Charge banks for Correspondence

bootneck1988

Does anyone know if it is possible to charge the bank for any correspondence you have with them? If they can charge us extortionate amounts in bank charges, can we bill them each time we have to reply to a letter or phone call? When the bank charges me £25 for a computor generated letter which tells me I am £10 overdrawn, I would like to reply and charge them for my time. Any thoughts!

TG82

Totally with you on that!!!

Although in reality I think it's taking it too far to expect the banks to pay for our postage and phone calls, as well as the time we have to spend pursuing it while they use their delay and detract tactics with endless correspondence, I DO feel much better about asking for the WHOLE lot back now, rather than maybe allowing for them to keep a few quid from each charge for THEIR TIME.

That's right. What about OUR time?

You've made me feel better

jambosans

bootneck1988 wrote: »

Does anyone know if it is possible to charge the bank for any correspondence you have with them?

Of course it is not possible. You can claim goodwill for time and inconvenience in resolving a complaint, however the bank is under no obligation to oblige. The terms and conditions on your account state the charges you are subject to, and by signing, you agree to those charges. You choose to do business with them, under their terms and conditions, not the other way round.

natweststaffmember

jambosans wrote: »

Of course it is not possible. You can claim goodwill for time and inconvenience in resolving a complaint, however the bank is under no obligation to oblige. The terms and conditions on your account state the charges you are subject to, and by signing, you agree to those charges. You choose to do business with them, under their terms and conditions, not the other way round.

If you take the case to county court you can charge for your time, stationary, phone calls et al. As a litigant in person the rate per hour is £9.25.
Jambosans, if the OP files a county court case(I don't think they need to but it's not my case) they can and will have their case settled with it should the banks' lose.
It's CPR part 48 on being able to claim costs.

jambosans

natweststaffmember wrote: »

If you take the case to county court you can charge for your time, stationary, phone calls et al. As a litigant in person the rate per hour is £9.25.
Jambosans, if the OP files a county court case(I don't think they need to but it's not my case) they can and will have their case settled with it should the banks' lose.
It's CPR part 48 on being able to claim costs.

Accepted. However my point was directed at "billing" a bank. Obviously if you take the rather drastic steps of taking the bank to court, then you may be compensated. I did mention in my original reply:-

jambosans wrote: »

You can claim goodwill for time and inconvenience in resolving a complaint, however the bank is under no obligation to oblige.

You could then take the complaint to the F.O.S. and then court but my point still stands.

Also, the OP suggested "billing" the bank for merely communicating with them. Do you think a court would award you the £0.45 call cost for phoning to get a balance? I know it is a ridiculous example, but it is to highlight my point, if you wish to use certain services (e.g. Telephone Banking), you must accept the cost.

Using a service to carry out normal banking and using a service to resolve a complaint are two separate issues. My original answer perhaps did not make clear the lengths one could go to in seeking compensation, for which I stand correct.

natweststaffmember

jambosans wrote: »

Accepted. However my point was directed at "billing" a bank. Obviously if you take the rather drastic steps of taking the bank to court, then you may be compensated. I did mention in my original reply:-



You could then take the complaint to the F.O.S. and then court but my point still stands.

Also, the OP suggested "billing" the bank for merely communicating with them. Do you think a court would award you the £0.45 call cost for phoning to get a balance? I know it is a ridiculous example, but it is to highlight my point, if you wish to use certain services (e.g. Telephone Banking), you must accept the cost.

Using a service to carry out normal banking and using a service to resolve a complaint are two separate issues. My original answer perhaps did not make clear the lengths one could go to in seeking compensation, for which I stand correct.

The court would allow for all reasonable costs including telephone calls to resolve the specific issue. The bank would only look at reasonable costs if there was a bank error which would cover that 45p if the person had such proof. I would not expect the bank to compensate me for phoning them for a balance but I would if there was an error on my account.

jambosans

natweststaffmember wrote: »

The court would allow for all reasonable costs including telephone calls to resolve the specific issue. The bank would only look at reasonable costs if there was a bank error which would cover that 45p if the person had such proof. I would not expect the bank to compensate me for phoning them for a balance but I would if there was an error on my account.

We appear to be making the same point. I'm not sure if there was something further you were wanting to point out that is not already covered in my previous response?

natweststaffmember

jambosans wrote: »

We appear to be making the same point. I'm not sure if there was something further you were wanting to point out that is not already covered in my previous response?

I was answering you ridiculous suggestion re the 45p with a YES they would.

jambosans

natweststaffmember wrote: »

I was answering you ridiculous suggestion re the 45p with a YES they would.

So let us play the scenario through (as you've obviously missed my point in relation to the £0.45)... If someone contacted Telephone Banking, asked for a balance, decided I'm not paying, asks the bank for the money bank, they refuse, issue "deadlock", the customer then goes to the F.O.S., who also sides with the bank. Are you saying that if the customer took the bank to court, this amount would be reimbursed? I don't think so. The bank provided a service at the cost of a call, which the customer accepts when contacting the bank by these means.

I just want to make something clear, because you've obviously not understood my posts and feel the need to correct me at every turn. I stated in my first reply and subsequent replies to yourself, that a bank may compensate time and inconvenience in dealing with a complaint that has arisen due to the fault of the bank. If they refuse, then no doubt the F.O.S. or a court would award this compensation.

I initially answered the OP, because they implied you could "bill" a bank for merely using their services, which is most certainly not the case. I have now, for the third time had to explain my reasoning for said post, but you still don't get it. In fact, I stated when using the £0.45 that it was ridiculous, but it still illustrated my point which I think is rather easy to understand.

In my last post I explained I agreed with you, however you've now replied suggesting that a court would award someone compensation for using a service when no complaint or error has been made against or by the bank. I know that's not what you mean to say, but if you had taken the time and given me the common courtesy to correctly read my previous replies, we wouldn't be having this stupid exchange.

natweststaffmember

jambosans wrote: »

Accepted. However my point was directed at "billing" a bank. Obviously if you take the rather drastic steps of taking the bank to court, then you may be compensated. I did mention in my original reply:-



You could then take the complaint to the F.O.S. and then court but my point still stands.

Also, the OP suggested "billing" the bank for merely communicating with them. Do you think a court would award you the £0.45 call cost for phoning to get a balance? I know it is a ridiculous example, but it is to highlight my point, if you wish to use certain services (e.g. Telephone Banking), you must accept the cost.

Using a service to carry out normal banking and using a service to resolve a complaint are two separate issues. My original answer perhaps did not make clear the lengths one could go to in seeking compensation, for which I stand correct.

"Ridiculous example" is your wording not mine so with respect I didn't bother reading your long post.

natweststaffmember

jambosans wrote: »

So let us play the scenario through (as you've obviously missed my point in relation to the £0.45)... If someone contacted Telephone Banking, asked for a balance, decided I'm not paying, asks the bank for the money bank, they refuse, issue "deadlock", the customer then goes to the F.O.S., who also sides with the bank. Are you saying that if the customer took the bank to court, this amount would be reimbursed? I don't think so. The bank provided a service at the cost of a call, which the customer accepts when contacting the bank by these means.
If they are asking for Bank Statements relevant for bank charges then yes it is reasonable to ask for costs. Remember we are on the reclaims board. I misread the original scenario but the answer is no to just a balance if it is not related to the bank charges reclaim. If they are simply charging them because they get charged then there is no variation in the contract that allows this but the OP can write to the bank with a variation and giving the bank 30 days to object. Should they not then the variation exists.
I just want to make something clear, because you've obviously not understood my posts and feel the need to correct me at every turn. I stated in my first reply and subsequent replies to yourself, that a bank may compensate time and inconvenience in dealing with a complaint that has arisen due to the fault of the bank. If they refuse, then no doubt the F.O.S. or a court would award this compensation.

I initially answered the OP, because they implied you could "bill" a bank for merely using their services, which is most certainly not the case. I have now, for the third time had to explain my reasoning for said post, but you still don't get it. In fact, I stated when using the £0.45 that it was ridiculous, but it still illustrated my point which I think is rather easy to understand.
And as you can tell I originally misread the OP assuming they were talking about bank charges reclaim rather than the airy fairy tit for tat type post.
In my last post I explained I agreed with you, however you've now replied suggesting that a court would award someone compensation for using a service when no complaint or error has been made against or by the bank. I know that's not what you mean to say, but if you had taken the time and given me the common courtesy to correctly read my previous replies, we wouldn't be having this stupid exchange.

It was a misread followed by further misinterpretations. I think specsavers need to refund me for that eye test