MSE guide to using the Financial Ombudsman

natweststaffmember

GeoGirl wrote: »

Hi,
I am at a bit of a crossroads and would appreciate a little advice from you experts out there, I recently put in a claim for charges made to my MINT credit card for £12 charges following the OFT guidelines, claiming I still consider these to be penalty charges etc.

I was offered the difference of £8.64 for my one and only charge prioir to the publication of these charges, I then sent a letter declining their offer and asking for a full refund or I will take court action. Mint have still yet to respond after 23 days having sent the letter recorded delivery I know they have recieved it?!
Should I respond by sending a further warning letter or should I take my complaint directly to the FOS?

I am concerned that the FOS may not rule in my favour as I am disputng £12 charges?.... help would be gratefully appreciated.

Thanks

They will agree with you

natweststaffmember

paolaenergya wrote: »

I wrote to the Financial Services Ombudsman after GE Money decided not to give me a refund for late payments (I offered a token payment but they were not interested and ultimately sold my debt on to another company).
The Ombudsman negotiated a refund of fees plus interest on my behalf but lectured me for about an hour about the poor GE Money's employees and shareholders and their interest and policies. He was taking their side against mine. I was puzzled to say the least.

With all due respect, he cannot take their side if a refund of fees and interest were made since he would have rejected the case out of hand.

SavvyatSaving

Hi all,
just thought I would drop a post and let you all know about my experience with the Financial Ombudsman Service.
I have been trying to get £379.86 from Egg (the full amount of all charges on my account since 2004 plus interest) but was not successful with any of the MSE letters, they offered me £44.12 (the difference between the £20 charges and £16-their new charge amount-plus interest), so I went to the FOS.
After nearly 4 months, they sent me a letter stating that they "do not agree that the £16.00 charges were unfair or disproportionate" and that Egg had proven to them that "it actually costs Egg a little more that £16.00, on average, to deal with each instance of non-payment of a customer exceeding their credit limit."

I want to put this whole paragraph in for you all to see, in case it might help someone else with their Egg battle...
"Following publication of the OFT report, Egg reduced its default charges from £20 to £16, although it indicated to the OFT that it did not necessarily accept its findings. Egg has said that the OFT indicated that it would take no further regulatory action against Egg if it reduced its level of default charges to £16."

So even though nearly all other Banks have lowered their default charges to £12, Egg are allowed to get away with charging £16.

I have read a lot of success stories on these forums and am really happy for people who got their money back, in most instances it was way more than I claimed anyway! but I just want people to know and be prepared that expecially if you go up against Egg, you will wait forever for letters to come back and very rarely will you get the answer you want.

I still am unsure about whether to accept the measly £44.12 or whether to go further with this, just for the principle of the matter.
I don't really want to have to go to court over £379.86!
Any advice??????

Premier_2

Take the money.

The only way you can take it further is to go to court, something you admit you really don't want to do. Also Egg have convinced the OFT their £16 charge is fair, and presumably will demonstrate to a judge likewise if necessary.


Congrats on finding & resurrecting this rather ancient thread though

dunstonh

they offered me £44.12 (the difference between the £20 charges and £16-their new charge amount-plus interest), so I went to the FOS.

Which is the result you would expect and cant see any reason why you would need to go to the FOS.

After nearly 4 months, they sent me a letter stating that they "do not agree that the £16.00 charges were unfair or disproportionate" and that Egg had proven to them that "it actually costs Egg a little more that £16.00, on average, to deal with each instance of non-payment of a customer exceeding their credit limit."

We could have told you that.

So even though nearly all other Banks have lowered their default charges to £12, Egg are allowed to get away with charging £16.

Correct.

I still am unsure about whether to accept the measly £44.12 or whether to go further with this, just for the principle of the matter.

If you go to court, Egg will use the OFT ruling as evidence in their favour. What would you use against the OFT ruling?

Any advice??????

Take the money as its the figure you are entitled to. I personally think a court case would be a pointless waste of time.