Bank Charges Test Case Article discussion

The_Judge79

marcharrison1979 wrote: »

Ha anybody here managed to get a single penny out of Yorkshire Bank (Clydesdale Bank)?
I havnt heard a single case where they have paid anything.

I have had a claim in with Yorkshire Bank since 24 January 2007. They offered me aproximately 50% of the actual charges without taking into account interest or costs. I returned the cheque and informed them I would be pursuing them for the full charges plus interest plus costs.

I applied through the small claims court and was given a court date of Septemebr 2007 but in the period between receiving my court date and the actual court date the waiver kicked in and I've been twiddling my thumbs ever since!

I have spoken to Yorkshire Bank regarding applying for a hardship case and was provided with the necessary forms. My wife has been receiving Statutory Maternity Pay since June last year which meant that her wage more than halved! I did not complete these as on reflection I would rather have the full settlement with interest than a token gesture. The cynic in me also thought that Yorkshire Bank were being far too helpful with this and I thought there must be a catch!

Any thoughts on the above would be appreciated.

Regards

natweststaffmember

The_Judge79 wrote: »

I have had a claim in with Yorkshire Bank since 24 January 2007. They offered me aproximately 50% of the actual charges without taking into account interest or costs. I returned the cheque and informed them I would be pursuing them for the full charges plus interest plus costs.

I applied through the small claims court and was given a court date of Septemebr 2007 but in the period between receiving my court date and the actual court date the waiver kicked in and I've been twiddling my thumbs ever since!

I have spoken to Yorkshire Bank regarding applying for a hardship case and was provided with the necessary forms. My wife has been receiving Statutory Maternity Pay since June last year which meant that her wage more than halved! I did not complete these as on reflection I would rather have the full settlement with interest than a token gesture. The cynic in me also thought that Yorkshire Bank were being far too helpful with this and I thought there must be a catch!

Any thoughts on the above would be appreciated.

Regards

Sometimes a post hits me and I want to scream at the poster. Apologies but it was yours. If they made a token gesture, it does not stop you from pursuing the rest of the claim. Genuine Financial Hardship does not have pride or principals but it does have genuine financial hardship causing a worsening in someone's financial position where a choice is made between eating or paying a bill. If you have no "priority debts" arrears then they will decline Financial Hardship. Read the FSA Waiver on Bank Charges in full(its on my signature) and any catches will be on there

Corking

Sorry I can't seem to find a answer to this. How do I go about applying where the account is closed and I cannot remember the account number.

Many Thanks.


Chris

natweststaffmember

Corking wrote: »

Sorry I can't seem to find a answer to this. How do I go about applying where the account is closed and I cannot remember the account number.

Many Thanks.


Chris

Just write to the bank will all the information you know. Address at the time, branch name(if you remember) name and DOB that sort of thing.

Corking

Thats great thank you.....

Yes I know all address' branches etc... Just didn't know if it was a way out of it for the bank.

Don't suppose there's a template letter for this one is there ?

esmerellda

Just to confirm the banks have entered their petition to the HoL to ask for permission to appeal the Court of appeals decision to uphold justice Smiths Judgment .

machomanugget

esmerellda wrote: »

Just to confirm the banks have entered their petition to the HoL to ask for permission to appeal the Court of appeals decision to uphold justice Smiths Judgment .

Hey Esmerellda, I thought the banks had been told that there was no point in them appealing as the same reasoning would be used? is this yet another ploy to drag this out continiously for even more time when we were told that they should sort this out as soon as possible.

Seems to me there going to do everything they can to string this out for the next 20 years if possible, it really is unbelievable can nothing be done to get this sorted as it seems to me there just doing it to keep it going as long as possible even though they continue to keep paying out every week for people that have been claiming for a few weeks / months, what about all of us that have been waiting years this seems very unfair to say the least.

thanks

esmerellda

Aye they did, the First National Bank judgment was House of Lords so to find differently they'd be going against their own decision, basically I think is what the Appeal court said. Yep we know they are going to string it out as long as possible. I think the banks now have 7 days to give in all their paperwork, copies of petitions, copies of judgments etc, and the HoL will have a wee discussion whether to allow the appeal to go ahead, maximum of 8 weeks so they say. So any delay from now till the HoL gives its decision on the petition is the HoL's.

Fingers crossed they say no and stick with FNB.

Nathan_Spleen

machomanugget wrote: »

Hey Esmerellda, I thought the banks had been told that there was no point in them appealing as the same reasoning would be used?

It's worth pointing out that the Master of the Rolls made no comment whatsoever as to the prospects of an appeal to the House of Lords.

You might have got that impression from the 'announcement' on the Consumer Action Group which claims that ''Despite the Master of the Rolls telling the banks they have "no chance", the fight is set to continue...''

This is fictional propaganda. I'd imagine a judge - especially one of his seniority - would be struck off for pre-empting the outcome of a House of Lords Appeal or an application to appeal.

Along with this garbage the Consumer Action Group also gave us ''Test case moved to tiny room'' when on the very same day The Times accurately reported that ''The test case has been moved to a larger venue...'' and then of course ''Natwest historical terms are penalties - Official!!!'' when Justice Smith merely said that he's not convinced that they are incapable of being penalties.

You'd get better test case coverage reading the Beano.

machomanugget

Nice one for the further update

Yes i was unsure about what i had been reading so i thought i would ask here, there always seems to be someone able to post links of official statements from the correct body so that my information does not come from the beano!

Thanks for the updates and the correct info i knew i would get an answer regarding this here thats why i asked, please forgive me if what i said was not correct but i am relying on alot of sites to keep up to date on this as in the current climate i dont rule out being shafted by the banks regulator and the courts on this matter

Cheers