Succesfully claimed charges from HSBC once (2007) can I reclaim for 2007 - Present?

dougle_turbo

I succesfully claimed my bank charges from HSBC in early 2007 and recieved the cash mid 2007. Since claiming them back they (HSBC) have been taking bank charges from me as they were before. Can i make a second claim (for 2007-present?)

Thanks

Doug

natweststaffmember

dougle_turbo wrote: »

I succesfully claimed my bank charges from HSBC in early 2007 and recieved the cash mid 2007. Since claiming them back they (HSBC) have been taking bank charges from me as they were before. Can i make a second claim (for 2007-present?)

Thanks

Doug

Yes you can. I have to make the comment that I am surprised that it has happened again with the same bank since after the first time it has happened and you start the process, you should be able to be a bit more savvy to avoid further charges.

Premier_2

natweststaffmember wrote: »

... I am surprised that it has happened again with the same bank since after the first time it has happened and you start the process, you should be able to be a bit more savvy to avoid further charges.

Some people may think of that as harsh ... but then some people often find the truth hard to accept.

The OP should perhaps familiarise themselves with Martin's latest guide to reclaiming bank charges, if they have not already done so
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/bank-charges

There it explains that whilst reclaiming bank charges was often simply a case of asking for them back, those days are well and truly over.

Of course, as the article says, the chance of successful reclaiming increases if someone claims on the basis of financial hardship, but based on the lending code (link in your signature) there is an onus on the customer to help themselves ... and it could certainly be argued that having already having had the charges refunded once, to carry on incurring such charges later is probably not helping oneself.

dougle_turbo

I agree with both of the comments above, however it isn't always that easy to avoid these charges. Whilst what I have been charged (£200ish) is only a fraction of the £2900 i got back in 2007, I am of the view that should they should have re-accessed just how mch money they were charging peolple.

Therefore I want to proceed as a matter of principle, not for the cash. These banks should have learnt a lesson, why give them an easy ride?

Anyone got a suggestion on how to proceed as this a second claim? Should I even mention the first claim etc?

Thanks

Doug

confused90

The only exception to what premier is saying above would be if your circumstances have changed for the worse since 2007 causing you financial hardship.

Otherwise, if you are not in financial hardship i'd expect your bank to point blank refuse your reclaim as this seems to be standard practise since the banks won their test case.

confused90

dougle_turbo wrote: »

I agree with both of the comments above, however it isn't always that easy to avoid these charges. Whilst what I have been charged (£200ish) is only a fraction of the £2900 i got back in 2007, I am of the view that should they should have re-accessed just how mch money they were charging peolple.

Therefore I want to proceed as a matter of principle, not for the cash. These banks should have learnt a lesson, why give them an easy ride?

Anyone got a suggestion on how to proceed as this a second claim? Should I even mention the first claim etc?

Thanks

Doug

on what basis should the banks have learnt a lesson? they won their legal case..

and most banks have changed how they apply charges, they charge by the day for being in an un-aranged overdraft, it can work out much, much more expensive than the old charging system but they can charge what they like.

i think in light of how the test case panned out it us that now needs to learn a lesson, that lesson being that we can not afford to rely on our weak government to protect us from unfair treatment from financial institutions as they allow banks to operate outside of unfair contract legislation.
The only defense is to be vigilant, thats why i now monitor all my bank accounts online routinely, i check them every day in the morning and every night, i monitor all direct debits and if ever one can't be covered i make sure i cancell it, the banks want to charge you, it makes them billions a year in profits, it is upto us to stop them having the opportunity.

dougle_turbo

I agree and am now very vigilant when it comes to my bank accounts. Unfortunately in my line of work I am often a long way from internet access for months at a time, so these things can and do happen.

If I can’t get the money refunded perhaps i can tie up some of their admin staff for a while, perhaps costing them about £200....or perhaps this is a little cruel!?

natweststaffmember

confused90 wrote: »

on what basis should the banks have learnt a lesson? they won their legal case..
They won on two points: (1) Price/level and (2) penalties in law. They didn't win on fairness and in fact it was the Supreme Court themselves that suggested that UTCCR 1999 and Regulation 5 might be the route that would be successful(the banks failed in their attempt to get a declaration under Reg 5).
and most banks have changed how they apply charges, they charge by the day for being in an un-aranged overdraft, it can work out much, much more expensive than the old charging system but they can charge what they like.
The OFT still have concerns about the current charging system and they believed that a collective challenge in the courts would not help them to change the current system of charging ie where one charge produces another one in particular. That is currently being discussed with the banks and consumer groups including MSE.
i think in light of how the test case panned out it us that now needs to learn a lesson, that lesson being that we can not afford to rely on our weak government to protect us from unfair treatment from financial institutions as they allow banks to operate outside of unfair contract legislation.
Unfortunately, the Law does not at present support your position in this regards. Until a precedent is set then the banks are currently(legally speaking) within the law.
The only defense is to be vigilant, thats why i now monitor all my bank accounts online routinely, i check them every day in the morning and every night, i monitor all direct debits and if ever one can't be covered i make sure i cancell it, the banks want to charge you, it makes them billions a year in profits, it is upto us to stop them having the opportunity.

Your last point is mistaken. As you have already stated the banks have changed their charges and lowered them. You give the banks credit for more than they deserve. A computer program makes the decision as to whether to pay or not pay an item based on either a customer instruction directly in the sense of card payments and standing orders or on behalf of the customer when a DD provider asks for payment with a valid agreement. The bank does not think and is not a thinking being. Banks do not want to charge anyone but the fact they do says a lot about how people themselves may not take the actions that you now take.

natweststaffmember

dougle_turbo wrote: »

I agree and am now very vigilant when it comes to my bank accounts. Unfortunately in my line of work I am often a long way from internet access for months at a time, so these things can and do happen.

If I can’t get the money refunded perhaps i can tie up some of their admin staff for a while, perhaps costing them about £200....or perhaps this is a little cruel!?

It's a waste of time, yes but feel free to waste about 2 minutes of their time sending back a templated letter of rejection, lol.