Reclaim Unfair Bank Charges article discussion Part II

amtrakuk

hardin wrote: »

Not sure why everyone doesn't just band together and refuse to pay the charges. The banks would be stuffed without customers and they can't afford to take EVERYONE to court. My bank has made many efforts to keep me in a spiral of debt (for which I take the majority of the blame) constantly refusing repayment plans (I offered to clear my 6K overdraft in 6 months which they turned down and are still charging). In between times, they offer increased credit on other accounts and started a spurious, not pre-agreed £10/month on each account.
I've put together a case which proves they have no intention of helping me clear my debt - and as this is Nat West/RBS, bailed out to do just that, I think I have good case.

Great idea about not paying the charges but I believe you will have debt recovery people knocking on your front door and phoning you every 5 minutes until they have cleared your house and maybe sold your house from under your nose.

I do feel raw about the banks having a spending spree over the last few years then when they realise they have overspent, akin to going over their agreed "overdraft". Then going cap in hand to the government asking for billions from the their customers - The TAX payer. It would be good if I could do the same thing on a personal level. It seems one rule for them, another for their customers :mad:

P_Walters

We need to haul their thieving a**es back into court. I am still amazed that some people got payouts and some didn't and that situation should not be acceptable. I know no admission of liability was made by the banks in giving part or full refund of charges, but what was the actual reason and wording given?

Morglin

P_Walters wrote: »

We need to haul their thieving a**es back into court. I am still amazed that some people got payouts and some didn't and that situation should not be acceptable. I know no admission of liability was made by the banks in giving part or full refund of charges, but what was the actual reason and wording given?

"Goodwill" - which is why those who have already recieved money don't have to pay it back, and those who haven't aren't entitled to it.

Lin

tomzatomato

This forum just timed out on me, so I lost a very carefully-constructed message. I've now screamed and thumped the desk, so I'll now have to take the next course of action, which is to start again. Gurr.

tomzatomato

I’ve fallen foul of plenty of bank charges and have always felt they were unfair. Surely a limit is supposed to mean end of funds? The limit of the railway means the trains run no further – they don’t get told they can go off the tracks onto roads but will be charged £5000 per mile!

I received a call on Tuesday to tell me I could get back my bank charges and that the caller was part of a company who were doing this for consumers. Isn’t that nice? Well they took my details, checked over bank details – taking my card number in the process – and then passed me onto the “legal team”. These then re-iterated that I would receive a pack about how to apply for charges – not that they would do it for me – and then muttered, very quickly, that I would be charged £59.99 for the service. He said it was all the information I needed & that it would be a small amount compared to what I would get back (note would, not could) and then cut the call.

I spoke to the Ministry of Justice afterwards, who confirmed this was a blatant mis-selling. They said to have a look at the pack once it arrived, and that I had a 14-day return period anyway, as this was distance selling, so to return it if I wasn’t happy and the company would be obliged to pay me back any charges levied. The pack has now arrived, stating there is a 7 working day cooling-off period, not 14, and that the charges are actually £55 for the “book” (read card-backed leaflet with a bit of colour in, probably cost the company £1 to make, containing less information than is on the moneysavingexpert webpage relevant) and £4.99 p&p. This £4.99, of course, will not be refunded. I can only assume the company gets a very bad deal on envelopes, as the postage was 72p, so the A4 window envelope must have cost them £4.27...

The company details:
The company is apparently Wilson & Bateman, based in Bolton
The office I’m being dealt with by is based in Blackpool. The transaction will apparently appear as “Telesales People Ltd”, which is oh-so-clearly a financial service company... Hmm.

I’ve tried calling the company back on the direct number I was given, and the response is a message telling me someone will deal with me shortly, followed by 10 seconds silence and then the call ends. The Blackpool switchboard is, of course, constantly engaged, no doubt as a result of others realising that the recent case in court was won by the banks.

Any ideas, anyone?
Thomas

lawscot

Please may I suggest a read at my post today on the sub forum regarding the Supreme Court Judgement which does NOT affect cases in Scotland and probably does not affect individual cases in England either. The judgement has merely told the OFT that the OFT may not intervene - at least on the grounds they wanted to.

Possibly they might on other grounds if they so desire.

The judgement does not say that customers have no rights and must accept the charges, just that the OFT can't intervene in the dispute on one particular argument (though perhaps not others)

Sadly the OFT have made a mess of their application and cost the taxpayer a fortune in legal costs possibly based on a poorly drafted application.

Lawscot

P_Walters

Thomas, regarding your experience I suggest you start putting everything in writing to this company. Simply request a refund stating details of your conversation with The Ministry of Justice and start the ball rolling with a view to eventual small claims action. This is all time consuming and unnecessary work and worry on your part I know but I always feel phone calls get lost in the ether with these type of companies. Also, may be a bit dramatic but keep an eye on your monies now that they have your card number. Gangster companies seem to be able to roam free because we cannot as individuals afford the law and places like Ministry of Justice and OFT's don't seem able for whatever reason, to give us a good enough service.

Anyway, back to bank charges (thanks Lin) - regarding "goodwill", still can't justify why only some got it and not others? What reason would they give for that - that the test case was going through? What did any legal action have to do with goodwill?

As their reason for giving at that time was a totally different one to the contents of the test case it would just seem rather prejudicial to give to one and not another on the completely separate grounds of goodwill.

A solicitor could still eat them for breakfast, I'm convinced.

amtrakuk

tomzatomato wrote: »

This forum just timed out on me, so I lost a very carefully-constructed message. I've now screamed and thumped the desk, so I'll now have to take the next course of action, which is to start again. Gurr.

I find clicking the "remember me" checkbox to the right of where ypou enter your password gets over that problem

A_fiend_for_life

lawscot wrote: »

The judgement does not say that customers have no rights and must accept the charges, just that the OFT can't intervene in the dispute on one particular argument (though perhaps not others)

Sadly the OFT have made a mess of their application and cost the taxpayer a fortune in legal costs possibly based on a poorly drafted application.

Lawscot

I'm baffled why the OFT perused the case on only one issue. I'd have thought if an entity were persuing a case they would have more than one 'charge'.

Does this mean that the next case if / when persued will go straight to the supreme court or will it need to go through all the other courts first?

Hannah-Marie

Hi, Im wondering if anyones got any idea on what i should do concerning bank charges?
Im just 17, and got charged 38pounds when i had an unpaid item for my contact lense in january when i was 16, because i didnt have £2.61 extra in my account...
I didn't actually know what a charge was, or how it works, as when i set up the account (when 15) none of it was explained to me, and ive only recently realised that i might have been able to claim it back while seeing the news? When id realised i wouldnt have enough in my account to pay for my lenses, id asked specsavers whether i could change the date for it to be taken, and they said it was ok, itd just be taken out the next week instead... no mention of a charge to me, so i was totally nonplussed when i saw -£34.11!!!!! they did take it out the next week... when my mum put £50 in to cover it!
I got a letter off natwest on friday which theyve sent to all customer with a list of changes - including the charge for an unpaid item from £38 to £5!!!!!
Is there anyway i can ask for (at least!) the £33 difference back, or am I too late?
id appreciate any suggestions of what i should do
thank youuuu! x