Reclaim Unfair Bank Charges article discussion Part II

natweststaffmember

xxisabellexx wrote: »

Hi all
I am in the process of helping a friend and my parents reclaim thier bank charges (get in the queue at least).

I sent off the first letters asking for repayment of 6 years worth of charges at the beginning of the year and since looking into it further I have decided to go for the charges since July 2001. I have drafted a letter to send and wondered if anyone could give me some feedback, especially the part about the test case being on hold as I'm not sure my wording is correct. Here goes:

Dear Sir or Madam,

Account number: xxxxxxxxxxxx
Your Reference: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I have previously written to you requesting that you repay all the default charges that have been applied to my account during the past six years. I have since discovered that I am entitled to reclaim from the date the bank charges test case started; the date reclaiming was put on hold: 27th July 2001.
.
I am therefore writing to request repayment of the additional charges incurred between this date and the date I first wrote to you in April 2009. I do not believe these charges reflect the true cost to HSBCof going into unauthorised overdraft.

The additional charges total £339, plus as I believe I have been unlawfully deprived of the money I have calculated £182.49interest at the statutory rate, the amount the court will award.

I therefore ask that you repay me the full amount, including these additional charges of £3028.56. I have attached a full schedule of the charges and interest with this document.

I look forward for a full response to this letter within 14 days.

Yours faithfully,


What do you guys think? Im looking toward natweststaffmember if you are about to check my wording about the test case as you seem like quite an expert!

TIA
Isabelle x

Isabelle, the letter is fine. Are they suffering financial hardship?
I'm not an expert apart from financial hardship cases.

natweststaffmember

mdes wrote: »

ALLIANCE AND LEICESTER!!!!!!!!!!!

can anybody help???
i have applied to the a&l through hardship to get my charges back, but they keep putting me off.
firstly we sent in the letters and proof of hardship(rent arrears) but they said the letter our landlord wrote was not signed. we got it done again and sent it recorded delivery on 25/09/09 , but the a&l say they havnt recieved it, prob because of the postal strike.
however i checked this and the post office tracker says it was delivered the next day!!
i phoned, yet again, on friday(02/10/09) and was told they still havnt got it and that if i want i should go to the fos.
i have requested several transcripts of conversations from them but they will not send them to me because i have caught them lying in these phone calls
what should i do now because i have very little written correspondence from the a&l to go on but all is on the several phone calls
please advise
thanks

Have you confirmed that it has been sent to the bank or the nearest sorting office?
Do a google search under the postcode.

carly12345_2

Hey there, i was wondering if anyone could help me? I was thinking about starting the claiming proccess with my bank Barclays.

Does anyone know the address i have to send the first letter too, i have read the entire guide on the moneysavingexpert website but was not able to find a clear answer as to who i should be posting my first letter.

If anyone has any information on claiming from Barclays Bank, i would be very grateful for any information.

Many Thanks

natweststaffmember

carly12345 wrote: »

Hey there, i was wondering if anyone could help me? I was thinking about starting the claiming proccess with my bank Barclays.

Does anyone know the address i have to send the first letter too, i have read the entire guide on the moneysavingexpert website but was not able to find a clear answer as to who i should be posting my first letter.

If anyone has any information on claiming from Barclays Bank, i would be very grateful for any information.

Many Thanks

If you are reclaiming under financial hardship i have the whole 9 yards.
http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/showpost.php?p=127903&postcount=7

jasper33_2

Hi I was wondering if anyone like me believes that the longer this goes on the less chance we have of getting any money back. I have 2 outstanding claims going on and I believe I wont get either of these back.

natweststaffmember

jasper33 wrote: »

Hi I was wondering if anyone like me believes that the longer this goes on the less chance we have of getting any money back. I have 2 outstanding claims going on and I believe I wont get either of these back.

I believe nothing because this is a legal case and legal cases are not resolved overnight. From reading the transcripts they incorporate huge amounts of complex evidence and opinions and require the judges to carefully consider all the evidence.
I would shut your paranoia back in its place and tell it that so far 4 judges have ruled against the banks' argument and we have 5 other judges who might make is a grand slam of ruling against the banks. This part is only about IF the charges can be ASSESSED for fairness and not whether the charges are actually fair.

jasper33_2

Sorry it's not paranoia, I just feel that if I were going to get anything back I would of had it ages ago. I think they'll be one ruling that'll go with the banks and that will be that.

natweststaffmember

jasper33 wrote: »

Sorry it's not paranoia, I just feel that if I were going to get anything back I would of had it ages ago. I think they'll be one ruling that'll go with the banks and that will be that.

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=179
Take your pick of which part of the OFT test case you want to read cos it is fascinating stuff(and at times a little difficult to understand). Length of time doesn't always equal defeat. Remember, the banks' are on the bank foot not the consumers.

whodoitaketocourt

Can't wait for the High Court/Supreme Court decision anytime now. They return from recess on Monday and are moving into their new premises (complete with TV cammeras) as we speak (although I have heard that an announcement might be made today).

What a lot of people do not realise is that we are not just talking about bank charges here. If it's decided that they CAN be unfair and then (next step) if the FSA decides they ARE unfair (and after the inevitable appeals from the bansk), then the courts could say there are restitutional damages. This means that not only would the banks become liable for charges back to, potentially 1995 (the UTCCRS legislation was introduced retrospectively from 01/01/95) and not just the 6 or 8 years most people are speaking about, but also all profits they have made from these charges. As banks are likely to have re-invested the money they took in charges by lending it to others at 20% interest or so, this could also, potentially, be payable too the consumers who have been deprived of their money too. This means that £1000 of bank charges could actually result in 4-5K of payback !

Of course, if the courts take this approach, the potential liability to the banks could be much higher than we have heard about - possibly several hundred billion and this would lead to a number of banks collapsing, so I'm sure that the banks are just lobbying for the "least worst" outcome. Either way, we win and they lose !

natweststaffmember

whodoitaketocourt wrote: »

Can't wait for the High Court/Supreme Court decision anytime now. They return from recess on Monday and are moving into their new premises (complete with TV cammeras) as we speak (although I have heard that an announcement might be made today).

What a lot of people do not realise is that we are not just talking about bank charges here. If it's decided that they CAN be unfair and then (next step) if the FSA decides they ARE unfair (and after the inevitable appeals from the bansk), then the courts could say there are restitutional damages. This means that not only would the banks become liable for charges back to, potentially 1995 (the UTCCRS legislation was introduced retrospectively from 01/01/95) and not just the 6 or 8 years most people are speaking about, but also all profits they have made from these charges. As banks are likely to have re-invested the money they took in charges by lending it to others at 20% interest or so, this could also, potentially, be payable too the consumers who have been deprived of their money too. This means that £1000 of bank charges could actually result in 4-5K of payback !

Of course, if the courts take this approach, the potential liability to the banks could be much higher than we have heard about - possibly several hundred billion and this would lead to a number of banks collapsing, so I'm sure that the banks are just lobbying for the "least worst" outcome. Either way, we win and they lose !

Totally agree with you, worst case scenario is restitutionary damages and going back to 1995 and best case scenario is FSA Waiver on Bank Charges which is July 2001. I suspect we could go back to 1995 with statutory interest in the end but the problem is that the how far back, when and what can be claimed is part of the secondary part of the OFT test case. The first part is about if the charges are assessable for fairness.