Is there any point reclaiming bank charges? Financial hardship?

Johnboy1988

Hello all,

I've just graduated from uni, with an £1800 overdraft with RBS. During my first two years i accumulated over £600 worth of bank charges at £35 a pop. As the bank knew i was a student and my only income was student burserys and loans, would this entitle me to reclaim under financial hardship? The £600 wOuld go towards paying off the OD anyway, but reading the page on the site says the ombisman takes i to account fairness. Surely levying these huge charges on an unemployed student can be deemed as unfair? I've thought about it in the past but never thought i would have a case. I have 3 repayment plans in place for payday loans so that could add to the 'financial hardship' argument. Any advice or comments you could give would be appreciated.

dunstonh

but reading the page on the site says the ombisman takes i to account fairness.

The FOS no longer takes on complaints about unfair bank charges. it says this on their website.

Surely levying these huge charges on an unemployed student can be deemed as unfair?

Why? The bank didnt put you in a position where it had to bounce items or was forced to pay guaranteed payments over your limit. You only incur charges of that level when you create transactions over your limit.


All you can do is put your position to the bank. Tell them you believe you are in financial hardship and why and appeal to their goodwill. Whatever you do, do not mention unfair or fairness. That typically results in an auto rejection stating the court case the banks won.

Johnboy1988

dunstonh wrote: »

The FOS no longer takes on complaints about unfair bank charges. it says this on their website.



Why? The bank didnt put you in a position where it had to bounce items or was forced to pay guaranteed payments over your limit. You only incur charges of that level when you create transactions over your limit.


All you can do is put your position to the bank. Tell them you believe you are in financial hardship and why and appeal to their goodwill. Whatever you do, do not mention unfair or fairness. That typically results in an auto rejection stating the court case the banks won.

Thanks, appreciated. My line of argument is just going to try and appeal, like you say to their goodwill and tell them it will be going back in their pocket in terms of clearing the overdraft anyway

Wywth

Johnboy1988 wrote: »

Hello all,

I've just graduated from uni, with an £1800 overdraft with RBS. During my first two years i accumulated over £600 worth of bank charges at £35 a pop. As the bank knew i was a student and my only income was student burserys and loans, would this entitle me to reclaim under financial hardship? The £600 wOuld go towards paying off the OD anyway, but reading the page on the site says the ombisman takes i to account fairness. Surely levying these huge charges on an unemployed student can be deemed as unfair? I've thought about it in the past but never thought i would have a case. I have 3 repayment plans in place for payday loans so that could add to the 'financial hardship' argument. Any advice or comments you could give would be appreciated.

You say you have just graduated from University.

What recent and unexpected event has resulted in you having less disposable income?
This is just one of the number of requirements you need to fulfill to prove financial hardship. More details in the sticky thread about Financial Hardship Online Resources.

How did you manage to get payday loans if, as you say, your only income was "student burserys and loans" ? :huh:

hannah4101

Really sorry to be the bearer of bad news but I also incurred approx. £700 charges. After two letters to HSBC I was once again rejected and haven't pursued it any further.

After reading various threads on here I do not believe there is any way to proceed with my case

Good luck though!

Brains64

It is of course much harder since the Supreme Court ruling because this has given banks the psychological upper hand and ammunition to throw back at customers, they will mention this ruling in any correspondence they send to you in reply to letters you send them about charges, they chucked that one in my face too when I queried unplanned overdraft charges on my account, however, by law banks, are still under an obligation to treat customers fairly and any charges they make are still subject to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 which states that charges must reflect administration costs and cannot be punitive.

That still stands , especially the last part with regards to 'and cannot be punitive' which I highlighted, that is a customers strongest stance at the moment, irrespective of the court ruling, so you are within your rights to point it out if you wish to, you don't have to though, you can be sure they know the rules themselves anyway but I did point this out in a letter I sent to them myself regarding charges I thought were unfair and I got a refund on two charges which I queried and they also waived charges for four months, they said it was "to help me in my current financial circumstances" which is partially true but they have to be fair by law as I say, just don't expect them to admit that openly, they will make it seem like they are doing you a favor rather than as if they have to.

Wywth

Brains64 wrote: »

It is of course much harder since the Supreme Court ruling because this has given banks the psychological upper hand and ammunition to throw back at customers, they will mention this ruling in any correspondence they send to you in reply to letters you send them about charges, they chucked that one in my face too when I queried unplanned overdraft charges on my account, however, by law banks, are still under an obligation to treat customers fairly and any charges they make are still subject to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 which states that charges must reflect administration costs and cannot be punitive.

That still stands , especially the last part with regards to 'and cannot be punitive' which I highlighted, that is a customers strongest stance at the moment, irrespective of the court ruling, so you are within your rights to point it out if you wish to, you don't have to though, you can be sure they know the rules themselves anyway but I did point this out in a letter I sent to them myself regarding charges I thought were unfair and I got a refund on two charges which I queried and they also waived charges for four months, they said it was "to help me in my current financial circumstances" which is partially true but they have to be fair by law as I say, just don't expect them to admit that openly, they will make it seem like they are doing you a favor rather than as if they have to.

Unless you prove you are in financial hardship or the charges are a 'first offence' (or the extremely rare situation that charges were applied other than in accordance with their published terms/tariff) then the bank are most unlikley to refund any charges willingly whatever you think the law may say. The banks will always hide behind the Supreme Court ruling.

If you want to prove otherwise, you'll need to be preparee to go to court and get a judge to agree with your version of the law and how you think it applies to bank charges you incuirred.

Note: Even if you prove to the bank you are in financial hardship (or the charges are a 'first offence'), there is no obligation on the bank to refund you any charges ... and the FOS will not force them otherwsie.

The above is based on the anecdotal evidence of all those who have posted on this site (and many others) since the Supreme Court ruling back in 2009.