Cannot claim account charges back

Toria1969

Hi All,

I recently put a claim in for being miss sold a Gold Account with Lloyds TSB when I applied for my first mortgage back in 2002. But I was told that it was too late to claim because it was over six years ago? I'm frustrated because this amounts to about £2,500 of my money they took without my knowledge or agreement!

The account was set up for me with no knowledge of fees because the bank manager at the time said the account came with my mortgage (and don't get me started on the insurance policy they also set up for me at the time too!).

I know that it was negligent of myself, but I never noticed the £12 monthly payments until about 4 years into the account and queried it with my local branch, simply because I didn't expect to be paying anything. They immediately switched my account to a standard current account and left it at that.

At the time I was never told I could complain and/or be reimbursed the charges I occurred because the account was miss sold to me.

Why is there a time limit on money that is clearly owed to me by miss selling, or pushing me to open an account I didn't actually need and would definitely not have agreed to pay for?

Thanks for your help
Victoria

[Deleted User]

Would have been in the paperwork you signed.

They are right unfortunately.

oldagetraveller

"but I never noticed the £12 monthly payments until about 4 years into the account"
Sorry, but my other leg has some really large bells attached!

eskbanker

Toria1969 wrote: »

Why is there a time limit on money that is clearly owed to me by miss selling, or pushing me to open an account I didn't actually need and would definitely not have agreed to pay for?

Not sure if it addresses your question, but the time limits within which complaints must be raised are set by the FCA.

https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/DISP/1/8.html covers the principle of time-barring:

If a respondent receives a complaint which is outside the time limits for referral to the Financial Ombudsman Service (see DISP 2.8) it may reject the complaint without considering the merits, but must explain this to the complainant in a final response in accordance with DISP 1.6.2 R or DISP 1.6.2AR.

and https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/DISP/2/8.html explains the parameters concerned, i.e. that complaints may be rejected for time-barring reasons if raised:

more than:
(a) six years after the event complained of; or (if later)
(b) three years from the date on which the complainant became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) that he had cause for complaint;

so if the alleged misselling was in 2002 and you were aware of it in 2006 (by virtue of moving to a fee-free account) then you'd have had to complain no later than 2009 and so are now well out of time by ten years....

mgdavid

Toria1969 wrote: »

............

At the time I was never told I could complain and/or be reimbursed the charges I occurred because the account was miss sold to me.

.........

you need to be told to complain???

phillw

mgdavid wrote: »

you need to be told to complain???

Yes, Martin Lewis has built his career on that.

Ben8282

How strange.
Yet again a reply has disappeared from a thread as if it never existed.
I recall writing quite a ;lengthy reply to this topic and where is it?
Gone.
Obviously somebody with the ability to delete replies to threads believes the OP is fully entitled to claim back every penny of these bank charges and objects to replies that offer a contrary opinion.

Willing2Learn

I think the reason that a post may have been deleted is because the OP is new to the forum and she came here looking for advice. She probably didn't expect to be criticised and/or ridiculed for not having known how the system works.

Edit: I don't know what the deleted post said, but I am assuming it was not full of advice...

Ben8282

Willing2Learn wrote: »

I think the reason that a post may have been deleted is because the OP is new to the forum and she came here looking for advice. She probably didn't expect to be criticised and/or ridiculed for not having known how the system works.

Edit: I don't know what the deleted post said, but I am assuming it was not full of advice...

Maybe so. But she was not ridiculed.
It was however pointed out to her that 4 years at £12 per-month comes to £576 and not over £2500 as claimed.
It was also pointed out that she must have been aware that she held a gold account as she would have received a gold coloured debit card and she must also have received information concerning the gold account.
The OP was asked if she had made use of any of the products included in the package and it was pointed out that if, for example, she had travelled abroad without buying travel insurance or had driven a car without buying breakdown membership that she would have been covered during this period irrespective of if a claim was made or not..
She was also asked if she had made use of any of the other facilities offered by the gold account, such a using the debit card as a cheque guarantee card for the higher amount authorised by such cards or had used the debit card to make a cash withdrawal for the higher cash with drawal limit which these cards offered in those days.
All reasonable questions to see if she had actually benefited from the facilities offered by this account.
I suppose she was criticised but that was for not checking her bank statements for 4 years and noticing the fee was being charged. A not unreasonable comment.

Ben8282

Speaking in general terms and without specific reference to the OP, I don't approve of the mass refunding of fees for packaged bank accounts.
I can accept that there have been valid instances of mis-selling and yes such individuals should be refunded.
However, these accounts offer a package of insurance products for which those who held the accounts have been covered. In other words the insurer has been at risk irrespective of whether a claim has been made or not. It is all very well for an individual to claim that they did not need insurance against X because they never claimed but if they had been in a situation where they needed to claim perhaps they would be viewing the whole situation differently. If they had fallen over and broken a leg on holiday and had not purchased travel insurance, they may now be saying 'thank God I was mis-sold that packaged bank account'.
These accounts can offer other facilities beyond the insurance products. The Lloyds gold account mentioned in the OP in the past offered a £500 cheque guarantee card and a £500 daily ATM withdrawal limit which were not offered by the 'free' accounts at that time. In addition, it offered a higher interest free overdraft buffer. How can a value be placed on these things? To some people the ability to guarantee a higher value cheque of make a higher cash withdrawal may have been worth the fee. Going right back to the 'yuppie' era, to some people the ability to flash a gold coloured debit card to their friends or at work may have been worth it in itself.

Willing2Learn

The 2009 Supreme Court ruling kind of knocked the "mass refunding of fees for packaged bank accounts" on the head. To have any chance of successfully reclaiming charges you have to prove either financial hardship, disproportionate charges or that the debtor was stuck in a vicious cycle of charges from which they could not escape.