Unreasonable bank charges and exceptional circumstances

dunstonh

Yes it would. But it may well be the letter wasn't even opened, let alone read and acted upon...for the reason(s) given in the OP. Even banks must have compassion! They may not even be aware of the OP's serious health issue(s).

If the bank are able to supply the date it was issued, then expectation would be that it was read within a few days of that. The 6 month period would be something like 6 months and 1 week from that date. There is always a small tolerance. However, if it sits in an envelope unopened or unread, then that is unlucky.

In the appeal to the FOS, you would expect the OP to have made the point about health similar to how it was on post #1. Health is something the FOS do consider when looking at the timebar. However, you effectively have to justify the whole of the period of the delay. Plus, the FOS themselves set the bar quite high. Incapacity for the whole of the period for all account holders would be the level.

The FOS also go to the bank with what they have been told and ask the bank if they wish to volunteer to reopen the case. if the bank say no and the FOS feel health was not an issue then it is case closed.

Even if the FOS did overrule the timebar, it still faces the issue that the FOS no longer consider complaints about unfair bank charges. it can only make sure the bank treats the consumer fairly in cases of hardship. Hardship cases do not automatically get a refund. Indeed, common solutions are suspending charges and/or interest for the next 3-6 months or putting the person on a debt management plan. Where charges are refunded, often it is only the last 6-12 months. It only tends to be on extreme cases where refunds go back longer (and they do happen, just not that common).

spotify95

dunstonh wrote: »

Hardship means hardship. Bills going unpaid. Balance getting worse every month etc. If that is the case, the bank will normally look at solutions as long as the reasons are not down to consumer spending. Whilst a Sky sub or mobile phone bill in isolation wont necessarily rule out hardship, they do look at spending habits and if they see restaurants, mcdonalds, shopping at Next etc then they will not consider you in hardship.

Your first problem was that the bank did not think you were currently in financial hardship. You may have moved from hardship to struggle but they dont need to do anything if you are struggling but getting there.

Your second problem basically ended it as the timebar is final unless the bank volunteer to waive it.

Would they consider you NOT in hardship if you do your regular food shopping at Sainsbury's and ask why you don't got to Aldi or Lidl instead?

BorisThomson

spotify95 wrote: »

Would they consider you NOT in hardship if you do your regular food shopping at Sainsbury's and ask why you don't got to Aldi or Lidl instead?

No. Some people don't have a Lidl etc nearby. What is more important are the amounts spent, wherever that shopping is done.

PeacefulWaters

spotify95 wrote: »

Would they consider you NOT in hardship if you do your regular food shopping at Sainsbury's and ask why you don't got to Aldi or Lidl instead?

Two year old thread. Really?

dunstonh

spotify95 wrote: »

Would they consider you NOT in hardship if you do your regular food shopping at Sainsbury's and ask why you don't got to Aldi or Lidl instead?

Sainsburys vs Aldi/Lidl is not a big enough gap. However, people have been declined for buying M&S sandwiches and buying clothes at Next. People in real hardship dont do those things.

Top package on Sky TV or a high mobile phone bill (with no context - self employed may have a high bill due to trade) or spending on holidays, hotels etc.

They are looking to see if its genuine hardship or living beyond means

deadendwaterfall

dunstonh wrote: »

Sainsburys vs Aldi/Lidl is not a big enough gap. However, people have been declined for buying M&S sandwiches and buying clothes at Next. People in real hardship dont do those things.

Top package on Sky TV or a high mobile phone bill (with no context - self employed may have a high bill due to trade) or spending on holidays, hotels etc.

They are looking to see if its genuine hardship or living beyond means

Has anyone been declined for buying sandwiches or other food from Waitrose?

[Deleted User]

deadendwaterfall wrote: »

Has anyone been declined for buying sandwiches or other food from Waitrose?

It's not where the food was bought so much as buying pre-prepared sandwiches rather than the far cheaper route of a loaf and some fillings bought separately. In addition, such purchases would not be taken into consideration in isolation.

As Dunston said THREE YEARS AGO on this thread, they look at spending generally to ascertain financial hardship. Large amounts of money spent on subscription television and mobile phone bills, for example, would be far more damning than any purchase from a supermarket.

Thread is from 2016...