Reply from Ombudsmen re bank charges

natweststaffmember

Anihilator wrote: »

A court doesnt agree with you
Neither do OFT or Martin anymore who have all suceeded legally they have lost.

You still didn't read the judgement of OFT v. Abbey et al did you?
The OFT will not go further with this on historic charges or current ones but that is not the whole story. Regulation 5(1) is still in play, in fact, even the Supreme Court judges said that. At least read the bloody judgement and not the media reporting before talking a load of crap on the forum and try to disuade an individual from taking on their own claim. !!!!!!.

How long do you think we have all been around in the bank charges campaign?? You have been around it for 30 seconds and know nothing so go away and we'll help the OP thanks.

esmerellda

ARRGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH !

So bloody what - the important thing is to help people NOW, as things stand NOW, I am not going to desert people who NEED help because the court found in the banks favour.

I've already said we're looking at financial hardship, and possibly the 5(1) and CCA regs but we need to go through and find out the individual situation first. SO shut up and let us get on with it.

dorien

esmerellda wrote: »

dorien - http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=263

will help you there (((((((hug)))))))).

thank you for your help..some other people are best just ignored..

esmerellda

indeed

Talk tomorrow hopefully xxx

natweststaffmember

Anihilator wrote: »

No they didnt. They said the OFT could look at using other angles if they wished. Not that they were valid.
But I am not talking about the OFT, I am talking about the individual consumer taking up a case themselves based on their own circumstnaces.
Have you read the EC Directive on unfair terms and the "grey list", to be totally honest with you it needs referral to the ECJ since 6.2(b) of the UK law UTCCR 1999 rules out price.
I have read it all fine and basically that whilst they may not be nice the charges are perfectly legal as it stands.
And all banks were denied a declaration under Regulation 5(1). READ the judgements. NatWest terms 2001-2003 were not given a clean bill of health either on the penal aspect. READ the judgements.
I know all about the bank charges and basically the !!!!!! on this board have managed to get lots of clueless individuals to launch frivolous court cases which are now not going to win and have alienated their financial institutions and are probably now worse off as they still financially have debts, still financially will incur charges, yet no longer have a hope in hell of their bank helping them out.:rolleyes:

The bank still have to help them out if they are in financial hardship under BCOBS and the lending code section 9. Do you not know anything?
New POC's are due on this site 3rd week in January but to be honest with you I think people SHOULD understand what they are actually doing and what they are arguing because they will get to court and LOSE based on not knowing what to do and they should. Banks, in all honesty, have done a damn good job themselves of alienating people including the frivolous since our money has helped to bail out banks. The cost to us the taxpayers is estimated to be within 22 to 40 billion pounds that is unrepayable. And of course, I don't agree with you, Come back when there is legal certainty in bank charges and I might apologise to you, but don't BANK on it

oscar52

Anihilator wrote: »

A court doesnt agree with you
Neither do OFT or Martin anymore who have all suceeded legally they have lost.

You REALLY need to proof read your posts before hitting submit. Explain something to me (and its quoted above) If the OFT and Martin ...succeeded legally, How did they lose? - This is actually what you have said.

Oh - and I agree with Nattie and Esmerelda - clear off.

gaz2954

Anihilator wrote: »

No they didnt. They said the OFT could look at using other angles if they wished. Not that they were valid.

I have read it all fine and basically that whilst they may not be nice the charges are perfectly legal as it stands.

I know all about the bank charges and basically the !!!!!! on this board have managed to get lots of clueless individuals to launch frivolous court cases which are now not going to win and have alienated their financial institutions and are probably now worse off as they still financially have debts, still financially will incur charges, yet no longer have a hope in hell of their bank helping them out.:rolleyes:

You really dont understand things do you i was charged £4200 yes £4200 in charges by Nat West in 3 months on my personal account a "snowball effect of charges on charges etc " is that fair ? I suggest you cease posting on here unless you have something positive to help people as you clearly dont understand naything yes the OFt lost but people can complain and try to get their money back nothing is certain and your giving wrong info bye

willo65

gaz2954 wrote: »

You really dont understand things do you i was charged £4200 yes £4200 in charges by Nat West in 3 months on my personal account a "snowball effect of charges on charges etc " is that fair ? I suggest you cease posting on here unless you have something positive to help people as you clearly dont understand naything yes the OFt lost but people can complain and try to get their money back nothing is certain and your giving wrong info bye

The only charge that could be caused by a previous charge is a maintenance charge once per month of £28 (now £20) other than this your charges must have been a LOT of bounced d/d, cheques etc or card payments you didn't have funds for?

Chrysalis

first unless the dd is for your mortgage or council tax cancel it.

mortgage comes before utility bills. The only other important bill I suggest is council tax.

everything else tv licence, water bill, utility bill, broadband, tv etc. can be lower priority if they dont get paid they dont get paid.

at the very least stop having more returned item charges.

I would consider going to court with your claim under small claims if possible, however check the wording of any paper copy of your terms and conditions you have first.

Direct debit has been way overhyped, when possible pay for things manually over the phone with debit card instead.

ILW

gaz2954 wrote: »

You really dont understand things do you i was charged £4200 yes £4200 in charges by Nat West in 3 months on my personal account a "snowball effect of charges on charges etc " is that fair ? I suggest you cease posting on here unless you have something positive to help people as you clearly dont understand naything yes the OFt lost but people can complain and try to get their money back nothing is certain and your giving wrong info bye

:money:

I find that very difficult to believe, unless you were writing out loads of cheques, hammering the debit card or just hoping the DDs would just go away. Please explain £1400 per month in charges.