FSA and Hardship

[yourbank]

Hope this is the right place to put this discussion but please feel free to move it if it is required. There is reports on other bank charges forums that the FSA are proposing that hardship is defined as incurring £500 worth of charges. The banks are looking at alternative approaches.
Two questions really,
1) How is hardship defined NOW?
2) Is £500 too high or too low a figure that is being proposed?

	Bank Charges You should have started your claim for your bank charges by now. Don't wait. You should send your bank a Subject Acess Request asking for all personal data they hold on you - not just statements. You should calculate all of your bank charges and related interest as far back as 1995. You should send your bank a demand for a refund giving them 7 days. You should commence your legal action adding 8% statutory interest. If you wait for the outcome of the test case, you may not be able to claim like this. you may not be able to claim interest. You may only be offered the difference between the charge and the OFT "fair charge". The repayment scheme will try to limit you to refinds from 2001 only. A repayment scheme will not deal with any bank charges related defaults on the credit register whereas in a court action you can ask for these to be removed and to be compensated for the damage caused to you and your family by them. You should also write to the bank and to the CRA and put all charges related credit entries in disupte and warn them that you will want them removed from the Register when the test case is over. Warn them also that you are likely to be seeking compensation for these wrongful data entries. Full and final settlement Have you previously accepted a partial repayment of your bank charges in full settlement? You will still be able to claim the rest of your money back after the Test case is decided. Get all your information back to 1995 and put in your claim now.

	Hardship By and large the "harship" provision in the FSA waiver is a myth which is intended to create a sense that the banking industry is sufficiently well-intentioned to act fairly towards its customers even though their right of access to the courts has been blocked. In fact there are very few guidelines as to procedure and very little definition of "hardship". One unfortunate spin off is that many people in difficulty get their hopes up and go to considerable lengths to plead hardship to their bank in order to get a refund or partial refund of their bank charges only to be refused. Neither the courts nor the FOS have the power to order a bank to make a charges refund on the basis of hardship. We hear of some people obtaining a partial refund quite easily. Others have obtained money by being very persistent - but mostly we hear that people are refused. Even benefits claimants do not automatically receive hardship refunds. By all means try to get a bank charges refund on the basis of hardship - but don't bank on it!

[JOSH_IOU]

i pulled this off one of the forums but not sure if we can name which one.

The category of benefit that the Claimant is receiving is deemed as inalienable under the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (s.187) which states as follows:

187.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every assignment of or charge on—
(a) benefit as defined in section 122 of the Contributions and Benefits Act;
(b) any income-related benefit; or
(c) child benefit,
and every agreement to assign or charge such benefit shall be void; and, on the bankruptcy of a beneficiary, such benefit shall not pass to any trustee or other person acting on behalf of his creditors.

In addition the claimant relies on the principles of

Woods v. The Royal Bank of Scotland 1913 1 S.L.T. 499

"A weekly payment, or a sum paid by way of redemption thereof, shall not be capable of being assigned, charged, or attached, and shall not pass to any other person by operation of law, nor shall any claim be set-off against the same."

[yourbank]

The problem with a definition of hardship is the problem of defining whether it is specifically JUST for someone on benefit or whether someone working and picking up even two charge a month could be classed as being in hardship.
The definition of £500 would have that effect.

	Hardship By and large the "harship" provision in the FSA waiver is a myth which is intended to create a sense that the banking industry is sufficiently well-intentioned to act fairly towards its customers even though their right of access to the courts has been blocked. In fact there are very few guidelines as to procedure and very little definition of "hardship". One unfortunate spin off is that many people in difficulty get their hopes up and go to considerable lengths to plead hardship to their bank in order to get a refund or partial refund of their bank charges only to be refused. Neither the courts nor the FOS have the power to order a bank to make a charges refund on the basis of hardship. We hear of some people obtaining a partial refund quite easily. Others have obtained money by being very persistent - but mostly we hear that people are refused. Even benefits claimants do not automatically receive hardship refunds. By all means try to get a bank charges refund on the basis of hardship - but don't bank on it!

[JOSH_IOU]

You would have to look at the scale of the debt.

What I mean by that is the way the debt helping companies work.

They look at how many creditors you have and then look at how much you owe to each.

But as for the £500 claim this sounds like a way to sift through cases fast.

[veester]

That's a bit harsh....i have incured about £75 to £150 per month for the last year.

I know no longer have enough money to pay my bills/fuel to get to work
The bank is not listening to evidence of illness (i am writing to the FOS)
I am opening a parachute account

That's to the tune of over £1500.....thats caused me hardship!!!!

	The Financial Ombudsman Service For the most part, don't bother. The Ombudsman is an industry arranged service which is under-resourced, takes too long, lacks clear transparency. You have no idea what evidence the FOS has received from the bank or how your complain has really been handled. The FOS is the preferred complaints route for the banking industry. The county court is to be preferred by consumers for its speed, openness, the quality of its awards and also because it will award 8% interest on top of any damages won by you. The Ombudsman should normally be used to solving little technical difficulties or customer service problems which you have expereinced with your bank.

	Parachute account "Parachute account" describes a second bank account opened expressly in order to avoid retaliatory action by a customer's usual bank once a bank charges claim had been commenced. The term "parachute account" was first used in this sense by BankFodder on the 22nd February 2006 and has since become part of general usage in this context. "parachute account" is used regularly by Martin Lewis of MoneySavingExpert.com and also by the National press.

	Hardship By and large the "harship" provision in the FSA waiver is a myth which is intended to create a sense that the banking industry is sufficiently well-intentioned to act fairly towards its customers even though their right of access to the courts has been blocked. In fact there are very few guidelines as to procedure and very little definition of "hardship". One unfortunate spin off is that many people in difficulty get their hopes up and go to considerable lengths to plead hardship to their bank in order to get a refund or partial refund of their bank charges only to be refused. Neither the courts nor the FOS have the power to order a bank to make a charges refund on the basis of hardship. We hear of some people obtaining a partial refund quite easily. Others have obtained money by being very persistent - but mostly we hear that people are refused. Even benefits claimants do not automatically receive hardship refunds. By all means try to get a bank charges refund on the basis of hardship - but don't bank on it!

[woodwa5]

I know what you mean mate. I was incurring charges up to £850 per month and lost my house as i couldn't pay the mortgage......that's caused me real hardship

	Hardship By and large the "harship" provision in the FSA waiver is a myth which is intended to create a sense that the banking industry is sufficiently well-intentioned to act fairly towards its customers even though their right of access to the courts has been blocked. In fact there are very few guidelines as to procedure and very little definition of "hardship". One unfortunate spin off is that many people in difficulty get their hopes up and go to considerable lengths to plead hardship to their bank in order to get a refund or partial refund of their bank charges only to be refused. Neither the courts nor the FOS have the power to order a bank to make a charges refund on the basis of hardship. We hear of some people obtaining a partial refund quite easily. Others have obtained money by being very persistent - but mostly we hear that people are refused. Even benefits claimants do not automatically receive hardship refunds. By all means try to get a bank charges refund on the basis of hardship - but don't bank on it!

[MARTIN3030]

The guidance for this can be so confusing.In applications to lift stays using the hardship arguement,some defence teams are arguing that allowing the claim to continue would not in itself solve the debt problems of the claimant.

Insofar as guidance from the FSA goes-they make clear that if the account holder fails to get a response from their bank after making a request using the harship arguement-then they should contact the Banking code to complain...and only THEN if there is still no satisfaction to contact the FOS.The last update to the sites advice and guidance was 30th.May.

	The Banking Code Follow this link to read the Banking Code in full. Ofen ignored by its subscribers, half-heartedly monitored and poorly enforced

	The Financial Ombudsman Service For the most part, don't bother. The Ombudsman is an industry arranged service which is under-resourced, takes too long, lacks clear transparency. You have no idea what evidence the FOS has received from the bank or how your complain has really been handled. The FOS is the preferred complaints route for the banking industry. The county court is to be preferred by consumers for its speed, openness, the quality of its awards and also because it will award 8% interest on top of any damages won by you. The Ombudsman should normally be used to solving little technical difficulties or customer service problems which you have expereinced with your bank.

	Hardship By and large the "harship" provision in the FSA waiver is a myth which is intended to create a sense that the banking industry is sufficiently well-intentioned to act fairly towards its customers even though their right of access to the courts has been blocked. In fact there are very few guidelines as to procedure and very little definition of "hardship". One unfortunate spin off is that many people in difficulty get their hopes up and go to considerable lengths to plead hardship to their bank in order to get a refund or partial refund of their bank charges only to be refused. Neither the courts nor the FOS have the power to order a bank to make a charges refund on the basis of hardship. We hear of some people obtaining a partial refund quite easily. Others have obtained money by being very persistent - but mostly we hear that people are refused. Even benefits claimants do not automatically receive hardship refunds. By all means try to get a bank charges refund on the basis of hardship - but don't bank on it!

[JOSH_IOU]

HI Martin yes it certianly is confusing.

And the defence would be half correct.


If the court ruled in favour of the claimant on the grounds of hardship then wouldnt the claimant have case law to support other hardship cases in cases with other creditors?

Just a thought...

	Hardship By and large the "harship" provision in the FSA waiver is a myth which is intended to create a sense that the banking industry is sufficiently well-intentioned to act fairly towards its customers even though their right of access to the courts has been blocked. In fact there are very few guidelines as to procedure and very little definition of "hardship". One unfortunate spin off is that many people in difficulty get their hopes up and go to considerable lengths to plead hardship to their bank in order to get a refund or partial refund of their bank charges only to be refused. Neither the courts nor the FOS have the power to order a bank to make a charges refund on the basis of hardship. We hear of some people obtaining a partial refund quite easily. Others have obtained money by being very persistent - but mostly we hear that people are refused. Even benefits claimants do not automatically receive hardship refunds. By all means try to get a bank charges refund on the basis of hardship - but don't bank on it!

[yourbank]

I should point out that what I have tried to get some discussion on is the idea that the FSA when considering to prolong the waiver will try to define cases for hardship on the basis of £500 worth of charges a year, rather than a wishy washy concept that no one can find out what THEY(FSA) actually consider to be hardship. That could be said to be easy to get to, ie 2 charges a month. With regards to the court aspect, the FSA issue was not in my thinking at all. Hope that clarifies the point I made on post one.

	Hardship By and large the "harship" provision in the FSA waiver is a myth which is intended to create a sense that the banking industry is sufficiently well-intentioned to act fairly towards its customers even though their right of access to the courts has been blocked. In fact there are very few guidelines as to procedure and very little definition of "hardship". One unfortunate spin off is that many people in difficulty get their hopes up and go to considerable lengths to plead hardship to their bank in order to get a refund or partial refund of their bank charges only to be refused. Neither the courts nor the FOS have the power to order a bank to make a charges refund on the basis of hardship. We hear of some people obtaining a partial refund quite easily. Others have obtained money by being very persistent - but mostly we hear that people are refused. Even benefits claimants do not automatically receive hardship refunds. By all means try to get a bank charges refund on the basis of hardship - but don't bank on it!

	FSA Waiver The FSA has granted a waiver to the finance industry in respect of bank charges claims. The waiver has been in place since July 2007 and will continue until the OFT test case is decided. The OFT test case will be heard by the House of Lords in June 2009. We are likley to get a decision before the end of the year. Under FSA rules, banks must normally deal with all complaints within 8 weeks. The FSA waiver has allowed banks to put bank charges claims on hold pending the outcome of the Test case. The FSA waiver is expremely one-sided as it allows banks to put claims on hold but it allows banks to continue levying charges. It also allows banks to continue enforcement action even in relation to disputed bank charges. The FSA waiver has been assisted by a general stay on charges-related County Court claims. You are still permitted to begin a County Court claim for the refund of your charges but your claim will be put on hold pending the outcome of the OFT test case. Despite this, we recommend very strongly that you begin a County Court claim now!! If you are on benefits, you will not have to pay court fees. You should start a County Court claim to recover your money straightaway.

[veester]

Woodwa5...Sorry to hear of your troubles, i can sympathise...My parents (and me at the end of the day) lost there house and business in 1992 following the then interest rates and RIP off charges.

It was heart wrenching to see them go through that....they struggled against the charges for years, until it all became to much.

I don't have a lot of sympathy or wamrth towards bankers/repo-men/ and those who use "government auctions" and insider information to sell repo'd houses at undervalue - They are leeches (i'll get off my soap box now!!!)

I think most banks a greedy pigs who have forgetten the difference between STAKEHOLDER AND SHAREHOLDER value.

Back the point....
Ah ok - £500 per year..Thanks for clarifying Yourbank.

It's an interesting point you raise about defence teams MARTIN3030; and the point you raise is exactly what i am going through with my other creditor, in particular the SLC. I am solving the debt issue, in fact it is well on its way to be solved if it was not for the charges.

The bank is clearly onto a good thing and has a policy that knows it;
ME "Bank, i need another £200 on my £1000 overdraft to cover my bills, as you can see i have gone over by this much for the last 2 months"
BANK: "No"
ME: "Why?"
BANK: "Because of internal blah blah"
ME: "What?"
BANK: " We can't tell you"
ME: "So, you allow me to destory my credit rating, leech my bank account through charges...on a premise you cannot explain or justify??? It's because you know you provide an essential service and can extort money."
BANK: "Quiet"

With respect to the SLC, I am asking for relief under Section 9 of the Loans Regulations.

So we'll see

	Are you letting your bank keep your money Are you giving away thousands of pounds?? Many people aren't claiming all of the money they are entitled to when they make their bank charges claims. You have been forced to pay unfair bank charges. Have you forgotten that your bank has charged you inteest on those charges? If you are overdrawn and the bank owes you charges - then your overdraft is made up of charges - money which you bank owes you. Yet you are paying interest to the bank - on your own money!!! Follow this link to see the discussions on this. You might even double th size of your claim.

[tawnyowl]

Good move starting this thread.
Am in business -just.
Been to court for repo managed to get suspended only because of help on here.
Living from week to week-praying that i make the months mortgage payment.
Food-one slice of bread in house other day.
Debts- taken to court more times than the Maxwell brothers.
Will not give in-fight to the bitter end-with help given on this site.
Just want this case finished and won for the ordinary people and business people.We deserve nothing else.
I have 900 pound charges on Abbey business account and other charges on ordinary accounts.Hope it all ends soon even if only to reduce debts.
I know there are many people in the same boat-feel it will start leaking knowing our luck.
Thank god for the people who started Consumer Action Group.
And for the people who offer advice.
Good luck to everyone lets hope it is all over soon.Tawnyowl.
Hope this is on right thread it felt right.

[woodwa5]

tawnyowl,
you do know the court case doesn't cover business accounts don't you? if you didn't you need to claim on that asap

[indebtstudent]

I don't have a clue what hardship is defined as, but then again I haven't really researched this.

What I do know is that the overwhelming majority of the customers I see who ask for charges to be refunded get more than one because of the way the system works.

It can be as long as two months after the charge is incurred that it comes out, and this can take you overdrawn. You get billed again for an unauthorized overdraft (even though the bank, at least on some level MUST have authorized it).

The other alternative is that the bank puts charges on straight away which makes it harder to bring the account back under the limit.

I am sceptical that the FSA is really bothered about looking after the vulnerable. There again what is the FSA actually good at?

Thier logo is quite easy on the eye, little else springs to mind.

	Hardship By and large the "harship" provision in the FSA waiver is a myth which is intended to create a sense that the banking industry is sufficiently well-intentioned to act fairly towards its customers even though their right of access to the courts has been blocked. In fact there are very few guidelines as to procedure and very little definition of "hardship". One unfortunate spin off is that many people in difficulty get their hopes up and go to considerable lengths to plead hardship to their bank in order to get a refund or partial refund of their bank charges only to be refused. Neither the courts nor the FOS have the power to order a bank to make a charges refund on the basis of hardship. We hear of some people obtaining a partial refund quite easily. Others have obtained money by being very persistent - but mostly we hear that people are refused. Even benefits claimants do not automatically receive hardship refunds. By all means try to get a bank charges refund on the basis of hardship - but don't bank on it!

	Are you letting your bank keep your money Are you giving away thousands of pounds?? Many people aren't claiming all of the money they are entitled to when they make their bank charges claims. You have been forced to pay unfair bank charges. Have you forgotten that your bank has charged you inteest on those charges? If you are overdrawn and the bank owes you charges - then your overdraft is made up of charges - money which you bank owes you. Yet you are paying interest to the bank - on your own money!!! Follow this link to see the discussions on this. You might even double th size of your claim.

[abroadgirl]

hello im not to sure if this is the correct thread for my post but here is where i am up to on the grounds of hardship ty abroadgirl



.....





.....

	Hardship By and large the "harship" provision in the FSA waiver is a myth which is intended to create a sense that the banking industry is sufficiently well-intentioned to act fairly towards its customers even though their right of access to the courts has been blocked. In fact there are very few guidelines as to procedure and very little definition of "hardship". One unfortunate spin off is that many people in difficulty get their hopes up and go to considerable lengths to plead hardship to their bank in order to get a refund or partial refund of their bank charges only to be refused. Neither the courts nor the FOS have the power to order a bank to make a charges refund on the basis of hardship. We hear of some people obtaining a partial refund quite easily. Others have obtained money by being very persistent - but mostly we hear that people are refused. Even benefits claimants do not automatically receive hardship refunds. By all means try to get a bank charges refund on the basis of hardship - but don't bank on it!

[abroadgirl]

Dear xxxxxxx

YOUR COMPLAINT ABOUT ABBEY XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Thankyou for your recent letter received in respponse to my emails dated 15/16th april 2008.

I have considered the additional information you have supplied but even after taking it into account I still consider it unlikely that more investagation would result in a different outcome.

I say this for the following reasons:

. My understanding is that you are seeking compensation as you believe that the bank closed your account in retaliation to your claim for a refund of bank charges.
In light of this I have made futher enquires.


The bank has now responded to us the bank says that your account was closed in june 2007 when it was reffered to its debt recovery dept in respect of an ourstanding overdraft of £329-75. the bank says that the debt had been these circumstances since feb 2007 and you had not made any payments to it in these circumstances I am persuaded that the bank closed your account due an outstanding unpaid debt rathen than in retaliation to your claim for a charges refund as such I am unable to uphold your complaint in this reguard.

I futhure understand that you think the bank should refund the charges you dispute as you Meet the criteria for finacial hardship in this regard I should explain that neither the bank nor this service dispute the financial difficulties you are currently experiencing however this does not mean that the bank is oblidged to refund the charges you have disputed ahead of the finall outcome of the current legal proceedings relating to bank charges.

Having said this the banking code requires that banks should treat customers in finacial difficulty postively and sympathetically so I have considered whether or not this has happened in your case.


In this regard the bank has told us that it has looked at your complaint about financial hardship however it does not accept that it is under any obligation to do any more than it has at this stage.
Having considered the position very carefully I am inclined to agree with the banks assessment I say this because the bank has told us that your account has veen suspended and it is currently not pursuing you for the outstanding debt as such the bank appears to be meeting its obligation under the banking code.

For the reasons stated above I think its approopiate for your complaint to remain on hold probably untill the legal position has been clarified however if you disagree please contact us by 8 july 2008 to expleain your postion

If you have not responded by this date I will assume that you are satified that your complaint about the charges applied to your account will remain on hold until the legal next steps have been sorted out.
You do not need to do anything else right now. We will be intouch with you when we have news to report.

END


Now for my comments to this letter……..
1. letter sent to sandra greene aplogising for the delay due to health and being in hosp with a servere angina attack………………………………………….
2. yes my bank account was closed without me getting any word to tell me they were closing my account. None of the debt recoveries would take on there case due to court proceedings and that the fact was/is these charges were for the same item cheque for £250 pounds my dissability went in the day after, the chatrges for this went on to feb march april may untill they closed my accdount 26 june 07, each month they were repeated charges that’s how they got the total to the amount they are speaking about, I stopped my dissability and moblity going in as they were taking charges out and I had enough of them leaving me with nothing to live on, one week they left me £1 to live on for the 2 weeks I went in crying and told them what has happened and they said sorry but they cannot do anything the lady still works there.
3. they have admitted hardship
4. they did not treat my case with sympathy at all.
5. the is not so the debt recoveries don’t want to handle there case with this they told me they were having nothing to do with it as I have said I spoke to he said that abbey were wrong in repeating the said charges for the same cheque…..
6. here are the dates 9th jan cheque £250 9th jan unpaid cheque £250 11th jan bal carried forward to next statement £124.75 feb-march –april2nd unauth o/d fee £20 2nd april clearence fee £20 april 2nd clearence fee £30 april 2nd clearence fee £30 april 2nd clearence fee £30 april 2nd clearence fee £30 2 april fee £30 unpaid d/d 2nd april £35 2nd april interest charge 38p 2nd april AGAIN £35

A/C Balance £295.73-
Available £295.73-

Same cont charges……….
April 11th 12 may
Balance brought forward from prev statement £295.73
3rd May charge £20 not authorised
3rd may interest £1-19
Balance brought forward £316-92

May june toal charges up to closing account
Bal brought forward £316.92
Interest £6.02 = £322.94

I wrote oro abbey on the 14th and 19th july 07
To close my account as I knew then it was repeated charges from the 9 jan cheque £250.


------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Dear xxxxxxx

YOUR COMPLAINT ABOUT ABBEY XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Thankyou for your recent letter received in respponse to my emails dated 15/16th april 2008.

I have considered the additional information you have supplied but even after taking it into account I still consider it unlikely that more investagation would result in a different outcome.

I say this for the following reasons:

. My understanding is that you are seeking compensation as you believe that the bank closed your account in retaliation to your claim for a refund of bank charges.
In light of this I have made futher enquires.


The bank has now responded to us the bank says that your account was closed in june 2007 when it was reffered to its debt recovery dept in respect of an ourstanding overdraft of £329-75. the bank says that the debt had been these circumstances since feb 2007 and you had not made any payments to it in these circumstances I am persuaded that the bank closed your account due an outstanding unpaid debt rathen than in retaliation to your claim for a charges refund as such I am unable to uphold your complaint in this reguard.

I futhure understand that you think the bank should refund the charges you dispute as you Meet the criteria for finacial hardship in this regard I should explain that neither the bank nor this service dispute the financial difficulties you are currently experiencing however this does not mean that the bank is oblidged to refund the charges you have disputed ahead of the finall outcome of the current legal proceedings relating to bank charges.

Having said this the banking code requires that banks should treat customers in finacial difficulty postively and sympathetically so I have considered whether or not this has happened in your case.


In this regard the bank has told us that it has looked at your complaint about financial hardship however it does not accept that it is under any obligation to do any more than it has at this stage.
Having considered the position very carefully I am inclined to agree with the banks assessment I say this because the bank has told us that your account has veen suspended and it is currently not pursuing you for the outstanding debt as such the bank appears to be meeting its obligation under the banking code.

For the reasons stated above I think its approopiate for your complaint to remain on hold probably untill the legal position has been clarified however if you disagree please contact us by 8 july 2008 to expleain your postion

If you have not responded by this date I will assume that you are satified that your complaint about the charges applied to your account will remain on hold until the legal next steps have been sorted out.
You do not need to do anything else right now. We will be intouch with you when we have news to report.

END


Now for my comments to this letter……..
1. letter sent to sandra greene aplogising for the delay due to health and being in hosp with a servere angina attack………………………………………….
2. yes my bank account was closed without me getting any word to tell me they were closing my account. None of the debt recoveries would take on there case due to court proceedings and that the fact was/is these charges were for the same item cheque for £250 pounds my dissability went in the day after, the chatrges for this went on to feb march april may untill they closed my accdount 26 june 07, each month they were repeated charges that’s how they got the total to the amount they are speaking about, I stopped my dissability and moblity going in as they were taking charges out and I had enough of them leaving me with nothing to live on, one week they left me £1 to live on for the 2 weeks I went in crying and told them what has happened and they said sorry but they cannot do anything the lady still works there.
3. they have admitted hardship
4. they did not treat my case with sympathy at all.
5. the is not so the debt recoveries don’t want to handle there case with this they told me they were having nothing to do with it as I have said I spoke to he said that abbey were wrong in repeating the said charges for the same cheque…..
6. here are the dates 9th jan cheque £250 9th jan unpaid cheque £250 11th jan bal carried forward to next statement £124.75 feb-march –april2nd unauth o/d fee £20 2nd april clearence fee £20 april 2nd clearence fee £30 april 2nd clearence fee £30 april 2nd clearence fee £30 april 2nd clearence fee £30 2 april fee £30 unpaid d/d 2nd april £35 2nd april interest charge 38p 2nd april AGAIN £35

A/C Balance £295.73-
Available £295.73-

Same cont charges……….
April 11th 12 may
Balance brought forward from prev statement £295.73
3rd May charge £20 not authorised
3rd may interest £1-19
Balance brought forward £316-92

May june toal charges up to closing account
Bal brought forward £316.92
Interest £6.02 = £322.94

I wrote oro abbey on the 14th and 19th july 07
To close my account as I knew then it was repeated charges from the 9 jan cheque £250.

Sorry its taken so long I still cannot get scanner to work I have typed this out..
Tyvvm hugs
abg

[yourbank]

"Having said this the banking code requires that banks should treat customers in finacial difficulty postively and sympathetically so I have considered whether or not this has happened in your case.


In this regard the bank has told us that it has looked at your complaint about financial hardship however it does not accept that it is under any obligation to do any more than it has at this stage.
Having considered the position very carefully I am inclined to agree with the banks assessment I say this because the bank has told us that your account has veen suspended and it is currently not pursuing you for the outstanding debt as such the bank appears to be meeting its obligation under the banking code."

This is the most interesting part of the email. I wonder whether if the bank after having been told that an account is in dispute(maybe not hardship) and then goes after the alleged debtor(term of phrase) is in breach of its obligations under the banking code.

	The Banking Code Follow this link to read the Banking Code in full. Ofen ignored by its subscribers, half-heartedly monitored and poorly enforced

	Disputed account materials Follow this link to our library of materials to help you try to deal with the problems of defaults on disputed accounts. It is contrary to Information Commissioner guidelines and also contrary to the banking code to default disputed accounts. However, it happens all the time.

	Hardship By and large the "harship" provision in the FSA waiver is a myth which is intended to create a sense that the banking industry is sufficiently well-intentioned to act fairly towards its customers even though their right of access to the courts has been blocked. In fact there are very few guidelines as to procedure and very little definition of "hardship". One unfortunate spin off is that many people in difficulty get their hopes up and go to considerable lengths to plead hardship to their bank in order to get a refund or partial refund of their bank charges only to be refused. Neither the courts nor the FOS have the power to order a bank to make a charges refund on the basis of hardship. We hear of some people obtaining a partial refund quite easily. Others have obtained money by being very persistent - but mostly we hear that people are refused. Even benefits claimants do not automatically receive hardship refunds. By all means try to get a bank charges refund on the basis of hardship - but don't bank on it!

[jansus]

yes thats how i read it - the FOS are not under obligation to ask the bank to repay the charges - but they are saying in this case they (Abbey)are right not to chase for the debt or charge interest on the debt caused by the charges during the time of the waiver.

Unfortunately they are not consistant as in other cases they have persuaded the bank to repay the charges in hardship cases.

If the waiver is not lifted at the next review I think it is vital to get this term of the waiver clarified - in other words - ironically -write it in PIL!!!

	The Financial Ombudsman Service For the most part, don't bother. The Ombudsman is an industry arranged service which is under-resourced, takes too long, lacks clear transparency. You have no idea what evidence the FOS has received from the bank or how your complain has really been handled. The FOS is the preferred complaints route for the banking industry. The county court is to be preferred by consumers for its speed, openness, the quality of its awards and also because it will award 8% interest on top of any damages won by you. The Ombudsman should normally be used to solving little technical difficulties or customer service problems which you have expereinced with your bank.

	Hardship By and large the "harship" provision in the FSA waiver is a myth which is intended to create a sense that the banking industry is sufficiently well-intentioned to act fairly towards its customers even though their right of access to the courts has been blocked. In fact there are very few guidelines as to procedure and very little definition of "hardship". One unfortunate spin off is that many people in difficulty get their hopes up and go to considerable lengths to plead hardship to their bank in order to get a refund or partial refund of their bank charges only to be refused. Neither the courts nor the FOS have the power to order a bank to make a charges refund on the basis of hardship. We hear of some people obtaining a partial refund quite easily. Others have obtained money by being very persistent - but mostly we hear that people are refused. Even benefits claimants do not automatically receive hardship refunds. By all means try to get a bank charges refund on the basis of hardship - but don't bank on it!

	FSA Waiver The FSA has granted a waiver to the finance industry in respect of bank charges claims. The waiver has been in place since July 2007 and will continue until the OFT test case is decided. The OFT test case will be heard by the House of Lords in June 2009. We are likley to get a decision before the end of the year. Under FSA rules, banks must normally deal with all complaints within 8 weeks. The FSA waiver has allowed banks to put bank charges claims on hold pending the outcome of the Test case. The FSA waiver is expremely one-sided as it allows banks to put claims on hold but it allows banks to continue levying charges. It also allows banks to continue enforcement action even in relation to disputed bank charges. The FSA waiver has been assisted by a general stay on charges-related County Court claims. You are still permitted to begin a County Court claim for the refund of your charges but your claim will be put on hold pending the outcome of the OFT test case. Despite this, we recommend very strongly that you begin a County Court claim now!! If you are on benefits, you will not have to pay court fees. You should start a County Court claim to recover your money straightaway.

	Are you letting your bank keep your money Are you giving away thousands of pounds?? Many people aren't claiming all of the money they are entitled to when they make their bank charges claims. You have been forced to pay unfair bank charges. Have you forgotten that your bank has charged you inteest on those charges? If you are overdrawn and the bank owes you charges - then your overdraft is made up of charges - money which you bank owes you. Yet you are paying interest to the bank - on your own money!!! Follow this link to see the discussions on this. You might even double th size of your claim.

[JOSH_IOU]

I dont think we should wait that long

[yourbank]

Rapster, FSA review of that waiver should be by the end of July as they stated way back in November, I think, or was it just after the test case? Please someone refresh my memory.

	Bank Charges You should have started your claim for your bank charges by now. Don't wait. You should send your bank a Subject Acess Request asking for all personal data they hold on you - not just statements. You should calculate all of your bank charges and related interest as far back as 1995. You should send your bank a demand for a refund giving them 7 days. You should commence your legal action adding 8% statutory interest. If you wait for the outcome of the test case, you may not be able to claim like this. you may not be able to claim interest. You may only be offered the difference between the charge and the OFT "fair charge". The repayment scheme will try to limit you to refinds from 2001 only. A repayment scheme will not deal with any bank charges related defaults on the credit register whereas in a court action you can ask for these to be removed and to be compensated for the damage caused to you and your family by them. You should also write to the bank and to the CRA and put all charges related credit entries in disupte and warn them that you will want them removed from the Register when the test case is over. Warn them also that you are likely to be seeking compensation for these wrongful data entries. Full and final settlement Have you previously accepted a partial repayment of your bank charges in full settlement? You will still be able to claim the rest of your money back after the Test case is decided. Get all your information back to 1995 and put in your claim now.

[jansus]

as far as i know end of july

There have already been letters written to them about this condition of the waiver and replies recieved.

	FSA Waiver The FSA has granted a waiver to the finance industry in respect of bank charges claims. The waiver has been in place since July 2007 and will continue until the OFT test case is decided. The OFT test case will be heard by the House of Lords in June 2009. We are likley to get a decision before the end of the year. Under FSA rules, banks must normally deal with all complaints within 8 weeks. The FSA waiver has allowed banks to put bank charges claims on hold pending the outcome of the Test case. The FSA waiver is expremely one-sided as it allows banks to put claims on hold but it allows banks to continue levying charges. It also allows banks to continue enforcement action even in relation to disputed bank charges. The FSA waiver has been assisted by a general stay on charges-related County Court claims. You are still permitted to begin a County Court claim for the refund of your charges but your claim will be put on hold pending the outcome of the OFT test case. Despite this, we recommend very strongly that you begin a County Court claim now!! If you are on benefits, you will not have to pay court fees. You should start a County Court claim to recover your money straightaway.