Reclaiming Bank Charges - Working Lunch

The_Aquapanther

Working lunch have just been talking about this.
Apparently there is a case being heard today where a woman is suing Abbey.

She claimed for £405 penalty charges. Abbey paid this, however she also claimed for £500 due to the distress caused. Abbey have challenged this and it has gone to court.

Interesting to see what happens..........

The_Aquapanther

Just heard - she lost the case.

Right decision IMO.

Her lawer was on the program saying her finances were screwed up for 'Many Weeks'!
I hate it when people get too greedy and try to milk everything for as much as they can. Just ends up costing them (and us) more in the long run!

Red_Panda_2

Really it makes them as bad as the banks in the first place.
The whole point is reclaiming bank charges that have been unlawfully taken from you, to then try to charge them on top for other things puts you on the same level.

elliehenny777

couldn't agree more!

dexters_mum_2

I think she was too greedy to go for her charges AND compensation!

BettyB_3

I didn't see that programme so cannot comment on her case and perhaps it was greedy of her. However, I think that the banks need to at least be made to acknowledge the pain and suffering that has been caused by these charges. Someone I know had a repossession order on their house and was days from losing it due to unlawful penalty charges on a £5000 secured loan that they had not even been informed about. The effects of this kind of stress on an individual's health, family and relationships cannot be measured or even compensated but it should be recognised at least.

Ropey_3

I think the problem here was a lawyer who wanted more court expenses. It has no bearing on getting your charges back.

Any time lawyers get involved, it seems to go wrong.

Richard_Hodgey

There is a case to be made for people who banks and other financial institutions have, frankly, made their lives hell when chasing down a debt. The way they go about it is just nasty and they should be made to pay for it. I don't think it's greed at all.

I say take them for every penny you can get out of them because they would do it to you without a second thought.

There just isn't any moral high ground to be had here.

BettyB_3

Ropey wrote:

I think the problem here was a lawyer who wanted more court expenses. It has no bearing on getting your charges back.

Any time lawyers get involved, it seems to go wrong.

I don't know which case you are referring to but it certainly wasn't my friend's. In his case there was no lawyer involved on his side. It had EVERYTHING to do with getting his charges back. Following a botched operation he was unable to work and so, when the charges plus interest(several thousand pounds) were demanded at the end of the loan term, he was in no position to pay them. A repossession order was granted on his house and he only managed to get a 'stay of execution' when he commenced proceedings against his lender. The only additional expenses added were his court fees.

Please don't make assumptions.

In his case the banks are still paying because it lead him to set up Consumer Corner which is now helping others to reclaim penalty charges, unlawfully high ERP's and missold PPI's.

Ropey_3

BettyB wrote:

I don't know which case you are referring to but it certainly wasn't my friend's. In his case there was no lawyer involved on his side. It had EVERYTHING to do with getting his charges back. Following a botched operation he was unable to work and so, when the charges plus interest(several thousand pounds) were demanded at the end of the loan term, he was in no position to pay them. A repossession order was granted on his house and he only managed to get a 'stay of execution' when he commenced proceedings against his lender. The only additional expenses added were his court fees.

Please don't make assumptions.

In his case the banks are still paying because it lead him to set up Consumer Corner which is now helping others to reclaim penalty charges, unlawfully high ERP's and missold PPI's.

I'm fairly certain I wasn't referring to your friend's case. Firstly, you have intimated that your friend is a man and not a woman and that he wasn't claiming for distress caused. Also, he didn't seem to use a lawyer going purely from what you've posted.

The only assumption I made in what I posted was in the rationale for claiming damages caused by distress.

Did you actually read the original post, which I was referring to?

BettyB_3

Ropey,

Your post did not mention whether you were referring to a man or a woman and, as it followed immediately after my post, I thought that it was my friend's case that you were commenting on. As you have now clarified this is not the case, please accept my apologies. It is a subject that matters a lot to me and perhaps I was a little over-sensitive.