Are the banks starting to take a stand?

Widowmaker_2

I have noticed more and more people mentioning Court, as opposed to Cash!
Are the banks starting to kick back???

SkinFlint_2

Not really, they are using due process and trying to put people off, I suspect. They normally pay just before the hearing but as you've probably seen, everyone is having different experiences with their banks.

Jarlawuk

Most likely its trying to buy time and wait for OFT to make a ruling on whats classed as 'fair' bank charges so the pay out will be less...

2gr82btrue

The Abbey do atend though at the notice seeking application to defend contractual interest.

2gr82btrue

they have failed to settle my claim in full even based on the 8% prior ro notice. so therefore the case will now def go to court and i f i lose i will have to pay the abbey's costs.

tooney83

if you lose you have to pay the bank? if thats the case i will pull out of the court claim

marksward

about time. all this claiming is harming the people who were definatly hard done by by the banks. If banking charges FORCED someone into spiralling debt then fair enough. If someone was just a complete tit then why should the careful pay for them. and yes I know banks have made tons of money, thats what banks have always done its a business. I enjoy free banking, dip into the overdraft once in a while, have a personal loan and a mortgage so its not like I don't pay the bank moeny every month!

There has to be something other than just claiming back unfair charges. Surely people should only be able to claim if the bank actually contributed a significant amount to the amount of debt a person got into? there has to be some balance. I don't see why Joe careful should pay for Sam spend spend spend, who thinks the rest of the world should pay for thier ipod, designer clothes etc.

And please I'm not having a go a people who found themselves in impossible financial situations that were forced upon them. People in that situation have all my sympathy and support

Stephen_Leak

marksward wrote: »

about time. all this claiming is harming the people who were definatly hard done by by the banks. If banking charges FORCED someone into spiralling debt then fair enough. If someone was just a complete tit then why should the careful pay for them. and yes I know banks have made tons of money, thats what banks have always done its a business. I enjoy free banking, dip into the overdraft once in a while, have a personal loan and a mortgage so its not like I don't pay the bank moeny every month!

There has to be something other than just claiming back unfair charges. Surely people should only be able to claim if the bank actually contributed a significant amount to the amount of debt a person got into? there has to be some balance. I don't see why Joe careful should pay for Sam spend spend spend, who thinks the rest of the world should pay for thier ipod, designer clothes etc.

And please I'm not having a go a people who found themselves in impossible financial situations that were forced upon them. People in that situation have all my sympathy and support

Whilst I disagree with a lot of what you say, I would defend to the death your right to say it.

Leaf

Well.... might have peed in my prunes!

I'm not going down without a fight. Sometimes I should'nt do it on my own.. but no dosh no fight!

Here's my latest letter:

I have yet to have the courtesy of a reply to my emails of 03/05/07, 3
emails sent 10/05/07, email of 12/05/07, and 2 emails of 14/05/07.

And still this complaint continues.

I phoned today to talk to the most recent appointed person, Tracey Adams, in
repect of my complaint. She was unavailable.

I spoke with a person last week in respect of charges levied against my
account, yet again, and was told she would immediately reverse the charges.
This did not happen and, as a result, a direct debit which should have been
honoured had this action taken place, was not and resulted in what I see as
an automated reversal of my overdraft agreement. We are again placed in
financial hardship through no fault of our own but by multiple errors of
NatWest.

When is someone going to address this situation?

This complaint started in January. Five months into the complaint this has
resulted in no resolution and great frustration with the process of trying
to find resolution. While there are issues that Natwest have been tying to
answer nationally, this is not my problem. My unanswered problems remain the
same throughout my complaint and are only impacted by Natwests' general
issues. I reiterate, these are not my concern. I want my individual
complaint dealt with in a professional manner.

I have sent Tracey Adams a draft copy of my complaint to the Financial
Ombudman. I have now revised that draft. I feel that a more detailed and
factual letter would be more beneficial than my earlier emotional draft.

I am unable to provide you with this as yet. I am sure there will be a time
when this is appropriate.

In order to 'hone' this letter, I would be grateful if you could provide as
much information of our communication in this dispute as possible within 14
days.

I believe I have given Natwest every opportunity to respond to this
complaint and I expect every aspect of all accounts (Current, loan and
credit card) to be provided within that timescale.

In light of todays 'judgement' with TSB I would suggest you incorporate with
that an explanation a breakdown of every charge, how you justify them as
reasonable charges, reasons for encouraging an extended overdraft in order
to capitalise on increased interest and therefore profit for your bank,
threatening a reduced existing credit card limit in order to capitalise on
higher interest and charge fees and put these in place to cause maximised
personal financial hardship.

I am time limiting response request as I believe I have given you every
opportunity to respond in a reasonable timescale.

Please respond within 5 days.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen_Leak

tooney83 wrote: »

if you lose you have to pay the bank? if thats the case i will pull out of the court claim

Firstly, small claims judgements do not set legal precedents. It also seems that this was a poorly prepared claim by someone, who is also not subcribed to this website.

And it isn't the first case the banks have won - there have been two others - again, one was poorly prepared and this allowed the bank to use a defence, which wouldn't work again. The other one was where the bank actually used an employee as an expert witness to justify the charges and he wasn't asked to detail them! The second one is evidently being appealed.

We can't expect a 100% success rate - nothing in this world is without risk. But 3 out of however many claims have been won, albeit by default, still sounds like pretty good odds to me.

playfire1

marksward wrote: »

about time. all this claiming is harming the people who were definatly hard done by by the banks. If banking charges FORCED someone into spiralling debt then fair enough. If someone was just a complete tit then why should the careful pay for them. and yes I know banks have made tons of money, thats what banks have always done its a business. I enjoy free banking, dip into the overdraft once in a while, have a personal loan and a mortgage so its not like I don't pay the bank moeny every month!

There has to be something other than just claiming back unfair charges. Surely people should only be able to claim if the bank actually contributed a significant amount to the amount of debt a person got into? there has to be some balance. I don't see why Joe careful should pay for Sam spend spend spend, who thinks the rest of the world should pay for thier ipod, designer clothes etc.

And please I'm not having a go a people who found themselves in impossible financial situations that were forced upon them. People in that situation have all my sympathy and support

You do not pay for people who have bank charges mate. The people who have bank charges pay for your free account. What your saying is that you are now upset that banks cant rip people off that are less fortunate than yourself, in order that you save paying 10 quid a year on a service charge.

get real. banks make enough money on other ventures to justify free accounts to everyone and then charge people fairly for what services they use.

and yes if it comes to it, and the banks warrant the 10 ponunds a year service charge (as they used to do), then EVERYONE should pay to have a bank account regardless of their financial situation.

how can you possible sterotype every claiment into a greedy spendaholic with no regard to your free banking facility. The banks are Wrong. They got greedy and they are being punished for it. As soon as they produce a break down of there charges for 39 quid for a returned direct debit and its reasonable I will yield. And as soon as they are responible enough not to ALLOW customers to go over their overdraft then I will be happy.