Bank Charges OFT Test Case Discussion

annei_2

my daughter's bank has started proceedings against her in Northamptonshire relating to an overdraft. I had already got her to request her statements and have gone through these and found that the amount the bank is reclaiming from her is less than the amount of bank charges over the last 6 years. I was about to send the first reclaim letter when the claim arrived. I've filed an acknowledgement of service and plan to file a defence on her behalf asking for the case to be transferred to her local court and counterclaiming in respect of the charges. Any advice as to whether the case is likely to be stayed given that the bank has started the case or preparing the defence would be welcomed.

Thanks

annei_2

noosa wrote: »

Hi there,

I have received a threatening letter from a debt collection agency on behalf of Abbey demanding that I repay (within 7 days) the amount overdue on my account. The amount they are demanding is solely the result of excessive fees which are the subject of an application to reclaim fees, an application currently supposedly on hold due to the test case. Is this action illegal? Any advice on how to reply?

I referred the last debt collection agency back to Abbey as I was sure they couldn't collect on a debt under dispute and the subject of a test case, this seemed to have worked but it appears they are trying again. Numerous letters sent by me to Abbey have either been ignored or replied to with a generic letter.

Any advice greatly appreciated.

x Noosa:mad:

Hi Noosa, this sounds like harrassment to me - might be worth getting some advice on the Protection from Harrassment Act. I would write back enclosing copies of the letters you've sent to the bank disputing their claim and tell the debt collection company this is a disputed amount and suggesting they take further instructions from the principals. It might also be worth writing to the bank copying the letters you've sent to the first and second debt collection agency and drawing to their attention that this is a disputed debt, that there is a correct procedure for settling this dispute should they wish to use it (issuing proceedings) and that using debt collection agencies in the full knowledge that the debt is disputed rather than seeking to resolve the dispute through the correct channels may be viewed by some (as presumably it is by you) as harrassment. Of course you might want to get some advice on this, from my very out-of-date legal knowledge I understand that the minimum unwanted approaches required under PHA is 2 so it sounds as though the minimum requirements may already have been met. I certainly used this with Halifax who continued to ring me chasing my daughter's debt even though I told them that this was not her telephone number - I got about 20 calls and each time the caller agreed to take my number off the system - it only stopped when I mentioned PHA.

Good luck

troublewithnames

I have a friend who is now and at the time of incurring the charges was receiving Incapacity Benefit. Is she entitled to insist that the bank deals with her case now despite the test case? I ask because in most cases where someone says "those in receipt of benefits..." Incap is normally excluded. Or if nobody knows, any suggestions as to where I could find out? Thanks in advance, TWN.

Smasher

noosa wrote: »

Hi there,

I have received a threatening letter from a debt collection agency on behalf of Abbey demanding that I repay (within 7 days) the amount overdue on my account. The amount they are demanding is solely the result of excessive fees which are the subject of an application to reclaim fees, an application currently supposedly on hold due to the test case. Is this action illegal? Any advice on how to reply?

I referred the last debt collection agency back to Abbey as I was sure they couldn't collect on a debt under dispute and the subject of a test case, this seemed to have worked but it appears they are trying again. Numerous letters sent by me to Abbey have either been ignored or replied to with a generic letter.

Any advice greatly appreciated.

x Noosa:mad:

Something like this noosa..

YOUR NAME
YOUR ADDRESS
YOUR <st1><st1>POST</st1><st1>TOWN</st1></st1>
YOUR POSTCODE

BANK NAME
BANK ADDRESS
BANK POST TOWN
BANK POSTCODE
TODAY’S DATE
<o>

</o> Dear Sir/madam
<o>

</o> I am writing in response to your letter dated xx/xx/xx, a copy of which is attached.
<o>

</o> I would advise you that it is in your best interest to take no further action in relation to the alleged debt that XYZ Bank has contracted you to recover from me.
I do not acknowledge any debt to XYZ Bank.<o>

</o> The alleged debt that you are attempting to recover has accrued solely from unlawful & unenforceable penalty charges imposed on my account by XYZ Bank.
<o>

</o> I currently have a legal dispute with XYZ Bank in relation to this matter.
<o>

</o> I request that you do not contact me again about this matter. I would like to remind you that any threats of legal action or demands for money for a debt that is in dispute would be a breach of the protection from harassment act 1997 and will result in legal action being brought against your organisation for the same.
<o>

</o> I will also take this opportunity to inform you that should you wish to begin legal action in respect of this matter, I will issue a counter claim for monies owed to my by XYZ Bank, plus exemplary damages. I will also apply to the court to order that whoever should bring such action against myself be listed as a vexatious litigant. I am confident that I would succeed in such action.<o>

</o> <o>

</o> Yours sincerely
<o>

</o> YOUR NAME<o>

</o>

lloydstsb123

To benefit from the waiver in dealing with complaints about bank charges, the banks that are party to the test case must comply with certain conditions to benefit from the waiver.

The conditions can be seen on the FSA web site here

I believe LloydsTSB are not complying with at least one of the conditions and so we should all complain to the FSA and get LloydsTSB to sort themselves out or lose the benefit of the waiver.

On 2/11/07 LloydsTSB increased there unauthorised o/d charge from £30 per incident plus £30 each day the o/d increases to £20 per day to a maximum of 10 charges per month. So if you have an unauthorised o/d that didn't increase Lloyds would have charged £30 wheras since 2/11 that has increased to £200 per month!!!!

This is in breach of condition 13(2) that states:

"Whilst this direction is in force, the firm has agreed with the FSA to have regard to its obligations under the general law and the Banking Code relating to relevant charges complaints. In particular, the firm has agreed with the FSA that it will not:
(a) make materially adverse changes in the level of its unauthorised overdraft charges (or in the ways that it applies such charges to its customers' accounts) which could amount to customer abuse; or..."

Complain to FSA via their consumer helpline 0845 606 1234

edgarjay

i would like to ask that even if after i have been issued with a stay from my local court, against HSBC, i then find myself in financial difficulty due to a relationship breakdown which is further compounded by more charges, can i then re-apply to the court to relook at my case?
its maybe three months since i got my stay letter?

thanks

mermaid121212

hello,,,can anyone please advise me if its ok to claim back bank charges,after going bankrupt ?????i dont really care if my trustee takes them lol..by the way i am in scotland,and i have had loadddds of charges in the past 6 yrs

mcgaughey

<TABLE id=HB_Mail_Container height="100%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0 UNSELECTABLE="on"><TBODY><TR height="100%" width="100%" UNSELECTABLE="on"><TD id=HB_Focus_Element vAlign=top width="100%" background="" height=250 UNSELECTABLE="off">My bank (Lloyds TSB) has recently changed the charges that they use. They now charge £15 per month + upto £20 per day for 10 days!! Are they allowed to do this while the case is in progress!!
:mad:
</TD></TR><TR UNSELECTABLE="on" hb_tag="1"><TD style="FONT-SIZE: 1pt" height=1 UNSELECTABLE="on">
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

techspec

mcgaughey wrote: »

<TABLE id=HB_Mail_Container height="100%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0 UNSELECTABLE="on"><TBODY><TR height="100%" UNSELECTABLE="on" width="100%"><TD id=HB_Focus_Element vAlign=top width="100%" background="" height=250 UNSELECTABLE="off">My bank (Lloyds TSB) has recently changed the charges that they use. They now charge £15 per month + upto £20 per day for 10 days!! Are they allowed to do this while the case is in progress!!
:mad:

</TD></TR><TR UNSELECTABLE="on" hb_tag="1"><TD style="FONT-SIZE: 1pt" height=1 UNSELECTABLE="on">


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>No, its against the terms of the waiver, but the banks don't care.

Despite being aware of this, and other breaches, the FSA decided to allow the waiver to continue, proving they are toothless.

Hope the banks get knocked down a peg or two, when this comes to court.

Apathyawakened

Having been to court last Friday I thought it worth updating on the outcome. The bank was granted a stay until after the test case but only until <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:date Month="4" Day="1" Year="2008">1<SUP>st</SUP> April 2008</st1:date> pending the outcome of the test case. :mad: While I argued the test does not address my claim the judge countered that he believed it entirely addresses the claim and the question of unfair charges. I also quoted the case of Terry vs Lloyds as the judge said he felt any ruling now would lead to an appeal by the bank should they win the test case. While he did have sympathy and recognised the banks are getting huge interest benefits from not paying out, he did not agree with my view that it would be better to have the sums clearing my debts and for the banks to feel the pinch by having the money taken away from them (perhaps encouraging them to resolve quickly the court case). <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
A point he did make was that he expected the banks to act honourably and speedily once the test case was completed and the reason for a short stay not linked to outcome of appeal was to encourage the bank to be quick in settling. He has demanded the bank advise directly on the outcome so he does not have to rely on the papers to find out what the result is of the test case. He also expected the banks to pay up quickly if the ruling on unfairness was upheld (as he expected).<o:p></o:p>
What does it all mean? <o:p></o:p>
Well apart from personally having to wait again it has a glimmer of hope. If we all insist that the stay is not linked to the outcome of an appeal as well as the test there will be a strong incentive for the banks to act quickly or they will be faced with a very !!!!ed off set of courts for a further waste of their time, and that might prompt the courts to allow extra costs against the banks such as for inconvenience and hardship caused. <o:p></o:p>
So .. if you are due to have your case stayed go to court and argue to be heard now. Ask for payment by the bank and for you to be allowed to manage any possible appeal should the test case go against the public. If that is refused and the stay allowed, insist that the expiry time be no later than <st1:date Month="4" Day="1" Year="2008">1<SUP>st</SUP> April 2008</st1:date> and it not be linked to the outcome of the test, including any resultant possible appeal.

<o:p>In the meantime thanks Martin :money: for getting us this far and providing the basis for us all to keep on fighting. </o:p>