Advice for friend re Benefit/Charges/Overdraft

crazyworld_2

Natweststaffmember the benefits issue is a separate one, and one relating to a friend, as I explained. There are ongoing discussions relating to that issue which it isn't for me to comment on.

As far as the overall premise is concerned, then I would refer you to the link in my last message, and would invite you to tell me where I have been mistaken with that premise.

Also, if you do reply to that, could you also explain why the bank can gain from that charge twice, while I can only reclaim half of the actual loss incurred? I thought that under the law I was entitled to the actual loss back, not half of it.

Anyway, I look forward to any response, should you wish to respond.

natweststaffmember

Crazyworld, I am not an accountant and by no means by posting was I in any way looking to denigrate you or accuse you of stupidity. I have no right to do it and i did not feel that i did. I have been for almost one year, a current existing Bank Worker that has chosen to stand out and post information across bank charges forums and advise people to get their charges back. I will continue to do this in spite of the bank trying to gag bank workers within the framework of a code of conduct.(natwest staff will recognise what I am saying).
With regards to the charges and amounts I am vastly becoming a veteran while i have never gone through the court processes myself i am gaining vast amounts of knowledge of that side of the process.
To me the simple fact is that calculating charges is simple, add them up.
To me £38 unpaid charge + £28 unarranged Borrowing fee= £66. That is the KISS principle(Keep It Simple Stupid).
This site only recommends claiming charges minus interest until the court stage.
To me that is how charges are worked out. You add the charges up and you get a total. I am not sure of your logic but if you arrive at the same figure that I do then we are simply thinking at two opposite ends but getting the same answer.
My PM's are usually always switched on unless there is a need to keep them off, which has only occurred once so far.

crazyworld_2

Hi Natweststaffmember, the message you're referring to was directed to Loz. I did write that at the beginning of that post, as for the actual loss incurred, please take a look at the post i've linked to and tell me if I am wrong in my thoughts, based on the actual figures from my statements.

(Also, I do intend to update this thread on the issue which it's headed when I can post some further information on that, so please can you reply to my other thread on the particular issue we're talking about so as not to divert from the seriousness of the issue on this thread?)

LozBingley

Can you see now that you counted the charges twice because you adjusted your figures?

LozBingley

crazyworld wrote: »

Ok, this will shock you, as you'll have noticed, I do tend to dig my heels in on occasions, when perhaps I am cynical about something, and then it appears that someone is attempting to paint me as an idiot I do so even more, without even considering the facts. (I wouldn't be very good as a judge, i'll admit that)

I apologise, on reflection this morning you were absolutely correct in your maths, and I was wrong. I do admit where I am wrong, but I do tend to be quite a stubborn person sometimes.

I did make a genuine mistake, and that does not mean i'm an idiot, but it does mean that i'm only human after all.

So to everyone - Please don't even consider what i've said at the start of this thread.

Having said that though would you not agree that the "incomplete information" and "non optional extras" still applies as the first message implies, in regard to the banks using unauthorised overdrafts purely for the purposes of clawing back their unlawful penalty charges, while bouncing cheques, and returning direct debits?

As i've said elsewhere, this does appear to imply an "Unfair Relationship between Creditors and Debtors" under the Consumer Credit Act 2006, doesn't it? (I believe that act does cover overdrafts)

Sorry Loz.

Nothing shocks me - I'm an accountant and its a Crazy World

Can I ask, are you a decorator? :rotfl:

Its OK but as I look at this kind of information day in day out it was glaringly obvious that there was an error in your calculation right from the start.

I think what you have done right from the start is count the charges in your balance and in the OUT column.

ie If you had £50 in your account and they charged you £30 your balance would be £20.

You have looked at your balance and seen its reduced by £30 and wanted that money back. In your example you have expressed this as £50 (the balance it should have been) less £20 (the balance it is) equals £30 difference.

BUT you have the looked at the statement and said to yourself "Hang on they have also charged me £30" and you've added that to this £30 change in balance giving you a total of £60.

THIS IS WRONG because the change in balance is the same £30 that you were charged, not a new £30. HENCE you have counted the charges twice when you say its £60. THIS is exactly the same principle that you applied to your account, which is why you ended up thinking you had been charged twice.

Hope this is all sorted now.

natweststaffmember

Crazyworld, I do not understand the sums but I am a mere bank worker. The basic working out of charges is add them up. Remember if this goes to court as worst case scenario the judge will need to see how the charges have been worked out and, mse have a charges calculator where you input the charges, so if you use another formula you need to be clear about it. The post does seem and i do highlight the word SEEM to indicate you will get more than the actual charges you are claiming. I hope that the impression I have is wrong. At the heart of everything is making sure your claim is right and that you win so while the words may seem harsh they are meant to help you win.

crazyworld_2

LozBingley wrote: »

You have looked at your balance and seen its reduced by £30 and wanted that money back. In your example you have expressed this as £50 (the balance it should have been) less £20 (the balance it is) equals £30 difference.

BUT you have the looked at the statement and said to yourself "Hang on they have also charged me £30" and you've added that to this £30 change in balance giving you a total of £60.

THIS IS WRONG because the change in balance is the same £30 that you were charged, not a new £30. HENCE you have counted the charges twice when you say its £60. THIS is exactly the same principle that you applied to your account, which is why you ended up thinking you had been charged twice.

Hope this is all sorted now.

Yes, thank you Loz, I understand that completely. And the above is exactly what i've done.

I hope that you'd agree that the way i'd worked things out was a genuine error, and not some sort of attempt to con the banks out of extra money?

As that was a genuine mistake on my part I would hope you'd agree anyway(actually, scrub that after reading Natweststaffmembers post, whether you agree or not is not what matters, it's the truth!), and, yes, this is all sorted out now, as I stated in my previous post.

crazyworld_2

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Crazyworld, I do not understand the sums but I am a mere bank worker. The basic working out of charges is add them up. Remember if this goes to court as worst case scenario the judge will need to see how the charges have been worked out and, mse have a charges calculator where you input the charges, so if you use another formula you need to be clear about it. The post does seem and i do highlight the word SEEM to indicate you will get more than the actual charges you are claiming. I hope that the impression I have is wrong. At the heart of everything is making sure your claim is right and that you win so while the words may seem harsh they are meant to help you win.

Hi Natwest Staff Member, yes I had always figured out that the way to work out the total of the charges themselves was to add them up. Those totals already went off to the Financial Ombudsman.

I was merely attempting to address an issue I thought at the time was important, as I genuinely believed those figures were my actual losses.

I'm sorry though, could you clarify for me, what do you mean when you say that the post does seem to indicate that i'll get more than the actual charges i'm claiming? Sorry, which post are you talking about? And what do you mean when you say that you hope the impression you have is wrong? (And please bear in mind, the post Loz is talking about is my own situation, the post I started this thread about was a friend's situation)

What impression do you get? Where do you get that impression from?

Your post appears to be filled with some sort of implications that I was attempting some sort of con purposely! I certainly hope that is not what you were implying!

natweststaffmember

Carzyworld, Loz has lost me potentially. The first post to me from reading it seemed to indicate something which i may have misread. I need to clarify, you are looking at charges and interest for your friend? is that bit right?

crazyworld_2

Right, yes, I helped them to go through all their statements as they had them all. From those we added up all the charges and used the calculator here to work out the interest, as I did in my own case.