both template letters say the same?

englishsunseeker

Hi
I finaly got a reply from abbey advising they were not going to pay me anything back. (out of the £800 worth of charges).
I had used the first template letter from the site (thanks ml x), so this morning went to use the second template letter. However it reads exactly the same as the first, so am a little confused why Abbey would look at this letter any different?

Their reply on the FSA regulatory principle that..."at no time have the FSA suggested that the charges constitute the breach of the regulatory principle the letter mentions"

Re the lending code section 9..we are always willing to talk to our customers about any financially difficulty that they may be experiencing and there is guidance on our website" they then go on to add that i am free to ssek debt advice from them but this may effect my credit rating!":mad:


re the utccrs..."we believe that there is no valid legal basis on which the amount of charges can be challenged
the cca..."in light of the above findings (gave aresult of the supreme court, oft rejected cahllenge on this basis, and test case andrew smith) any challenge based on the clarity or complexity of the terms and conditions is bound to fail"

thus they have covered everything I am about to send in the second letter?? or am i missing something?

natweststaffmember

englishsunseeker wrote: »

Hi
I finaly got a reply from abbey advising they were not going to pay me anything back. (out of the £800 worth of charges).
I had used the first template letter from the site (thanks ml x), so this morning went to use the second template letter. However it reads exactly the same as the first, so am a little confused why Abbey would look at this letter any different?

Their reply on the FSA regulatory principle that..."at no time have the FSA suggested that the charges constitute the breach of the regulatory principle the letter mentions"

Re the lending code section 9..we are always willing to talk to our customers about any financially difficulty that they may be experiencing and there is guidance on our website" they then go on to add that i am free to ssek debt advice from them but this may effect my credit rating!":mad:


re the utccrs..."we believe that there is no valid legal basis on which the amount of charges can be challenged
the cca..."in light of the above findings (gave aresult of the supreme court, oft rejected cahllenge on this basis, and test case andrew smith) any challenge based on the clarity or complexity of the terms and conditions is bound to fail"

thus they have covered everything I am about to send in the second letter?? or am i missing something?

Are you claiming financial hardship?

englishsunseeker

yes, that I am in a vicious circle, struggling to clear my debts, everything i have claimed, they have simply replied with the above...

natweststaffmember

englishsunseeker wrote: »

yes, that I am in a vicious circle, struggling to clear my debts, everything i have claimed, they have simply replied with the above...

Do you have priority debt arrears(mortgage/rent. council tax, utilities)?
What caused the financial hardship?

englishsunseeker

The bank allowed me to go over the amount in my account, even if it was by a few pound, and charge 45. I ended up getting in a cycle where I would only manage to pay off the charges, I was also victim of a civil dispute from a trade person, the police were involved to track the guy down, but as he admitted he owed the money, the police have nothing more to do with it. The debt just kept growing.

natweststaffmember

englishsunseeker wrote: »

The bank allowed me to go over the amount in my account, even if it was by a few pound, and charge 45. I ended up getting in a cycle where I would only manage to pay off the charges, I was also victim of a civil dispute from a trade person, the police were involved to track the guy down, but as he admitted he owed the money, the police have nothing more to do with it. The debt just kept growing.

The bank did not cause your financial hardship. I said what caused the financial hardship which is defined as having not enough income to cover essential outgoings when they become due. Is the civil dispute the reason for the hardship?

Priority debt arrears question?