lloyds tsb charges, plus md contact

the_insider

mikeandrach wrote: »

i would have thought that they would go to the post office to collect letters for data protection reasons, as it could be a confidential letter? i'm not worried about the harassment issue, i wont put my details anywhere on or in the envelope. i am prepared to sink to almost any level of spite/petty behaviour to cost them as much as they are costing me. i wont do anything illegal, but i am hellbent on costing them as much money as humanly possible.

If you are planning on costing them as much as they are costing you surely you need to figure out something which will cost them £1.00 per month? Perhaps you could move the plantpots outside one of the branches or something? Or is that too petty, even for you?

natweststaffmember

the_insider wrote: »

If you are planning on costing them as much as they are costing you surely you need to figure out something which will cost them £1.00 per month? Perhaps you could move the plantpots outside one of the branches or something? Or is that too petty, even for you?

Come on, the_insider, that is a bit harsh. We did that convo with the OP and simply said that they needed to focus on something else which they appear to have done. What people write on the forum and what they would do is entirely different.
Let's try and keep things positive cos you normally are on this forum

mikeandrach_2

thanks for your support natwest. the_insider, yes, i am prepared to be petty, but i don't need even more petty people making comments like yours. i am working 40+ hours per week, driving 3 hours per day (at my own expense) for a job i hate just to earn a living. i can only be pushed so far financially, and when i reach snap point instead of doing something stupid, and without the option of fighting any expensive battles, i will do what little i can to help damage them. petty, desperate, immature, stupid, call it what you like, but its my way of dealing with it and it is my stress release. if we all did what i have suggested, maybe, just maybe, they would actually take notice, although granted, i doubt it.

the_insider

I'm sure they would take notice but I don't see how it would improve your situation. There are a number of procedures in place to help customers who are struggling and as it looks like FOS have agreed that the bank has taken sufficient steps to assist you maybe it's time to channel your energy into something a bit more positive?

davidgmmafan

Just because there are procedures in place doesn't mean they are effective of fit for purpose. The hardship clauses in the FSA waiver is a prime example of this. I recall the FOS saying firms were basically ignoring the guidance.

I still think the banks are having a laugh at their customers expense which I guess is fine if they don't do harm ie people are not driven extreme difficulties financially or have this health adversely afffected.

Just because the Supreme Court decided in thier favour, does not change my mind on this. I do not buy the service fees argument one bit, probably because it was explained in internal documents at Nationwide as we incur costs and that's why we charge.

That and what they argued in the Supreme Court can't both be true.

natweststaffmember

davidgmmafan wrote: »

Just because there are procedures in place doesn't mean they are effective of fit for purpose. The hardship clauses in the FSA waiver is a prime example of this. I recall the FOS saying firms were basically ignoring the guidance.

I still think the banks are having a laugh at their customers expense which I guess is fine if they don't do harm ie people are not driven extreme difficulties financially or have this health adversely afffected.
David, I think many people give the banks' more credit for what they allegedly think/do than the reality.
Just because the Supreme Court decided in thier favour, does not change my mind on this.
When did this happen? The Supreme Court did not say that charges are fair, they said that you cannot argue price/level of the charges. Surely you know that bit
I do not buy the service fees argument one bit, probably because it was explained in internal documents at Nationwide as we incur costs and that's why we charge.
What we said to customer was what we were told to say to customers. It doesn't mean that those things were right but if you argue price/level of charge you will lose any case based on the SC judgement. Remember the wording of UTCCR 1999, section 5(1). Forget the grey list and just look at the wording of the legislation.
That and what they argued in the Supreme Court can't both be true.

David, the SC ruled on a narrow piece of law but read UTCCR 1999, 5(1) because the banks' failed to get a declaration on that and did not appeal it either.

mikeandrach_2

theinsider, i never said that positng unstamped envelopes willimprove my position, it will just hurt lloyds a little, in the same way they are hurting us.

thanks for the helpful replies. i am prepared to wait until friday lunchtime for my promised callback from lloyds, then i will chase them up. hopefully will hear sooner though.

i am determined not to give up on this matter, i realise i may never win, but maybe if more people were equally as persisitent we would all get somewhere. i've emailed my local (tory) mp, and pointed out that the lib dem manifesto states they will help people get bank charges back. i told him that i want t vote tory, but unless they come out with a similair promise i will have to vote lib dem, his pa replied and said he was going to write to me so it will be interesting to see his repsonse.

davidgmmafan

I will be raising this issue if I can find any kind of debate with my local candidates.

I know the SC didn't judge the charges fair, and didn't really say that they weren't unfair, rather that under that law they couldn't be assessed for fairness. However the banks appear to have been emboldened by that decision, execpt in cases where they've not shot at getting the debt paid.

I guess my frustration frankly is because of a loud of inter-related things, the main one being the banks refusal to treat their customer like adults. Instead of just saying ok its a fair cop, we were going overboard there, the good times are over. They still want to return as business as usual, with customer as powerless pawns in whatever unfair game they want to play.

I wish I had ur faith that they will eventually lose, they're a very powerful group you know as evidenced by their winning the media battle when still engaging in heinous activities.

natweststaffmember

davidgmmafan wrote: »

I will be raising this issue if I can find any kind of debate with my local candidates.

I know the SC didn't judge the charges fair, and didn't really say that they weren't unfair, rather that under that law they couldn't be assessed for fairness. However the banks appear to have been emboldened by that decision, execpt in cases where they've not shot at getting the debt paid.
They basically said that you could not challenge them for the level of the charges or the that they are excessive.
I guess my frustration frankly is because of a loud of inter-related things, the main one being the banks refusal to treat their customer like adults. Instead of just saying ok its a fair cop, we were going overboard there, the good times are over. They still want to return as business as usual, with customer as powerless pawns in whatever unfair game they want to play.
I don't share your viewpoint.
I wish I had ur faith that they will eventually lose, they're a very powerful group you know as evidenced by their winning the media battle when still engaging in heinous activities.

In the next few weeks Legal Beagles are going to publish legal opinion from Anthony Scrivener, QC. I'm not going to tell you what is in there because it will be published on the site but if it had said that bank charges reclaiming were COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY OVER then I would be disappointed and only saying you can claim under financial hardship. You will get to read it in full on that site when it is published but as far as I am concerned, the fat lady has just sat down again

mikeandrach_2

never thought i would say this, but our balance of -£916 is now 0 and a cheque for £1124 is on its way!!