Co-Op getting annoyed with refunds...?

rchrisp

i got a phone call today from Smile to tell me that a cheque had just tipped me over my limit today (first one in months) and thus they wanted my cards and books back for my Smile current account and Co-Op credit card.

i explained that my wages were due to go in tomorrow etc, but they wouldnt budge. They referred to my refunds numerous times. :mad:

Lets hope A&L approve me.

M_Thomson

rchrisp wrote:

Lets hope A&L approve me.

I doubt it if you go over your limit and incur charges.

Mikeyorks

One assumes that 'refunds' .... relates to your claiming a refund of Bank Charges?

Having done so ..... why should you be surprised at this reaction, if you then repeat the abuse of the T&Cs that led to the charges in the first place.

CopperPlate_2

I can see the OP's frustration, but at the end of the day, this is the subject of countless threads - smile have refunded the previous charges, but at the same time are sending you a message "you've got one over on us once, you'll not do it again" and as you've breached your limit, they've acted (perhaps very severely) and taken away the chance for you to do it again.

You can't have two bites at the cherry.

kenshaz

If they are responding in that manner,because you have claimed back illegal charges ,they are behaving in a totally unprofessional way,we are talking about an institution and as such I cannot believe that they would behave in such a petty and vindictive manner,perhaps there are other reasons,analyze your circumstances and statements .I am sure that if it was proved that they had responded in such a manner action could be taken against them ,but I suspect they are reacting to another matter.If they are treating you differently to other customers,then that is unfair and unreasonable.
I suggest ,if you are convinced,that you have been dealt with in a biased action,you report this to the regulator. Because this takes away your fundamental rights,irrespective of terms and conditions which do not over-ride injustice.

roswell

I would say if this happens every month they are probably taking off you due to "Miss use" in the T&C`s

bengal-stripe

kenshaz wrote:

If they are responding in that manner,because you have claimed back illegal charges ,they are behaving in a totally unprofessional way,

No, they behaving in this manner because their customer went overdrawn unauthorised (not for the first time). So what should any bank do: they have refunded and the same circle of over-the-limit or failed-direct-debits starts again?

Should they charge that customer (the bank had never agreed not to charge) and then allow the whole thing to repeat? Should they give the customer carte blanche? Or just get rid of him/her?

In Germany where penalty charges are not allowed (that has been decided by the federal court), banks are ruthless in closing accounts of customers who do not play by the rules. It seems to work. Everybody worries about the possibility their account could be closed.

“Nothing concentrates the mind of a man more than the knowledge he will be executed in the morning.”
(Samuel Johnson)

oldwiring

bengal-stripe I hope the story of Germany brings some reality to peoples' minds. There is an old saying, 'sow the wind; reap the whirlwind'. Let's be honest. It is misconduct of accounts that caused the charges in the first place.Although the banks are thought wrong in levelling penalty charges. some charges are due for the additional costs of operating delinquent accounts, so by the refunding the penalties in full those deliquent accounts are making a loss. Can one truly wonder then, that banks are weeding out accounts and applying stricter criteria to opening new ones? I also ask. if the advice to claim back all unfair charges was really wise. Perhaps a more emollient approach, that asked for them to be reduced to, say, the £12 cited in respect of credit cards would have been better.

dchurch24

...or, if the bank had disclosed it's true costs, then the OP could have paid that instead, and the bank wouldn't have made a loss, rather just broken even (as is allowed by law).

oldwiring

dchurch24 wrote:

...or, if the bank had disclosed it's true costs, then the OP could have paid that instead, and the bank wouldn't have made a loss, rather just broken even (as is allowed by law).

Your point is not unaccepted, but sometimes compromise is the better way in many disputes. I'd say that as the great majority of customers manage accounts properly and banks are often parts of international bodies, the loss of some of the misbehavers and any problems they have in getting an alternative service will not worry them.

dchurch24

But to compromise would be to condone the bank flouting basic contract law - perhaps 'aiding and abetting' even - if the bank knowingly flouted the law and continued to do it in any case, then it becomes a criminal matter.

To compromise would be turning a blind eye to a criminal offence, to put it in context.

If the OP had paid the amount the breach had cost them, then no-one has lost any money. All the OP has done is force them to abide by law, which can surely be no bad thing? I understand that the bank would not be happy to not make any money from his breach of contract, but the law is the law and for the bank to stop doing business with him simply because they now have to abide by the law with this customer is shocking to say the least.

It's reasons like this that we have the OFT and FSA supposedly. Sadly, they are bowing to the banks pressure - probably because MPs have shares in the banks.