Report Bank Charges successes and failures

jon_boy75

I'm requesting charges be refunded, totalling approx £1,000, but have no claim under financial hardship rules.

When they reject my claim, I will go straight to a court claim via Moneyclaim online, skipping the FOS altogether. I'm trying to pull together some of the new arguments for this.

Of course, it won't even get to court, but I'm sick of being messed around and overcharged by banks which are underwritten by our hard earned tax money.

Premier_2

jon_boy75 wrote: »

...Of course, it won't even get to court, but I'm sick of being messed around and overcharged by banks which are underwritten by our hard earned tax money.

So you feel you want to mess around our court system for which you will be charged hansomely? :cool:

Furthermore, if you are not careful, you may also find the court awarding yet more money to the company who you appear despise to due to your claim.

If you don't like the service offered by the company, don't use them. There's plenty of other alternatives out there for you to use.

xxxpaulaxxx

hi just wanted to say thanks to martin and this site and forum for all the advice given regarding charges!

i had a lloyds account which since opened in 2006 has had charges totaling around £2000. i tried getting my charges back in 2008 but it ws when all the cases were on hold so i never bothered. i managed to move to a new bank account and have been trying to pay my £2000 overdraft off slowly each month but due to illness and hardship i kept missing payments.

over the last 6 months i hadnt heard from them, then all of a sudden they advised my interest free overdraft had been reduced (grad account) and i was now over my limit and would be charged etc.

i looked on this site and as i believe i came under financial hardship i decided to call them and first ask if they could help as the charges have been unfair and as i dont use the account i just want it paying off asap so it can be closed.
I received a call today from a manager who asked about my situation over the last couple of years and why i was in hardship. i told him about my disability and how i was in and out of work due to it.
he looked through my account and advised due to my situation he would clear £1000 of my charges!:T:T

i did try and get a bit more just to be cheeky but he advised my other charges were purely due to overspending on my behalf.
(which i knew)
im so happy that this has now came off my overdraft and i am that much closer to clearing the account! i think ive been successful considering i didnt even get a chance to post my letter to them!

so thanks again!:money:

jon_boy75

Premier wrote: »

So you feel you want to mess around our court system for which you will be charged hansomely? :cool:

Furthermore, if you are not careful, you may also find the court awarding yet more money to the company who you appear despise to due to your claim.

If you don't like the service offered by the company, don't use them. There's plenty of other alternatives out there for you to use.

In what way would I be 'messing around the court system'? I will be fully prepared for this to go to court to have my arguments heard. I'm not assuming I will win or that I will receive any money.

If the judge decided the case had to be heard at a higher court, I would take that into consideration before proceeding. I'm well versed in the process having been to court previously over a seperate issue. That was settled after the initial hearing. The judge assumed I was in it to make money....until right at the end when I didn't claim a single £ in costs.

I have switched banks already.

zppp

jon_boy75 wrote: »

In what way would I be 'messing around the court system'? I will be fully prepared for this to go to court to have my arguments heard. I'm not assuming I will win or that I will receive any money.

I hope you are fully prepared to pay the costs of the bank's legal team if you lose too.

jon_boy75

zppp wrote: »

I hope you are fully prepared to pay the costs of the bank's legal team if you lose too.

I would not be required to pay legal costs for the defendant if i lost. This is a moneyclaim case in the first instance. If it was sent up to a higher court, that would change the game completely.

I'm interested in trying the new arguments. I'm not sure if anyone has done yet...?

Premier_2

jon_boy75 wrote: »

I would not be required to pay legal costs for the defendant if i lost. This is a moneyclaim case in the first instance. If it was sent up to a higher court, that would change the game completely.

I'm interested in trying the new arguments. I'm not sure if anyone has done yet...?

People have tried and most give up. I don't know of anyone that has succeeded. (I think there was a report of someone not on MSE who may have, I don't have the details, but the suggestion was it had a number of different, rather unique issues relating to that particular claim)

The issue is that such a claim is considered so important that it really should, if progressed to a conclusion, be used to set legal precident in the future.

That being the ase, the defendent will seek to not only defend it (so that takes it out of moneyclaimonline) but also out of the small claims/fast track court process and then if you don't win, the court will award all costs against you (including those of the defendent)

Premier_2

jon_boy75 wrote: »

...When they reject my claim, I will go straight to a court claim via Moneyclaim online, skipping the FOS altogether. I'm trying to pull together some of the new arguments for this.

Of course, it won't even get to court, but I'm sick of being messed around and overcharged by banks which are underwritten by our hard earned tax money.

jon_boy75 wrote: »

In what way would I be 'messing around the court system'? ...

Do some research into vexatious, malicious and or ill-founded claims

jon_boy75

Premier wrote: »

Do some research into vexatious, malicious and or ill-founded claims

I understand your point completely. What I mean is that it's unlikely first direct would allow this to get as far as court, considering the relatively small amount involved. I dont mean to give the impression I'm just doing it to waste their time (that's just a bonus). I truly believe this is a case that should be heard and tested again in court, not just for myself, but for everyone else that had their claims dismissed after the Supreme Court decision.

I will go ahead with every intention of going to court, and I believe from looking at the initial arguments (POC) suggested on this site, it would be very difficult for a court to deem it 'vexatious, malicious and or ill-founded'.

Premier_2

jon_boy75 wrote: »

I understand your point completely. What I mean is that it's unlikely first direct would allow this to get as far as court, considering the relatively small amount involved. I dont mean to give the impression I'm just doing it to waste their time (that's just a bonus). I truly believe this is a case that should be heard and tested again in court, not just for myself, but for everyone else that had their claims dismissed after the Supreme Court decision.

I will go ahead with every intention of going to court, and I believe from looking at the initial arguments (POC) suggested on this site, it would be very difficult for a court to deem it 'vexatious, malicious and or ill-founded'.

Based on the experiences of others who have posted here since the Supreme Court ruling in November 2009, and the subsequent decision of the OFT to not even try again to claim bank charges are unfair due to the unlikely chance of success, I can tell you the banks have always defended vigorously any allegation of their fees being unfair.

It's not the bank's decision as the defendant in any such action, but rather the complainant's that ultimately decides whether to pursue court action ... and at what stage to throw the towel in.
I would suggest, and this is hinted at in the MSE article, that the banks position would be more than willing to take it to any level necessary ... and presumably keep appealing until any allegation is finally heard by the Supreme Court.

That'll cost you a pretty penny or two ... :cool: