Reclaim Unfair Bank Charges article discussion Part II

geoff1057

Claiming just £52 charges off fiat finance, because its my money and they are so rude when you try to ask about the charges. sent my second letter 5/5/07 recorded delivery, just spoke to a lady who said weve received no letter from you,and insists that you cannot claim late payment charges on both car finance and mortgages, she also says that they can charge whatever they like for late payments,and she couldnt give me a breakdown of charges.i was also told that if i went to court there was no chance i could win, remarks like this, as i said earlier, confirm the arrogance of these dimwits, start proceedings on monday for my 52 quid PLUS interest

Edinburghlass_2

lindilou39 wrote: »

Hi to everyone using these boards, can I ask each and everyone of you to please consider signing this petition, you will receive an immediate response from 10 Downing street via email....

[URL]Http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Penaltycharges/[/URL]

I myself have just signed ..

Many thanks

Lindi

Or instead of writing to your MP you could just sign this petition

geoff1057

after ringing fiat finance (post above),i then rang MBNA,iwas claiming £505 +£101 interest, their 14 days are up,so i rang them to offer chance of not going to court(already offered £250 as goodwill gesture), i told the young man that i would be prepared to accept my £505 now and i would drop the interest payment and not take them to court, good firm reply ... take us to court,...... again start court proceedings monday. Are these robbers going to start taking chances in court after mr berwicks disaster???????

Simon7685

newbie wrote: »

Hi all

I'm currently claiming back charges from Abbey, I've tottered up the claim amounts and sent them the letters. 4 weeks went by without contact and on the 5th I received a letter stating that they are still investigating and it take another x (sorry haven't got the letter in front of me) weeks.

Are they just stalling or do you think they are just swamped and I should be patient???

Cheers in advance
Ken

Hi Ken

I am also battling the Abbey and the same thing happened to me. Remember you set the time limits. If they don't respond within the time you give them move on to the next stage, or if they send a "we are looking into it but will take xxx weeks", still move on. It is all part of their tactics to draw things out in the hope you will get bored and think it is no longer worth persuing.

My advice: If you have sent both letters to them and they have reponded with that, start proceedings through MCOL.

Let me know how things go.
Simon7685

cyberman_3

geoff1057 wrote: »

after ringing fiat finance (post above),i then rang MBNA,iwas claiming £505 +£101 interest, their 14 days are up,so i rang them to offer chance of not going to court(already offered £250 as goodwill gesture), i told the young man that i would be prepared to accept my £505 now and i would drop the interest payment and not take them to court, good firm reply ... take us to court,...... again start court proceedings monday. Are these robbers going to start taking chances in court after mr berwicks disaster???????

OH DEAR .... This guy has a lack of knowledge and should not be making such statements ..... professional companies would never do this or can we see it is the "jitterbugs" setting in ?????

LozBingley

cyberman wrote: »

JAYNEG
On a previous post I showed this. http://www.dti.gov.uk/consumers/buyi...ons/index.html

Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations
The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No 2083) provide that a term which has not been individually negotiated in a consumer contract is unfair (and hence non-binding on the consumer) if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to the detriment of the consumer.

Under the Regulations, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has an obligation to consider any complaint made to it about the fairness of any contract term drawn up for general use. OFT may seek assurances and, if necessary, injunctions against those using terms which it considers to be unfair. Certain other named bodies are also empowered to seek injunctions against unfair terms.

>>>>> non-binding on the consumer
Anything that can be used in Court to back your case must be used.

THE LAW IS THE LAW --- PERIOD.

The judge in the Lloyds TSB issue clearly was unaware of the law and hopefully he will be pointed in the right direction in future.

By the way, have you asked Natwest for a breakdown in their penalty charges ?
If they ignore you, you ask the Judge the same.

They are not allowed to make a profit on penalty charges. If they do, they are breaking the law and as such the amounts are un-enforceable.

It's the question the banks fear ...... the judge in the Lloyds TSB case did not ask this question, how could he, Lloyds were not present. So, it could be a good thing if they do go to court because the same question can be asked.

Another point is that the banks are changing their terminology and are calling these service charges. They were warned by the OFT not to do this.
Regardless of the name THEY chose, it can still be stated that their contract is unfair

:j Thanks Cyber man but your link did not work

Alliance & Leicester have entered a defence agains my claim saying the charges are not "punitive in nature and/or a penalty" :lipsrseal

I'm sure the cost of entering this defence and involving their solicitors is more than the value of my claim but how can I defend against this?

Your thoughts would be appreciated

cyberman_3

LozBingley wrote: »

:j Thanks Cyber man but your link did not work

TRY THIS

http://www.dti.gov.uk/consumers/buying-selling/sale-supply/unfair-contracts/regulations/index.html

Edinburghlass_2

Have a read of the Alliance and Leicester thread and you'll find they are defending most cases and a lot of people are reaching a court date.

newbie_2

Simon7685 wrote: »

Hi Ken

I am also battling the Abbey and the same thing happened to me. Remember you set the time limits. If they don't respond within the time you give them move on to the next stage, or if they send a "we are looking into it but will take xxx weeks", still move on. It is all part of their tactics to draw things out in the hope you will get bored and think it is no longer worth persuing.

My advice: If you have sent both letters to them and they have reponded with that, start proceedings through MCOL.

Let me know how things go.
Simon7685

Brill. Thanks Simon. I'll crack on with MCOL in my corner!!

cyberman_3

LozBingley wrote: »

:
Alliance & Leicester have entered a defence agains my claim saying the charges are not "punitive in nature and/or a penalty" :lipsrseal

I'm sure the cost of entering this defence and involving their solicitors is more than the value of my claim but how can I defend against this?

Your thoughts would be appreciated

OK, if they believe that, ask them for a full breakdown of the costs and make sure you tell them you'll ask the court the same question