarantee the accuracy of my views expressed here - h p swymm

Still reading this cos it is fascinating and very interesting.

esmerellda

h_p_swymm wrote: »

e. To check what information the bank has about you, you can make a DSAR, (cost ten pounds per person per corporate entity (beware banks and insurance companies are often collections of a number of separate companies so it might be best to go for the head company i.e. sent it to the Managing Director of the whole show, thereby including all sub-companies, group organisations etc.) (DSAR = data subject access request, as provided for in the Data Protection Act). A DSAR correctly targetted should produce transcripts of all telephone calls, all paperwork and electronic records on the banks systems form all departments that may have used or had access to your personal records and information that could be relevant to your request.

1. Request Eg. Dear Mr Managing Director, CEO - In accordance with the Data Protection Act's provisions regarding Data Subject Access Requests and in respect of my claim against your company for the refund of my bank charges, please send me the information that you have relating to any bank accounts/products I hold or have ever held with your bank or sub-division or sub-company of your bank, (excluding savings and investment accounts unless these have transactions listed in the complaint account (see below)), for the period of time from 01/01/2001 to the present.

This must include any information exchanged with any other department or company within the bank, or outside the bank, (eg. information you have given collection agents), where the information relates to or may have implications on these accounts. This will include information on all bank credit cards, personal loans, or any other related products or product information if income or outgoing transactions are listed in the complaint bank account(s), inclusive of records of direct debits, standing orders, any debts and mortgages; all transcripts of all telephone calls, all paperwork and electronic records on the banks systems from all departments, related companies, sub-companies, and companies within the "so and so banking group" that may have used or have had access to my personal records and information as I deem that this information could be relevant to my complaint. Please adhere to the intent of this request and supply all relevant information which will include any information not listed/identified above but if its existence were known, could be significant to this request. Please accept my cheque for ten pounds in payment for this service. Thank you.

This second paragraph above might be considered over-kill, but I don’t think so.

I do not guarantee the accuracy of my views expressed here - h p swymm

aboslutely 100% agree that a FULL DSAR should be used instead of the wishy washy 'please give me a list of charges' letter that MSE templates.

This is an example of one we amend for peoples situations, this was for a credit card account and successfully returned account notes, telephone recordings etc.and assisted the claimant to have defaults removed from his credit file and all charges refunded. Yes it may be overkill but when fighting these orgainisations you NEED ALL YOUR INFORMATION not simply a list of charges which may or may not include ALL of them, especially when you are trying to prove banks compliance in a hardship situation.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am requesting details held by your organization and I would like to remind you have until last post on the 5th May 2007 to supply me with all the information I am requesting. The Information Commissioner has asked to be advised if I do not receive the data I have requested by this date. At this stage I ask that you treat this as a Data Protection Act 1998 Subject Access Request and not a complaint. I also believe you may have some records regarding an account I held with yourselves mistakenly issued on your part in the name of Mr. xxx xxxxxx , but as you should be aware this was reported to yourselves and in either case the above address and same date of birth ( xx-xx-xxxx ) applied.

I would be grateful if you would provide the following: -

• Full copies of all contracts which you believe exist between myself and your organization, including copies of any documents you hold in support of same.

• Details of the identity of any individuals or organizations who have provided you with my personal information together with copies of any letters of instruction provided by them, or any contracts entered into between yourselves and the third party, and the relevant dates to which those contracts related.

• Copies of all documents which include any of my personal information including copies of any contracts or invoices, emails or computer records containing my personal information, or any records which pertain to this information.

• Full details and copies of any documents upon which you relied when you have provided my personal or financial information to any individual , organization or third party.

• Full copies or transcripts of any computer logs or database records kept in relation to myself or in relation to my financial or personal information.

• Full copies of any correspondence in postal, email or any other format which you have entered into with any individual, organization or third party which contains my personal or financial information, or which pertains to myself.

• Details of all systems you currently have in place to ensure my personal or financial information is kept securely, including details of those officers who currently have control of same, and at the time it was held or provided to a third party.

• Where any previous information or records held have been deleted or disposed of, the methods used to do so, including dates, certificates or references confirming details of destruction. Where you are unable to provide such certificates, please provide a declaration, signed by an authorized officer of your company, confirming the dates and methods of destruction of this data.

• Full hard copy print outs of any of my personal or financial information held in a digital, magnetic or any other format which is held in any archives, backups or other storage devices / locations.

• Your registration number with the Information Commissioners Office.

• Your Consumer Credit License number.

Where reference to emails is given above, these emails should be taken from your email servers or backups / archives held in a magnetic or digital format. These emails may not be present on a users local system, and may require the assistance of your IT department / IT providers, who you should contact immediately for their provision.

Please confirm whether you hold a physical file with details of my personal and / or financial information. If so, please provide details and dates of any instance when this file has left your control, to whom it has been communicated, the method of transportation / communication e.g. Royal Mail, courier, by hand, electronically. Please provide a full copy of this file Where my physical file has left your offices, please provide details of any precautions taken to ensure that my information has not been lost, stolen, misplaced or made available to anybody who does not have authorized access, including those who would use my information for the purposes of identity theft, or registered with any credit agencies. Please also confirm whether any of the documents held within the physical file are computer generated.

Under S.40 of The Administration of Justice Act 1970, if you believe you have provided my information to any organization, agent, or individual who could, or may have used it for unlawful purposes, you should contact me immediately, and provide full details of their identification and address, together with full details of any instructions you have provided to them. If you have forwarded or communicated my personal or financial information to any person, company, or organization, please provide a copy of the authority, signed and dated by myself upon which you have relied prior to doing so. As requested above, you should provide copies on any such communications.

Under the Data Protection Act 1984 / 1998, as a Data Controller, you are responsible for the complete retraction of all information provided to any third party, should I request you to do so, and have a duty to myself to ensure that any personal or financial information I have provided to you is kept securely, and is only communicated to those to whom I have given my express permission / authority.

I enclose a cheque in the sum of £10 to cover your fee. If you are unable to deal with this request, you should immediately forward it to the person within your organisation responsible for Data Protection.

denwill36

Hi to all !

This is the first time i have posted on the forum and i would like to share my experience with the mighty Lloyds TSB !
I petitioned my own bankruptsy 2006 and closed my business after a 4 year struggle. Then via the media it was brought to my attention that it may be possible to re-claim my default bank charges from 2001-2006.
After calculating these charges between my three accounts i was shocked to discover that they totalled over £9,000.
I first applied to Lloyds TSB for the return of my charges in June 2007 and recieved a response within a few days saying that the charges were fair and i knew in advance that this was the figure i would have been charged for the de-faults.
In further requests to Lloyds TSB [3 in total] they played the "were waiting for the outcome of test case "card, the last time i contacted them was in July 09 stressing my financial hardship and incorporating my income and outgoing information and complete financial situation.
The response i received in August 09 was as follows, Lloyds TSB Customer Servise Recovery said that they fully appreciated my situation which was unfortunate but would not be able to help because i was no longer a current customer. Lloyds then said that all claims cases were still "on hold" but they did however send me a copy of "Sorting out your finances booklet" which really PEED ME OFF, they also added that they would not respond to any other correspondences from myself unless it held NEW information regarding my claim!!!
It seems to me that even though the FSA have produced legal ruleings regarding the banks and how they must deal with peoples Finacial Hardship claims that some banks are doing excactly as they please as usual. I will not be leaving it there!!!

natweststaffmember

denwill36 wrote: »

Hi to all !

This is the first time i have posted on the forum and i would like to share my experience with the mighty Lloyds TSB !
I petitioned my own bankruptsy 2006 and closed my business after a 4 year struggle. Then via the media it was brought to my attention that it may be possible to re-claim my default bank charges from 2001-2006.
After calculating these charges between my three accounts i was shocked to discover that they totalled over £9,000.
I first applied to Lloyds TSB for the return of my charges in June 2007 and recieved a response within a few days saying that the charges were fair and i knew in advance that this was the figure i would have been charged for the de-faults.
In further requests to Lloyds TSB [3 in total] they played the "were waiting for the outcome of test case "card, the last time i contacted them was in July 09 stressing my financial hardship and incorporating my income and outgoing information and complete financial situation.
The response i received in August 09 was as follows, Lloyds TSB Customer Servise Recovery said that they fully appreciated my situation which was unfortunate but would not be able to help because i was no longer a current customer. Lloyds then said that all claims cases were still "on hold" but they did however send me a copy of "Sorting out your finances booklet" which really PEED ME OFF, they also added that they would not respond to any other correspondences from myself unless it held NEW information regarding my claim!!!
It seems to me that even though the FSA have produced legal ruleings regarding the banks and how they must deal with peoples Finacial Hardship claims that some banks are doing excactly as they please as usual. I will not be leaving it there!!!

If you were made bankrupt then unfortunately you cannot include accounts that were part of that bankruptcy. The FSA have no legal rulings as to how they must deal with financial hardship so that is not correct either.
If the accounts with LloydsTSB were not part of the bankruptcy then they are still on the table but I would have said NO based on the fact the account is closed with no monies owed.

jopwo_87

I was told they only had a duty to 'look' at my case which they did and now its in the queue like everyone elses. They said they are under absolutely no obligation to actually do anything, whether deny or agree my claim. I asked for a final repsonse saying this and was told they wouldnt even do that because they dont have to. Basically they are stalling as much as humanly possible!!

natweststaffmember

jopwo_87 wrote: »

I was told they only had a duty to 'look' at my case which they did and now its in the queue like everyone elses. They said they are under absolutely no obligation to actually do anything, whether deny or agree my claim. I asked for a final repsonse saying this and was told they wouldnt even do that because they dont have to. Basically they are stalling as much as humanly possible!!

They have to provide a final response or if you go to the FOS they will force them to do so.