I won my Daughters claim...BUT

nobblyned

There is some ambiguity in your question which is leading to the two different answers from posters.

Situation A: Your daughter ended up owing Barclays £2k, of which say £1,800 was charges. The account was closed with you still owing £2k. You were awarded £1,800 in charge refund which you paid into another bank account. In this case you still owe Barclays £2,000 the £1,800 for the charges plus the extra £200.

Situation B: Your daughter ended up owing Barclays £2,000, £1,800 of which was charges. The reclaimed charges were awarded and paid into the Barclays account. In this case you now owe barclays only £200.

nobblyned

Have just read the full situation in your post #4.

The situation is Situation A in the two that I described. You still owe them £1000.

Your daughter closed the account owing £1000. She had £3000 of charges. Therefore her balance should have been (without the charges) a credit of £2000.

This is therefore what she should be left with once the matter is resolved i.e. £3000 charges refund minus £1000 overdraft debt = £2000 credit

techspec

I was in the same position.

I had a £1500 overdraft with Natwest, made up mainy of bank charges.

Natwest refunded me £3000. I was expecting them to take the £1500 off, but they didn't.

But that means i still owe them the £1500, which i am paying monthly.

You are wrong to say this money is no-longer owed. If you were to keep it, then you would have in effect have recived some of your bank charges back twice.

LozBingley

tifo wrote: »

this is how i see it.

example :

you owed barcays £4,000 including charges.

they paid back £3,000 leaving £1,000 owed.

they sold debt to an agency who is asking for £4,000.

DCA should in fact be asking for only the £1,000 owed.

If they sold the debt before they made the claim - they owe the full £4,000 to the Debt Company because they paid the £3,000 to the wrong people!

LozBingley

nobblyned wrote: »

Have just read the full situation in your post #4.

The situation is Situation A in the two that I described. You still owe them £1000.

Your daughter closed the account owing £1000. She had £3000 of charges. Therefore her balance should have been (without the charges) a credit of £2000.

This is therefore what she should be left with once the matter is resolved i.e. £3000 charges refund minus £1000 overdraft debt = £2000 credit

As yet we still have not had confirmation as to the true details of this situation

LozBingley

techspec wrote: »

I was in the same position.

I had a £1500 overdraft with Natwest, made up mainy of bank charges.

Natwest refunded me £3000. I was expecting them to take the £1500 off, but they didn't.

But that means i still owe them the £1500, which i am paying monthly.

You are wrong to say this money is no-longer owed. If you were to keep it, then you would have in effect have recived some of your bank charges back twice.

My point entirely proven by example

Daughter

The correct position was:

Her and her husband's account was about £600 overdrawn when Barclays closed it. They then continued to add charges etc to it.

I went down the road of reclaiming. Once I had all their statements I then calculated what penalty charges had been incurred. Claimed back £3166

Got it via bailiff proceedings etc.

What I am saying is that yes if there is a legitimate sum owed I am happy to clear it for them BUT if the payment is made to the bank of say £1336 then they are in turn receiving back judgment monies paid out legitimately.

Surely that cannot be right.

I have sent an 11 page fax to the debt collectors - as they took no notice of my first request - for a complete breakdown of the figure they say is owed. I believe that only an outstanding debt should be repaid and not debt plus all their charges - which is why they were sued in the first place.

I would be grateful for advice on the matter

Thanks - concerned mum

techspec

Surely the £3166 you got back, included the £1336 still owed to the bank.

If thats the case, then your refunded bank charges would then be used to pay off the debt.

Otherwise, you have been refunded money that you never paid out.

I do agree, however, that the bank should have checked what you owed them before court, and counter claimed. However, i doubt that their failure to do this, would bar them from recovering the money in the future.

Daughter

The penny has finally dropped with me..........at last...............I am a grandmother what can I say...and menopausal !

Right - the legitimate debt is what they in real terms owed to the bank plus the bank charges never paid out by them in the first place,.....sorry I do understand now...

It would however be interesting to let them issue proceedings.....I then counterclaim (?) with the judgment and say that they should have counterclaimed against the proceedings in the first place and press the court to confirm they should have...

that I feel was the appropriate time

LozBingley

Daughter wrote: »

What I am saying is that yes if there is a legitimate sum owed I am happy to clear it for them BUT if the payment is made to the bank of say £1336 then they are in turn receiving back judgment monies paid out legitimately.

Unfortunatly you owe this back!

Your claim and the payment was for the charges with no consideration for the debt. OK so the bank made an error and paid it out to your daughter.

YES they should have retained this or made a counter claim but if you don't pay it back then they have 6 years to claim it back off you in the same way you claimed it off them.

Just be thankful you didn't accept a lower offer and then had to pay it all back!