Problem with natwest

natweststaffmember

benbranson wrote: »

Go to your/nearest branch and say that the charges have changed as of the 1st October and that it isn't fair that you are charged more because your statement date is different. Ask to be refunded the difference between the £38 and £5 that you should have been charged (and difference with other charges).

If they refuse then ask them to check the charges update on their intranet system. Should tell them that they can refund the difference as a goodwill gesture in the event that a customer complains about this particular situation. HTH

If he did and his statement date was say 20th October then the charge is right because the changes are from the following charging date after the 1st October 2009 and not that the charges change for everyone on 1st October.
I do hope you don't work for NatWest cos you're wrong

stclair

benbranson wrote: »

Go to your/nearest branch and say that the charges have changed as of the 1st October and that it isn't fair that you are charged more because your statement date is different. Ask to be refunded the difference between the £38 and £5 that you should have been charged (and difference with other charges).

If they refuse then ask them to check the charges update on their intranet system. Should tell them that they can refund the difference as a goodwill gesture in the event that a customer complains about this particular situation. HTH

The bank will not under any circumstances refund the difference in the charges even if you complain to them :eek:

Kavanne

stclair wrote: »

The bank will not under any circumstances refund the difference in the charges even if you complain to them :eek:

Oh dear. OP; complain. That's all i'm saying

killer_cam

tell them you will get the bank adminstrater lawyer in to speak to them they will soon give your money back as its cheaper then going throught legal action

jambosans

killer_cam wrote: »

tell them you will get the bank adminstrater lawyer in to speak to them they will soon give your money back as its cheaper then going throught legal action

What is that? Assuming you mean "bank administrator lawyer". I've never heard of such a thing, perhaps I will stand corrected, but I think you have just made that up.

stclair

Kavanne wrote: »

Oh dear. OP; complain. That's all i'm saying

It ain going to too happen Kavanne im sorry to say. They can kick scream do what ever they like but they aint going to get the charges refunded or even the difference. :rotfl:

stclair

jambosans wrote: »

What is that? Assuming you mean "bank administrator lawyer". I've never heard of such a thing, perhaps I will stand corrected, but I think you have just made that up.

I still believe in father xmas :rotfl:

Extant

stclair wrote: »

It ain going to too happen Kavanne im sorry to say. They can kick scream do what ever they like but they aint going to get the charges refunded or even the difference. :rotfl:

Kavanne works for Natwest.

And can you say with 100% certainty that they won't? Do you work for Natwest customer relations?

I'd say you're naively believing a policy if you genuinely think that your complaints teams, faced with the statement of "refund these or I'll ask for six years' statements," won't be refunding the difference.

Just like Barclays doesn't refund Personal Reserve fees, right? Public relations, however you want to describe them, work very closely with legal and litigation. Considering that the banks are unlikely to be told to refund any charges automatically on the completion of the test case, any legal team with an ounce of competency will be actively working on policies to prevent claims coming to bear, which will include refunding the difference.

vij

I had a problem with some charges on my Natwest account 9 weeks ago (due to a cancelled direct debit going out) I wrote to them detailing my complaint and about 10 days later got a letter reunding charges for that month and the month after as the overdrawn phase affected to cycles otherwise. Its worth writing to them in a calm non accusatory way.

natweststaffmember

Extant wrote: »

Kavanne works for Natwest.

And can you say with 100% certainty that they won't? Do you work for Natwest customer relations?
I don't but I do know how they work and from the details they have given they have misread the changes to the charges so there is no bank error.
I'd say you're naively believing a policy if you genuinely think that your complaints teams, faced with the statement of "refund these or I'll ask for six years' statements," won't be refunding the difference.
If the argument was "or I'll order 6 years statements" then they would be charged £5.00 for them.
Just like Barclays doesn't refund Personal Reserve fees, right? Public relations, however you want to describe them, work very closely with legal and litigation. Considering that the banks are unlikely to be told to refund any charges automatically on the completion of the test case, any legal team with an ounce of competency will be actively working on policies to prevent claims coming to bear, which will include refunding the difference.

Can I ask what "refunding the difference" nonsense both you and StClair are talking about?

Under the litigation on the OFT test case, under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999, any term that is deemed to be unfair in unenforceable in its entirety and ALL charges have to be refunded. The only issues will be whether that is to go back to July 2001, 1999, or 1995 since the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 was making sure UK Law complied with EU regulations dating back to contracts from 1st January 1995.

Any charges that are deemed as being fair and it is the terms under which you are charged that have to be deemed as fair and not necessarily the price would be decided by a court. There is no deal and no negotiated settlement is legally binding if it has not been argued in court. The only negotiating will be how it will be repaid and timescales.
The argument is not necessarily relevant if the banks win the appeal in the Supreme Court, however.