Report Bank Charges successes and failures

dunstonh

so after going through all the steps i was declined a refund by the ombudsman which im currently waiting for a second opinion on.

Why are you doing that when you know the FOS has not intervened since the banks won the bank charges court case in 2009?

This whole process has taken around 18 months and im at the very last stage and it is not looking promising.

As there have only been two known successes since 2009 (both involving unusual circumstances), you must have known that failure was the most likely option.

[Deleted User]

dunstonh wrote: »

Why are you doing that when you know the FOS has not intervened since the banks won the bank charges court case in 2009?

What are you gibbering on about? The FOS can and should still intervene in certain circumstances. Would you like me to copy and paste the relevant text directly from the FOS website for your perusal? You are even contradicting what Martin Lewis has said on the matter and I don't think this is the first time I have had to set you straight either. Bret's case, involving sky-high charges on just a few pounds of debt, is a classic example of where the FOS ought to step in. :mad:

dunstonh wrote: »

As there have only been two known successes since 2009 (both involving unusual circumstances), you must have known that failure was the most likely option.

You are talking about court cases, not FOS cases, aren't you? What on earth has any of that got to with with Bret going to the FOS? For the record, they weren't 'unusual' cases at all, in terms of substance, they just had new angles of attack. Are you connected to the banks in any way at all? I have very serious concerns about some of your rhetoric to be honest.

bret_wright wrote: »

Hello all! after being charged between £80 - £120 pm for being a few pounds over my o/d which totaled to just over £2100 i was offered a good will gesture of £80 but i felt that was still completely unfair considering the total amount and the cheek of them charging me another £15 for me requesting my past bank statement to begin with! so after going through all the steps i was declined a refund by the ombudsman which im currently waiting for a second opinion on. This whole process has taken around 18 months and im at the very last stage and it is not looking promising. Anyway that's my situation please keep your fingers crossed for me lol. i wish you all the best of luck.

Hey there. You did the right thing trying to fight back. Unfortunately, the FOS is not fit for purpose and all too often finds in favour of the banks, when it certainly shouldn't do. See here, about a recent Channel 4 'Dispatches' investigation, for what I already knew myself:

http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/investigation-at-fos-finds-staff-with-severe-lack-of-training

What alarmed me most, from watching the documentary, was hearing FOS Investigators openly talking about having to 'persuade the banks' to accept any decisions against them! Eh? They are supposed to look at all of the evidence and make a decision; not think that a consumer 'might' have a case, then check if the banks will go along with it. Ha ha ha. Moreover, anywhere I go online, it also seems that there is invariably someone working for the banks, when it comes to disseminating their false narratives.

At the end of the day, it is quite rare for an FOS Ombudsman to overrule an FOS Investigator.. Therefore, after you likely get turned down, I would strongly recommend you forward your case on to Baroness Altmann. She was visibly shocked by some of her recent discoveries and is currently in the process of putting the FOS under further scrutiny. Good luck.

https://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/baroness-altmann/4533

P.S. Quite how the banks managed to get their lame argument through the 'very honest' Supreme Court is totally beyond me, but I think it will take more than a few people to sort that one out.

[Deleted User]

Deleted_User wrote: »

I don't think this is the first time I have had to set you straight either.

I'd just like to point out this is a discussion forum.

Thanks for the contribution of your opinion on this matter.

Others are, of course, free to agree or disagree as they see fit.

dunstonh

The FOS can and should still intervene in certain circumstances. Would you like me to copy and paste the relevant text directly from the FOS website for you perusal?

You mean the bit on its website where they say they dont consider unfair bank charge complaints any more?

You are even contradicting what Martin Lewis has said on the matter and I don't think this is the first time I have had to set you straight either. Bret's case, involving sky high charges on just a few pounds of debt, is a classic example of where the FOS ought to step in.

You dont really get it do you. Try again

I have very serious concerns about some of your rhetoric to be honest.

Never mind dear boy. Read up on the subject and you will understand it better.

[Deleted User]

dunstonh wrote: »

You mean the bit on its website where they say they dont consider unfair bank charge complaints any more?

No, I do not.

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

I'd just like to point out this is a discussion forum. Thanks for the contribution of your opinion on this matter. Others are, of course, free to agree or disagree as they see fit.

Well, I like to stick to the source material on the FOS website.

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

If your statements show expensive monthly payments to a mobile phone provider, subscription television, gym membership or even shopping at Waitrose these are all examples of simply spending beyond your means. If your statements show no such luxury, and the Bank agree that you are in (their definition of) Financial Hardship then you might reasonably expect the Bank to refund (some) charges-typically those in the last six months.

Ha ha ha. So, you are trying to suggest anyone who has a mobile phone contract, TV subscription, gym membership or shops at Waitrose should not apply. You will probably try to make out that I am being mean to you, but according to the FOS, who ultimately dish out the verdicts, that is plain wrong. Let us just say that you have made a 'common misunderstanding' then.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/financial-hardship-unaffordable-lending.htm

Common misunderstandings.

'Consumers who spend money on things like satellite TV are obviously not in genuine financial difficulty.'

No. Lenders should look properly at the consumer's individual circumstances before reaching any conclusions about their income and outgoings. It is not generally helpful to pick on individual items of expenditure in isolation, as that will rarely convey the full picture of the consumer's financial position and commitments.

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

It is the most "up-to-date" template. Unfortunately, it's prefaced by an article clearly stating that it should be used only by people in CURRENT FINANCIAL HARDSHIP. Anyone simply seeking a refund of historical bank charges will be flatly denied .

It all depends what you mean by 'historical'. This is from the FOS website. If it can be established that any financial hardship has existed continuously over a long time, then the FOS will look back over any period up to 6 years. I have had this confirmed by the FOS myself.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/faq/bank-charges.html

But in keeping with our usual approach to complaints that are referred to us, we will review each case individually - to see whether there are any one-off circumstances that may apply. For example, we would expect current-account providers to deal positively and sympathetically with a consumer in financial hardship - including where bank charges had added to their difficulties.

[Deleted User]

Deleted_User wrote: »

It all depends what you mean by 'historical'. This is from the FOS website. If it can be established that any financial hardship has existed continuously over a long time, then the FOS will look back over any period up to 6 years.

My posts on this thread are overwhelmingly in response to people who want to recover Bank Charges from many years back.

dunstonh

It all depends what you mean by 'historical'. This is from the FOS website. If it can be established that any financial hardship has existed continuously over a long time, then the FOS will look back over any period up to 6 years. I have had this confirmed by the FOS myself.

If the person is in current financial hardship and has been continuous, then the banks may consider going back further in time depending on the severity. If they are not currently in financial hardship, then no goodwill gesture from the bank is necessary to help them get out of current financial hardship.

This thread is about reclaiming of "unfair" bank charges. Not financial hardship cases.

Nasqueron

[QUOTE=Deleted_User;74406269
snip][/QUOTE]

You're confusing historical bank charges / "unfair" charges with current financial hardship.

No need to write massive posts - banks have to consider people in current financial hardship, this includes living hand to mouth, charges causing more charges etc. Someone who claims hardship but is spending large sums on sky tv, phone contracts, eating out, buying clothes in fancy shops is not in hardship so doesn't have to be considered if they are unwilling to work with the bank's financial support team.

Banks do NOT have to consider old claims for charges relating to periods where they were having trouble but are no longer

Banks do NOT have to consider claims for "unfair" charges since the 2009 supreme court case win

Tombo

Bank name: Natwest
Amount Reclaimed: £104
Amount they paid: £104 + they also cancelled a charge I was about to receive after sending my letter (as they were about to charge me again for being over when I was only over due to them charging me on this ocassion)
The story: I used the template from the MSE article on the topic and adjusted it to my situation of being on ESA and having health issues and a difficult year and they refunded the charges

Vixsyclark

Can anyone help, has anyone had any success with American express ppi claims, ?