OFT makes 'putting it on hold' announcement

HIGHGATE_2

Is it possible to claim a refund of bank charges taken from a business account for unpaid cheques and direct debits?
The business is a limited company that banks with friendly HSBC.
Thank you.

mysky

has anyone else encountered this problem? I sent template letter with £10 fee cheque enclosed on 10th March to Lloyds TSB. 5 days later the cheque was returned to me , and a handwritten note saying the fees would be deducted from my account , I DONT have an account with them anymore! I phoned today and was told statements are not being prepared as no fee received!! also they require 40 WORKING DAYS / 8 weeks to process my statements. I have returned the original cheque to them , but does that mean I will have to wait another 8 weeks to get my statements ? what should I do ?

yorkiemike

Surely whatever the OFT say is a fair charge, anything over the £2 (the cost of a manual intevention and less for an automated one) amounts to a penalty charge.

Or am I missing something?

Fungas

OK; highly unlikely given the early indications...but, what would happen if a ruling was made that found in favour of banks? If not in the next year or so, but eventually? Would the banks have any lien on monies paid back to individuals at all? Or, assuming the money had been spent/ used (say, to repay credit card debt, or pay off an overdraft!), would an individual have the right to claim that the money was no longer there?

I know it's unlikely given the constant refusal of banks to challenge anybody in the courts, but you never know what funny stuff might happen.

feedering

The OFT have not power to make law, what they say in all effect is pointless unless they set the limit at £2. Contract law determines what is a fair charge, the OFT are toothless.

maggie_may84

rag-girl wrote: »

Hi Ya,
this delay in transfering money to other accounts/recipients' accounts has also annoyed me, when you pay for your goods using your debit card, the funds are taken from your account before you leave the store, i bank with "Intelligent Finance", they have recently started a new service, your payments are made the same day, "But It Costs You", cant remember how much, but it was quite a few pounds, not just a couple of quid. the other thing i'd like to know, is where has this money gone whilst it's being transfered?


Les

Debit card usage was one of the things my son queried with the bank this morning (see "Another Barlcays Scam"). Most (literally!) of his debit card transactions aren't showing on his statement until several days later, some as much as a week later. The personal banker this morning told him that paying by debit card was the same as paying by cheque and it was up to the shop to request payment.
My personal opinion of what he was told? Bunkum!!
As for the time taken to transfer money between accounts, Lloyds TSB can take up to five days, so three days with IF isn't so bad!

hibees1875_2

I reckon we should all go back to trading in chickens n pigs. So much easier, more enviromentally friendly, and hey, you get interest each year as long as you can get your animals pregnant!! Plus it would save millions for the nhs in having to deal with people that are stressed or mentally unwell as a result of modern life. Now where did i put those five buckets of mud to swop for that bean......?

Fungas

feedering wrote: »

The OFT have not power to make law, what they say in all effect is pointless unless they set the limit at £2. Contract law determines what is a fair charge, the OFT are toothless.

I don't necessarily mean an OFT ruling because, as you say, their pretty spineless and would not take on the banks. What about if a bank decided to hire in the best legal hands to fight a particular case, and got a judicial ruling in their favour that could affect all claims being processed at that time, plus earlier ones? Would the banks then go and pursue those refunded monies already made?

hibees1875_2

i doubt they would pursue refunds previously made for reimbursement, firstly, because many are made ex gratia. Therefore at the banks discretion and you cannot take back a "gift".
Secondly, for other reimbursements, there has been a court process involved. Generally banks have not entered much of a defence, which is their problem, however they are the ones with the info, so to deny the courts access to that info and then retrospectively bring that info to court to counter claim post-judgement would not be admissable. Im sure someone else can put this gist into proper legal context. Also, they wouldnt get a legal precedent in the county courts where most people would fight this. Presumably the exception will be tom brennan, but his argument is more than just unfair charges. Plus, if you close an account after receiving your fee's back, it would be potentially very harmful financially to try and reclaim back all the charges they have reimbursed. (from a PR perspective, and also imagine, banks dragging their heels helping us, we would, i hope do the same back at them.)

Its late now and im jabbering, but i think my rambling kinda makes some sense, although someone will probably contradict it.

Besides, banks dont need a judicial ruling. They need thousands of them as each case can/is unique. Just in the same way that one winner against the banks doesn't seem to mean that all the banks have to automatically pay up and refund everyone.

dchurch24

In all the cases I have seen the monies have been offered back as a *full and FINAL settlement* - the matter is settled - end of story.

They themselves said it was final. They'd have a pretty difficult job getting that money back in the very unlikely event that they could actually go to court and prove that it really does cost £35> to do nothing.

Even if they did win in a county court (or indeed a claimant winning in a county court) no legal precident would be set - so really, it would make little difference in any case.

The Brennan case will not set a precident either, unless it gets allocated to a higher court. It's my opinion that unless he is very lucky, that his case is ill fated.

Remember Stephen Hone anyone? He tried a very similar thing - in the public interest (as Brennan is claiming) - and was just bloody lucky that the judge had a sense of humour and didn't award costs against him when the claim was struck out.

Hopefully I'm wrong though.