Bank charges from Woolwich

Jain0

I divorced in 1993 & opened a Woolwich account (still have all my statements). Due to CSA payments not crediting my account as the time they stated I continually incurred £25 chgs (a lot of money back then) some mths this could be as many as 6 or 7. I was at the time in financial hardship as I had to change from full to part time work due to my children being small, and was not receiving benefits other than child benefit. The bank were well aware of my circumstances but were not helpful.
I would like to try to reclaim these charges as I feel aggrieved that as a struggling single mother who was trying to hold down a job as well as bring up children and dealing with a divorce they could continually put me in further poverty on a mthly basis.
Could anyone please advise who I need to contact/write to as am not sure who now owns the Woolwich.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.

dunstonh

I would like to try to reclaim these charges as I feel aggrieved that as a struggling single mother who was trying to hold down a job as well as bring up children and dealing with a divorce they could continually put me in further poverty on a mthly basis.

On what basis do you think that they should refund any of these charges?

For example, you cannot use the "unfair" method as that no longer works. You cant say you have current financial hardship as this is historic.

brown1950

Yes i can understand your situation however as the banks won the court case a few years ago historical charges are not refunded. This will no doubt
be confirmed by the usual 'bank defenders' who post on this site daily.

Jain0

On what basis do you think that they should refund any of these charges?

I was in financial hardship 'at the time' due to separation & divorce and having to cut my work hours. Some mths these chgs could be as much as £150 to £200 (a lot of money now let alone in '90's) which just caused both myself & my children more financial hardship and also mental anguish for me, to the point where I actually seriously weighed up whether my children would have been better off in care as I had no family to help out. This was a dark time for me with the bank being very callous and lacking empathy. Back in 1993 nobody was aware of the 'unfairness' of bank chgs otherwise I would have challenged it then.
I have not been able to do anything as I am unsure who I would need to claim against as Woolwich no longer exists.

dunstonh

I was in financial hardship 'at the time' due to separation & divorce and having to cut my work hours.

Financial hardship criteria is current. Not historic. You have to be in hardship now.

They look at how you run your account currently and the current charges you are incurring. A refund of the last 6-12 months is often what they will refund if you meet their hardship criteria.

Back in 1993 nobody was aware of the 'unfairness' of bank chgs otherwise I would have challenged it then.

Banks won the court case on unfair bank charges and since then its largely died a death apart from current financial hardship cases.

brown1950

Jain0 wrote: »

On what basis do you think that they should refund any of these charges?

I was in financial hardship 'at the time' due to separation & divorce and having to cut my work hours. Some mths these chgs could be as much as £150 to £200 (a lot of money now let alone in '90's) which just caused both myself & my children more financial hardship and also mental anguish for me, to the point where I actually seriously weighed up whether my children would have been better off in care as I had no family to help out. This was a dark time for me with the bank being very callous and lacking empathy. Back in 1993 nobody was aware of the 'unfairness' of bank chgs otherwise I would have challenged it then.
I have not been able to do anything as I am unsure who I would need to claim against as Woolwich no longer exists.

You would have put in a compalint to the owners of Woolwich (ie) Barclays Bank PLC. Barclays purchased The Woolwich in 2000.
On 28 June 2006, Barclays announced that The Woolwich was to become the Barclays UK mortgage brand, supported by Barclays branches, and that Woolwich branches would be either closed or re-branded as Barclays.

magpiecottage

It seems to me that you spent money that was not in your account and Woolwich charged you for accommodating that.

Whilst I appreciate that this may have been necessary because the CSA did not pay the money to you on time, that is the fault of the CSA, not Woolwich.

Therefore, it seems that your grievance is with the CSA, not Woolwich.

Looking at this from the other side, at in 1993, I was a saver with Woolwich Building Society (as it was then) - a mutual institution run for the benefit of its members.

Had it agreed to subsidise your borrowing by not charging you for it, the cost would have needed to be passed on to me and all other members.

Why should we have been expected to meet the cost of a dispute between you and the CSA?