Report Bank Charges successes and failures

holding22

Bank name: HSBC
Amount Reclaimed: £1750
Amount they paid: £220

Thanks entirely to MSE, I wrote to HSBC about overdraft charges that worsened my financial hardship. Around three weeks later, £220 was refunded in to my account, made up of the last three months worth of charges. The letter received from HSBC stated that this was an exceptional goodwill gesture and there would be no further refunds, and that I could contact FOS but they hoped I would not find this necessary.

I'm pleased that they refunded this amount, as I expected nothing back. Should I be grateful for the gesture or continue correspondence?

[Deleted User]

holding22 wrote: »

Should I be grateful for the gesture or continue correspondence?

On what basis would you "continue correspondence"?

The Bank are under no obligation to refund anything, so if you refuse their offer they can withdraw it and you then get nothing.

Tiny_Tina

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

On what basis would you "continue correspondence"?

The Bank are under no obligation to refund anything, so if you refuse their offer they can withdraw it and you then get nothing.

The poster says they already have received the money in their bank account.

Can the bank really withdraw it without the poster's permission??? :huh:

[Deleted User]

Tiny_Tina wrote: »

The poster says they already have received the money in their bank account.

Ah, I missed that. That means the complaint is closed as far as the Bank is concerned. That's why there was mention of the OP's right to refer to the Ombudsman in their letter.

Tiny_Tina wrote: »

Can the bank really withdraw it without the poster's permission???

No, they can only withdraw the offer, not the money if it has already been paid.

CreditConvert

Lloyds Bank

Ammount Reclaimed: £342

Ammount They Paid Out: £300

Used the template letter on here to contact Lloyds Bank regarding several bank charges of £80 and £20 which were incurred Between April and August 2014 as a result of charges upon charges. I chose to ask only for the current tax year as prior to this i had only ever incurred the standard usage fee for my overdraft. I asked for the charges the overdraft fees and the interest i paid to be returned in full. Completed the letter in word and copied and pasted it into an online form to contact lloyds customer services did this around 4pm. The next day at 9.30am i missed a call on my phone from lloyds called back at 4pm that day when i got home went over the details of my letter was told i would get a call back within 2 hours as they had to go over my past transactions. Received a call back about 5.30pm was told they could not refund the £6.00 o/d usage Fees as they were a standard management fee and they could not refund the interest as it is standard banking practice to charge interest on borrowing, However they were willing to refund the charges which totalled £300 and the money would be in my account within 2 hours (it was there within 15 mins) furthermore they had fixed the account so that any future payments would not leave my account if there was not enough funds available between my money and my agreed overdraft. They also made it so my account would not incurr any charges for 3 months. One message and a phonecall got the desired result :T:money::j It would seem these banks do know that they are in the wrong and just hope you are not aware of this.

WorkingGirl

CreditConvert wrote: »

... It would seem these banks do know that they are in the wrong and just hope you are not aware of this.

The banks are not in the wrong.

They have simply acted sympathetically to you because of your declaration of financial hardship.

Alex444

Looks like the worm is turning:-

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?397677-Lloyds-Default-due-to-PENALTY-charges-going-to-court-under-BCOBS/page13

Alpine_Star

Alex444 wrote: »

Looks like the worm is turning:-

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?397677-Lloyds-Default-due-to-PENALTY-charges-going-to-court-under-BCOBS/page13

Indeed.

It's the first bank charges win in court for at least 7 years and neatly sidesteps the Supreme Court ruling.

Article http://legalbeagles.info/beagle-wins-bank-charge-case/

Judgment http://legalbeagles.info/judgment-foster-burnell-v-lloyds-bank-august-2014-bank-charges/

Aquamania

Alpine_Star wrote: »

Indeed.

It's the first bank charges win in court for at least 7 years and neatly sidesteps the Supreme Court ruling.

Article http://legalbeagles.info/beagle-wins-bank-charge-case/

Judgment http://legalbeagles.info/judgment-foster-burnell-v-lloyds-bank-august-2014-bank-charges/

Does it really sidestep the Supreme Court ruling?

According to LB, it appears the bank are almost certainly going to appeal the decision, and if past actions are anything to go by (and assuming Foster-Burnell have the stomach and ability to continue) won't this ultimately end up in the Supreme Court again (assuming the bank don't successfully appeal in a lower court in the meantime).

Alpine_Star

Aquamania wrote: »

Does it really sidestep the Supreme Court ruling?

According to LB, it appears the bank are almost certainly going to appeal the decision, and if past actions are anything to go by (and assuming Foster-Burnell have the stomach and ability to continue) won't this ultimately end up in the Supreme Court again (assuming the bank don't successfully appeal in a lower court in the meantime).

Yes there's no conflict with the Supreme Court decision.

From the judgment:

''It, therefore, seems to me that, rather than effectively
overruling the Supreme Court's ruling in the Test Case, the
ECJ has added a further dimension to the national Court's
approach to the application of Regulation 6(2) of the Unfair
Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 by ruling
that the exclusion of the provisions of that Regulation to the
terms of a contract to which it would otherwise apply is itself
to be excluded where those terms have the effect of enabling
the supplier to amend the price of its services provided to the
consumer without the reason for and the method of the
variation of the price, in particular, being set out, and without
the consumer having the right to terminate the contract. Or to
put it more straightforwardly, by saying that the Court can
now assess the fairness of such terms if that is their effect.''

It will almost certainly be the subject of appeal to the Court of Appeal and very possibly the Supreme Court thereafter.

Stomach and ability are not issues for the claimant.