Reply from Ombudsmen re bank charges

natweststaffmember

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

At least I can see how you most certainly do have a case under UTCCR 1999 section 5(1). If it was one charge then I would be struggling but multiple fees for consideration is most definitely something that as an individual you might be successful with.

Darth_Thundercloud

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:

Clueless.

Just imagine what will happen if the OFT resolve the cost of charges with the banks to a fair price instead of an unfair price (let's say £3 as a charge as part of the remuneration for the services) that means basically that people like you who have been propped up for years because of the banks greed and exploitation will have to pay like everybody else.

There are other legal avenues which the consumer can challenge the banks on their ludicrous historical charges. This is currently being prepared.

How the courts came to the decision that the charges were part of the cost of the service when there was clear evidence that even the banks recognised them as penalties before changing their terms and conditions is beyond reason.

davidgmmafan

"You have no case.

Stop making things worse and thinking you do based on a stupid post from Martin.

Time to start working with your bank to improve your situation rather than trying to screw them out of cash."

Others have answered the legal point, so I'm going to take your last point. The OP is doing just that, if banks were remotely flexible then this sort of action would not be neccesary. Unfortunately the banking code is toothless, and so banks ignore it.

I mean think about it logically if there was any prospect of reducing the balance impartial advice would be to try it.

It is just this kind of thinking which stops the issue being seen as anything other than black and white. Its all good and well to say pay your debt, but in many cases the debt is actually increasing at a rate higher than the individual can pay. So the most rational course of action is actually to STOP payments and wait for the account to go to a DCA as at this point they will stop charging interest.

This is how the banks alienate large numbers of thier customers. They promise to help if in difficulty and do nothing of the sort. Case in point Natwest offered to switch my bro's mortgate to interest only (a fee of £120) which would save around £20/month. Oh and there would be another fee to change it back, how exactly is that helping?

Looking at this forum the past few days has shown my why most forums have moderators. If your goal was to take a cheap shot well done you've succeeded. Now let the people who actually want to help the OP get on with it.

davidgmmafan

How the courts came to the decision that the charges were part of the cost of the service when there was clear evidence that even the banks recognised them as penalties before changing their terms and conditions is beyond reason.[/QUOTE]

Not only that but some people argue that it is quite right that there are penalties and that they should be higher. Yet we have to live with the legal fiction that ther are charges for a service, a service which you cannot opt out of; charges for a service which pay (at least in part) for somebody esle's service. My brain hurts

gpaul49

dorien wrote: »

esmerellda wrote: »

~Are you suffering with financial difficulty at all ?

~ Which bank are you complaining against?

~ can you post up a copy of your original complaint to the FOS pls

Complaint against the Abbey, my husband has been on 4 day week for 4 months now, mortgage in arrears and struggling with bills etc.
Cannot post original complaint at the moment

We received a letter from GMAC and it states that they are offering
£1016.59.

This is in two parts: a cheque for 566.59 and 450.00. Have you received
any cheques?

They state that the offer is in line with FSA guidelines and it is
reasonable. It may be that the FOS might not direct any further refunds
so an offer of £1016 may not be too unreasonable

Do let us know and please confirm what cheques have been received

Regards
JSK Claims

gpaul49

on a four day week too
i can't believe the hostility
against people claiming , is does not cost 35 pounds should be 3 pounds max
35 pounds is a discrace just like the maggot mp's staying silent
Martin gave a good tv aperance about the poor lady on benifits
that should shame those MP''s

vote for any one in the election

gpaul49

hey one day you will get sick not get paid struggle with ill health
its all lies by the goverment because of the banking crsis
and those right on lefty comedians , right on labour tax tax tax
listen to debate about playing field's of eton
kick them all out

don't ever pay by direct debit EVER use credit unions these should be getting a big push
i cancelled all my dd saving drawn every penny out ,
no insurance from banks

Alpine_Star

Anihilator wrote: »

You have no case.
.

This is bad advice and you are in error to say this.

All letters being sent out to bank charge complainants following the Supreme Court judgment by the FOS contain the following paragraph by default:

''However, if there are individual factors or circumstances particular to you - or to the way your bank operated your account at the time the charges were made - which you feel should be taken into account, then please write and let me know by .........., so we can assess whether they are likely to make a difference.''

The Technical Department of the FOS has confirmed that complainants can submit arguments in support of their case in addition to ones originally submitted.

And I would advise anyone who has received the FOS letter to read this before responding http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?t=21042

Premier_2

Darth_Thundercloud wrote: »

Clueless....

Why am I not surprised to find you decided to log under this alias? :rolleyes:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=28108491&postcount=320

Still, probably the only thing you can think of to try and keep the myths alive.

Here's some clues

What if my case is on hold with the Ombudsman?

A. There are 15,000 cases on hold with the Ombudsman, and it has not yet made a decision on what will happen. However, it has indicated it is likely to consider NEW and OLD claims under the following circumstances, though there is no guarantee your claim will be successful...

• ...if you're in financial hardship
  
  If you're struggling to meet basic necessities and the charges either contributed to, or worsened, your situation. Alternatively where you're incurring a consistent cycle of charges you cannot break out of.
  
  ...where the charge is disproportionate
  
  Where you've unintentionally slipped over your limit and the charge is disproportionate to the 'offence' (eg, you go £1 over but are charged £35) and the fee makes up a reasonable chunk of your income.
  ...and
  Separately, it may be possible to approach the Ombudsman with the amended legal arguments for a wider range of cases too - we're currently working on that approach. Ensure you're getting the free weekly e-mail where we will publish updates on that as soon as possible.

...

How likely is it I will get my money back?
A. Much less likely than prior to the Supreme Court result, but not impossible. The strongest hope is for those who fulfill the Ombudsman's criteria above... still, the best thing to do is plan for getting nothing, but cross your fingers.
We believe there is a strong legal case under the new arguments yet it is complex and it takes time for these things to play through. For money management's sake, its very important to assume you won't get a payout – though we hope there is still a chance.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/bank-charges

Lets just reiterate that:

"the best thing to do is plan for getting nothing,"

and

"its very important to assume you won't get a payout"

Anything else appears to be based on a fingers crossed approach to chance ... but still some don't want to accept the facts.

MrLeeLee

Premier wrote: »

"the best thing to do is plan for getting nothing,"

and

"its very important to assume you won't get a payout"

This is actually VERY good advice, anyone who plans to use the money they may or may not get back from bank charges, is playing a risky game. I hope you don't get to excited though, that's good advice that Martin has given out concerning all money, not just bank charges.

Although I am sure you'll be gutted, but there are actually more avenues open for people trying to reclaim so it's not just a case of lets all give up.