Please advise!!!

edited 30 November -1 at 1:00AM in Reclaim Bank & Credit Card Charges
20 replies 2K views
jaibabyjaibaby Forumite
4K Posts
Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
✭✭✭✭
So, as many others, put in a claim for the refund of my bank charges back in 2007. Of course, my claim was put on hold while the case went to court, where we lost. I recieved the standard "we are closing your claim" letter from Barclays Bank, pretty much the exact wording as others I have read on this forum.

So I put in the claim to the financial ombudsman.

Received a letter today saying "I consider the bank has treated you fairly."

(Even though one charge I highlighted was £30 for going overdrawn by £2!!)

It also states "The bank also says that it refunded £* in May 2009"
I did receive a cheque from them but they put in the letter accompanying the cheque that it was a goodwill gesture and would not be taken into account when the court case was finished.

I claimed financial hardship (which is why I received that cheque in the first place) and I am now totally stumped!!!! So any advice would be greatly appreciated :):)



(I apologise if this post is hard to follow, It's my first, I'm shattered and I have to be up in 6 hours!)
Thanks to all posters :A
«1

Replies

  • edited 29 April 2010 at 9:23AM
    Premier_2Premier_2 Forumite
    15.1K Posts
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 29 April 2010 at 9:23AM
    jaibaby wrote: »
    So, as many others, put in a claim for the refund of my bank charges back in 2007. Of course, my claim was put on hold while the case went to court, where we lost....

    So I put in the claim to the financial ombudsman....

    It also states "The bank also says that it refunded £* in May 2009"
    I did receive a cheque from them but they put in the letter accompanying the cheque that it was a goodwill gesture and would not be taken into account when the court case was finished.

    I claimed financial hardship (which is why I received that cheque in the first place) and I am now totally stumped!!!! So any advice would be greatly appreciated :):)



    (I apologise if this post is hard to follow, It's my first, I'm shattered and I have to be up in 6 hours!)

    What was the basis of your claim back in 2007?

    If it was one of financial hardship, then your claim should not have been put on hold.

    If based on a legal argument, then the bank said "it was a goodwill gesture and would not be taken into account when the court case was finished". That clearly relates to a legal claim. The FOS say they will not consider claims for bank charges refunds since November based on 'legalese'. You need to go to court to enforce such an argument as the banks won't agree to it since they consider they won back in November.

    Or did you put in a claim later for financial hardship? As you said, the money from the bank was a 'goodwill gesture', not any action because of your claim of financial hardship, so there is no admittance on their part of your claim for financial hardship.
    Surely you realise that anyone (including the FOS) assessing whether you are in financial hardship will look at all your incomings & outgoings ... and that includes goodwill gestures paid to you by the bank.
    "Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 2010
  • jaibabyjaibaby Forumite
    4K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭
    Premier wrote: »
    What was the basis of your claim back in 2007?

    If it was one of financial hardship, then your claim should not have been put on hold.

    If based on a legal argument, then the bank said "it was a goodwill gesture and would not be taken into account when the court case was finished". That clearly relates to a legal claim. The FOS say they will not consider claims for bank charges refunds since November based on 'legalese'. You need to go to court to enforce such an argument as the banks won't agree to it since they consider they won back in November.

    Or did you put in a claim later for financial hardship? As you said, the money from the bank was a 'goodwill gesture', not any action because of your claim of financial hardship, so there is no admittance on their part of your claim for financial hardship.
    Surely you realise that anyone (including the FOS) assessing whether you are in financial hardship will look at all your incomings & outgoings ... and that includes goodwill gestures paid to you by the bank.


    I originally (and regretably) filed the claim with Portal Claims, so I'm unsure about the basis. I received a Financial Hardship form at the end of 2008 and received the cheque in 2009. The FOS haven't even asked me for a detailed incomings and outgoings, so is there anyway they can look at them without me sending it to them?

    It seems strange that back in 2007, before the case went to court, banks rushed out and paid millions back. Now everyone seems to be turned away for it. I am completely stuck :(
    Thanks to all posters :A
  • edited 29 April 2010 at 11:45AM
    Premier_2Premier_2 Forumite
    15.1K Posts
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 29 April 2010 at 11:45AM
    jaibaby wrote: »
    ...It seems strange that back in 2007, before the case went to court, banks rushed out and paid millions back. Now everyone seems to be turned away for it. I am completely stuck :(

    They paid out purely as a gesture of goodwill without admitting any liability... until everybody seemed to jump on the gravy train . This was because at the beginning, it was cheaper to settle any claim than employ expensive legal advisors trying to defend any action.

    In the end, with so many people were claiming in the belief they would always paid out, the banks stopped paying out and preferred to pay the cost of defending themselves (and I think even paid the OFT their costs despite the banks winning the legal challenge made against them).

    And it's the same argument that can now be used as to why the banks would rather you go to the FOS than pay you out automatically. They realise that once precident is set that they will pay out without justification, millions join the gravy train to exploit the situation :(
    Now the banks only pay out on the rare occassions they fee it is truelly justified. That to my knowledge has never been based on any legal argument since the won in November, and based on the number of posts on this forum, is often not the case in a large number of claims for financial hardship. (which people have mistakenly jumped on, believing to be the magical buzz-word to ensure payout)
    "Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 2010
  • natweststaffmembernatweststaffmember Forumite
    12.1K Posts
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Premier wrote: »
    They paid out purely as a gesture of goodwill without admitting any liability... until everybody seemed to jump on the gravy train . This was because at the beginning, it was cheaper to settle any claim than employ expensive legal advisors trying to defend any action.

    In the end, with so many people were claiming in the belief they would always paid out, the banks stopped paying out and preferred to pay the cost of defending themselves (and I think even paid the OFT their costs despite the banks winning the legal challenge made against them).
    Each side paid their own costs
    And it's the same argument that can now be used as to why the banks would rather you go to the FOS than pay you out automatically. They realise that once precident is set that they will pay out without justification, millions join the gravy train to exploit the situation :(
    Precedent cannot be set in the lower courts ie County Court.
    Now the banks only pay out on the rare occassions they fee it is truelly justified. That to my knowledge has never been based on any legal argument since the won in November, and based on the number of posts on this forum, is often not the case in a large number of claims for financial hardship. (which people have mistakenly jumped on, believing to be the magical buzz-word to ensure payout)

    ..............................
    I have not worked for NatWest Bank since February 2009

    This username is no longer active.
  • edited 29 April 2010 at 4:11PM
    Premier_2Premier_2 Forumite
    15.1K Posts
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 29 April 2010 at 4:11PM
    Each side paid their own costs

    Ah yes, that was it. Each party paid their own costs with a pre-agreement that no application would be made for the winning side to ask the losing side to pay all costs as is usually the case.
    Precedent cannot be set in the lower courts ie County Court.


    Legal precedent, true, but I was speaking of precedent in general (and in this case not even involving a court at all) :)
    "Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 2010
  • Alpine_StarAlpine_Star Forumite
    1.3K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭
    Premier wrote: »
    ....despite the banks winning the legal challenge made against them).

    Can't you get anything right?

    There was no ''legal challenge made against them''. It was the banks that initiated the test case, not the OFT.
  • jaibabyjaibaby Forumite
    4K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭
    Ok, all i asked for was some advice. Which step to take next. I don't understand the legal jargon of it all. Thanks to all those who have left comments, but I still don't know what to do
    Thanks to all posters :A
  • jaibaby wrote: »
    Ok, all i asked for was some advice. Which step to take next. I don't understand the legal jargon of it all. Thanks to all those who have left comments, but I still don't know what to do

    Best thing to do is quit while you're behind. FOS (the 'Consumer Champions') have not found in your favour, The OFT lost in Court, if you take your bank to Court then the likelyhood is that you will lose after a load of effort on your part.

    Sorry if you think that's blunt - but that's the way i see it.
    We've spent decades teaching people about their rights, but nothing about their responsibilities.
  • natweststaffmembernatweststaffmember Forumite
    12.1K Posts
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Best thing to do is quit while you're behind. FOS (the 'Consumer Champions') have not found in your favour, The OFT lost in Court, if you take your bank to Court then the likelyhood is that you will lose after a load of effort on your part.
    If you don't understand the legal stuff then you will lose in court. If you take the time to read it then yes you can win. The OFT lost the collective challenge argument based on the fees being excessive or penalties(for the OP)
    Sorry if you think that's blunt - but that's the way i see it.

    Apologies CS2 but added to your post in light of their post as well.
    I have not worked for NatWest Bank since February 2009

    This username is no longer active.
  • jaibabyjaibaby Forumite
    4K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭
    Ok many thanks all :(
    Thanks to all posters :A
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides

A guide to council tax bands

Lower your band & save £1,000s

MSE Guides

Cinema MoneySaving tips & tricks

Including year's 2for1 movies for £1

MSE Deals