Reply from Ombudsmen re bank charges

Alpine_Star

Premier wrote: »

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.

It's also worth reiterating that there is absolutely nothing to lose by complaining to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

oscar52

davidgmmafan wrote: »

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

People tried this already, unfortunately, the banks were not interested in helping out - perhaps if they had, people wouldnt be in the mess they are, and banks wouldnt have so many "bad debts".

Interesting you say people are trying "to screw them (the banks) out of cash" - this is what most people would say the banks were doing charging £35 for something that costs £3. (and lets not go to but its to teach you a lesson - thats old news on old threads)

Premier_2

MrLeeLee wrote: »

... but there are actually more avenues open for people trying to reclaim so it's not just a case of lets all give up.

Feel free to post details.

MSE Martin is paying through the nose for top legal advice and even his barrister can't put together a case yet.

As I posted before, it's over - forget it.

Or as MSE Martin posted before, ding, ding, round 2 ... unfortunately the challenger didn't even make it off the stool.

But come on MrLeeLee, don't keep it all to yourself, post away on details of how to get your bank charges back even though MSE Martin says there's only a chance by crossing your fingers but "the best thing to do is plan for getting nothing"

Darth_Thundercloud

Hi Premier - I'm sorry I don't understand. I am not posting under any other names and I am new to this forum. My "clueless" quotes are just what they mean to say. Some people who post on here are clueless.

Thanks

natweststaffmember

Darth_Thundercloud wrote: »

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.
Just to be absolutely certain here. The OFT will NOT look at price on charges and they won't go back on historical charges as that is up to the individual consumer. To be honest, a templated approach is not what the FOS want either but an individualised set of circumstances.
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.

Penalties in law is about whether you are penalised outside the working of the individual contract, so even if the bank stated that these were penalties for an item being returned unpaid, that does not in itself render it to be a penalty in legal terms.
In fact, I would agree with their judgement on that aspect.

natweststaffmember

Premier wrote: »

Feel free to post details.

MSE Martin is paying through the nose for top legal advice and even his barrister can't put together a case yet.
Is that why he has said that new templates are going to be ready in the 3rd week of January?
Considering we were waiting for the OFT to announce something which came late in the day and after the end of the current civil court session then it is reasonable to wait for the newer templates.
As I posted before, it's over - forget it.
As a regulator the OFT have kinda done that with regards to litigation and it has been the view of a number of campaigners that individuals rather than a collective litigation strategy was better. I wasn't within that group, I would add. UTCCR 1999 and regulation 5(1) and the grey list may well be tested by someone and that should lead to a referral to the ECJ for clarification. Had the SC simply said no under UTCCR 1999 reg 5 then I would probably be in total agreement with what you have said but even having said that I would still be giving further advice about dealing with the individuals creditors no matter how high their charges are or how much they want to take the bank to court.
Or as MSE Martin posted before, ding, ding, round 2 ... unfortunately the challenger didn't even make it off the stool.
The challenger was awaiting for a decision on round 1 since this is an unusal boxing match. I would add that round 1 went to the Banks' on a "technical" knockout
But come on MrLeeLee, don't keep it all to yourself, post away on details of how to get your bank charges back even though MSE Martin says there's only a chance by crossing your fingers but "the best thing to do is plan for getting nothing"

I am never so negative as to suggest that you will get nothing until the fat lady is singing karaoke....so far, she has just about got her clothes on cos I looked :o:o

Alpine_Star

Darth_Thundercloud wrote: »

Hi Premier - I'm sorry I don't understand. I am not posting under any other names and I am new to this forum.

It's a rather unfortunate methodology to use in debate isn't it? Kind of an 'assume, aim and fire' approach.

MrLeeLee

Premier wrote: »

Feel free to post details.

MSE Martin is paying through the nose for top legal advice and even his barrister can't put together a case yet.

As I posted before, it's over - forget it.

Or as MSE Martin posted before, ding, ding, round 2 ... unfortunately the challenger didn't even make it off the stool.

But come on MrLeeLee, don't keep it all to yourself, post away on details of how to get your bank charges back even though MSE Martin says there's only a chance by crossing your fingers but "the best thing to do is plan for getting nothing"

You love it don't you? You love coming on here giving it all the big 'all give up now! You will never get any money back! Hahahahahhah!' You're a bloody negative person arent you?

It's really pathetic, but deep down you know what you're doing is nothing more than what a little boy does when he gets no attention, don't you?

To be honest, you're an instantly forgettable person so I don't know the answer to this, but I'd be interested to find out if after the first two courts ruled against the banks if you were on these board spouting the same tedious rot you've been doing since the SC decision. I would guess you weren't, as now it's a lot easier for you to get a reaction.

It's been said many times why the fight isn't over and personally I can't wait for the new template letters, hopefully they are written pretty simply so even you can understand them.

Good luck with your negative attention seeking crusade.

Bristol_Bloke

I received my (pro-forma) letter today from Nat West to say they think they are well within their rights to take £700 in charges from me over a period of about 2 years.

My question is this. At the time I was on JSA only as I was out of work, is there any rule about the Banks taking their charges when your only income is JSA which must surely be the Government accepted "minimum to live on"?

I've been back in work for almost 3 years now thank goodness, but what really gets me about my charges were at times they took almost a fortnight's JSA in two failed D/Ds that had just gone over my OD.

Sorry to add it here, apologies if there is another more relevant thread - I'll read more, just wanted to A) rant ask for advice.

Any advice would be appreciated.

ILW

Bristol_Bloke wrote: »

I received my (pro-forma) letter today from Nat West to say they think they are well within their rights to take £700 in charges from me over a period of about 2 years.

My question is this. At the time I was on JSA only as I was out of work, is there any rule about the Banks taking their charges when your only income is JSA which must surely be the Government accepted "minimum to live on"?

I've been back in work for almost 3 years now thank goodness, but what really gets me about my charges were at times they took almost a fortnight's JSA in two failed D/Ds that had just gone over my OD.

Sorry to add it here, apologies if there is another more relevant thread - I'll read more, just wanted to A) rant ask for advice.

Any advice would be appreciated.

Just out of interest, why did you not stp the DDs at the time?