Claiming compensation from Natwest

epm-84

pinkdalek wrote: »

What difference to the customer does this make in reality? Even had they used the alternative number, it is still all the distress and inconvenience caused.

Her main complaint seems to be the £20 incurred on phone calls, not the delay to direct debits.

Natwest have already said they'll refund any charges made to their account as a result of failures made by the banking system such as fees for being overdrawn.

epm-84

innovate wrote: »

If Natwest don't want people to ring them on 0845 numbers, they can take these numbers out of operation.

And then have been complaining about not being able to get through? Or should they leave a pre-recorded message on it asking people to phone the other numbers and then having them complain about incurring an additional phone call cost to hear that message?

innovate

BugsyBrowne wrote: »

He has said that but legally they don't have to, he could say No compensation if he really wants to.

You are right, he could have said that, the T&Cs would support him. But he was smart enough to say something very different, and very publically, and not only once. That 'something very different' is now what the RBS Group is committed to.

BugsyBrowne wrote: »

If rbs customers think they will be getting hundreds of pounds think again it won't happen.

I agree, there will no doubt be some smart Alecs who think they can take their bank for a ride over this - they will have a rude awakening, I am sure. But those who genuinely suffered, and can prove it, will get every penny back - - even if it adds up to hundreds or thousand

innovate

epm-84 wrote: »

And then have been complaining about not being able to get through? Or should they leave a pre-recorded message on it asking people to phone the other numbers and then having them complain about incurring an additional phone call cost to hear that message?

From your latest post, it seems you think people should ring 0845.

So perhaps you shouldn't have asked them in the first instance why they did.

epm-84

innovate wrote: »

From your latest post, it seems you think people should ring 0845.

So perhaps you shouldn't have asked them in the first instance why they did.

No. I'm disagreeing with your comment that Natwest should have taken the 0845 line out-of-action, that's not the same thing.

nataliex_2

Thank you all for your comments they have been very helpful.

Im sorry i should have maybe explained better regarding the mobile charges, not only did i have to call the bank but i had to call my mortgage company, mobile phone company, various credit cards etc. to explain to them and ensure i would receive no adverse mark on my credit file or late payment charges. I was especially concerned about my mortgage.

Yes Natwest have now said that there will be no impact on credit files etc. but i did not know this at the time and being a worrier i wanted to make sure i let the companies who's direct debits had bounced due to me not receiving my wags or the companies who i was due to pay that day know what my situation was.

The day i took off work was the first day this occured, the thursday, the branches only advised later during that day they would open later, otherwise i may not have had to take the day off.

I will draft my complaint today using the advise you guys have given me and see what happens.

Innovate that is a good idea about taking it into the branch and getting them to sign proof they have received it i will definatley do that thank you.

innovate

epm-84 wrote: »

Why did you use an 0845 number when Natwest had an 0800 number and a 0161 number on their website for people affected by the problems as well as an online facility to request a call back: https://www.natwest.com/Secure/personal_call_back/callback.asp?pid=50202 ?

May be you can't remember what sparked the debate, so I re-post it, just in case.

And to repeat my position: If there is a published number, people are entitled to ring it. If the bank doesn't want people to ring it, the bank shouldn't have the number. Simples.

innovate

nataliex wrote: »

Yes Natwest have now said that there will be no impact on credit files etc.

nataliex, I don't want to worry you - - but would advise that you check, over the next couple of months. NatWest will be able to control some, but not all, information that flows to CRAs.

E.g. if your mobile phone gets paid late, it's the mobile phone provider who reports a black mark, not NatWest.

I really don't know why NatWest made a blanket statement about credit file records when they have absolutely no control of some aspects of it.

epm-84

innovate wrote: »

May be you can't remember what sparked the debate, so I re-post it, just in case.

And to repeat my position: If there is a published number, people are entitled to ring it. If the bank doesn't want people to ring it, the bank shouldn't have the number. Simples.

I know what I said. I don't understand your logic or reasoning.

The bank made cheaper alternatives available:
0161 number - standard rate on mobiles
0800 number - free on BT landlines
Callback request - free to anyone with Internet

People should phone what's cheapest for them to use.

So what would you have done with phone numbers if you were Natwest?

nataliex_2

innovate wrote: »

nataliex, I don't want to worry you - - but would advise that you check, over the next couple of months. NatWest will be able to control some, but not all, information that flows to CRAs.

E.g. if your mobile phone gets paid late, it's the mobile phone provider who reports a black mark, not NatWest.

I really don't know why NatWest made a blanket statement about credit file records when they have absolutely no control of some aspects of it.

Well if im honest when i read that i didnt believe it for a second as i am aware that it is the provider who makes the mark and the bank doesnt really have any say, i am also aware that it is notoriously difficult to get something removed off your credit file whether it shouldnt be there or not. This is why i am glad i spoke to most of the companies i make payments to and made them aware, i also got them to confirm that there will be no adverse marks going on my file and i will obviously make sure i check this like you rightly said.

Also i would point out to some of the others who have commented about this compensation culture and whatnot, i am actually out of pocket due to this balls up, not to mention im pretty sure ive started to go grey at 25 due to the stress of it all :eek: if i hadnt have made the phone calls when i did im pretty sure the mess would have been alot worse also with late payment charges etc. but luckily everyone i spoke to was quite understanding. I am in no way trying to "take my bank for a ride" i only want to be compensated so that i am in the same position as i would have been should this incident not have occured.