Help interpreting FOS final decision.

trouble00z

After a long battle with RBS over mis-lending (which they have admitted to), I recieved the following from FOS :-

I uphold this complaint, I direct RBS to recalculate account as though overdraft was never increased from £250 and refund all associated interest and fees charged after this overdraft was increased above this amount. I appreciate that Mr XXX still has some outstanding debt attached to this account, and think it fair that RBS may use this refund to offset this if it wants to.

My question is, after reading this is debt now at £250 or is whole amount still owed less bank charges?

[Deleted User]

The full amount is owed, less fee and charges associated with the >£250 amount.

molerat

And that RBS can use the refunded charges to reduce that amount.

EarthBoy

RBS have to refund you the charges and interest, but they can deduct this refund from the total amount that you owe them, instead of having to pay you any money.

The outcome is that you still owe the overdraft, but you owe less because the refund has reduced the amount.

trouble00z

Thanks for replies, at a loss how FOS can rule in my favour, how RBS can admit to mis-lending (despite being warned they where lending to a vunerable client), yet client still has to repay all money. Doesnt feel like bank will learn any lessons from this!

[Deleted User]

Their lesson is that you've had an interest free loan, which means they have lost money as a result.

trouble00z

Our lesson is that I have a suicidal son who is up to his neck in debt despite begging RBS not to keep lending him money.

[Deleted User]

Hopefully this decision will help in that regard.

masonic

trouble00z wrote: »

Thanks for replies, at a loss how FOS can rule in my favour, how RBS can admit to mis-lending (despite being warned they where lending to a vunerable client), yet client still has to repay all money. Doesnt feel like bank will learn any lessons from this!

It's unclear what you mean by 'vulnerable'. If your son has a recognised disability affecting mental capacity and the bank was aware of this yet didn't offer him a basic bank account in response to his request not to afford him credit, then the decision is somewhat surprising.

PixelPound

masonic wrote: »

It's unclear what you mean by 'vulnerable'. If your son has a recognised disability affecting mental capacity and the bank was aware of this yet didn't offer him a basic bank account in response to his request not to afford him credit, then the decision is somewhat surprising.

We also don't know that the son requested no more credit, just the mother. Offering a basic bank account would have meant the OD needed repaying. The argument, it seems, is RBS were informed of the vulnerability before the OD was increased. No timescale here and rules dealing with vulnerable customers have changed over recent years.

trouble00z

I informed bank he had mental health issues shortly after they issued 3k bank loan. Family repaid loan when he became unable to again bank made aware of this. Shortly after he requested small overdraft this was then increased over the next couple of months until it was 2.5k. This despite him having 4/5 different jobs within a 6 month period.
He had full mental breakdown resulting in hospitalisation in 2016, 2 years after warning RBS he was ill.