Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
In late November, I was within pence of my £500 overdraft limit with RBS, having been a customer for 19 years. So I phoned a customer adviser to see if I should extend the limit until salary was paid at the month's end. I was told that there were no deductions due from the account.
The next business day, £3 was applied in interest. This triggered a £15 fee and a £20 fee.
I instructed closure of the account once my salary was paid and opened an account with another bank (£50 joining fee which I saw as compensation for the disproportionate RBS charges). I paid the overdraft in full in cash and settled an outstanding loan with RBS by paying the final instalment earlier than scheduled.
I thought this was the end of the matter until I was telephoned this week, saying the account was still open with a further £20 charge to pay for a charging period running into late December. I told the RBS person that I had instructed closure of the account in writing, as far as I was concerned the account was closed, and if they wished to dispute this then to contact me in writing. I am awaiting a letter and will then draft a response detailing my dispute and reiterating my instruction to close the account.
What is the best way to fight this or drag it out as long as possible without further penalty? Is it worth me trying to fight the £35 as well as the new £20 which I am disputing?
A couple of points:
- Something similar happened last year and the bank waived the charges following my complaint.
- If the customer adviser I had telephoned had told me of the interest charge due (admittedly I could have checked this online but I was busy) then I could have transferred a small sum to cover this thus avoiding the charges, so I consider the bank to be partly in error.
I'm ranting to all and sundry on the internet, in newspaper letters pages and to MPs, MSPs and the Chancellor and Prime Minister on the basis that RBS is publicly owned and is chasing struggling taxpayers with punitive charges....is this the sort of example the government wants to set?