Letter 1 (taken from Govan Law site) sent to them on 10th April 2006 asking for refund of £66.00

--- Copy of Letter Sent ---

Dear Sir/Madam

Penalty & unfair charges – request for refund for JMio, XXXXXX, and XXXXXXXX.

On the 21st December 2005, my account was debited with a charge of £38.00 for the return of a Direct Debit (of £56.25) to Vodafone Ltd. Normally I endeavour to run both of my accounts with you correctly, however on this occasion I had simply forgotten to transfer the relevant amount from my main (Student) account to my other account, which I use for Outgoings.

Also, on the 2nd February 2006, my account was debited with a charge of £28.00, seemingly for exceeding my overdraft limit of £100 on the 17th January 2006. However, having spoken to Harry at your Direct Banking call centre, I have been informed that my account was actually in credit on that date.

0n 5 April 2006 the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) announced that default charges which are set at more than £12 will be presumed to be unfair and unenforceable in terms of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI. 1999/2083). Charges above this sum will be subject to legal action by the OFT (press release 68/06 – online here: http://www.oft.gov.uk/News/Press+releases/2006/68-06.htm).

The OFT stated that a charge is not fair simply because it is below this sum, and I believe that a reasonable charge would be 50 pence for the reasons set out below. Please refund my charges as a matter of urgency.

I would respectfully submit that if your organisation does not agree to immediately refund all unfair charges applied to my account, it will not meet the ‘fit and proper person’ test to hold a consumer credit licence under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. In that eventuality, I will submit a 1974 Act complaint to the OFT.

Separately, I am of the view that your charges represent a penalty and are therefore irrecoverable at common law. In the Scottish case of Castaneda and Others v. Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. (1904) 12 SLT 498 the House of Lords held that a contractual party can only recover damages for actual or liquidated losses incurred from a breach of contract. This is also the position in English law: Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79.

Your charges do not reflect any actual loss, instead they appear to represent a lucrative profit-making scheme. In particular, charges were applied after I entered into a transaction(s) without sufficient funds in my account. However, payment was declined by you, and therefore, actual loss is the cost of automatically sending me a computer generated letter. I would respectfully submit that is valued at no more than 50 pence.

UK banks have recently given evidence to the House of Commons Treasury Committee on how bank charges are calculated: "The costs are going to pay for all the people we have who pursue debt, collect debt, speak to customers and chase payments. The way these charges are arrived at is by taking these total costs and making some assumptions about the volume that is going to come through to arrive at the individual charges" (2nd report, 25 January 2005, paragraph 50 – online here: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmtreasy/274/27405.htm).

Accordingly, the charges applied to my account are not a reasonable pre-estimate of the bank’s loss in relation to my account. No-one has had to look at my account or telephone me. No one has had to collect anything. Your charges would appear to represent a device to recover global losses (for example, loan defaulters, bad debt write off, including commercial lending in, and outwith, the UK).

Please refund all charges applied to my account within the next 7 days. I reserve the right to commence court proceedings without any further notice.

Yours faithfully

JMio

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Letter received from RBOS this morning:

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Dear Mr JMio

Thank you for your letter of 10 April 2006 and I apologise for any dissatisfaction caused by the application of charges to your account.

We beleive that our charges are fair, reasonable and transparent. We consider that the amounts debited to your account have been applied strictly in accordance with your agreement with us and our published tariff, which we are satisfied complies with all applicable laws and regulations. We are also committed to ensuring the transparency of the information that we give to our customers about the operation of our products.

The OFT is presently in contact with us and seven other major credit card companies to discuss the level of charges on credit cards. It is important that I emphasise that these discussions are limited to charges on credit cards only.

Consequently, agains that background, we must differ with the views expressed in your letter and will not be refunding any of the charges applied to your account.

Again thank you for taking the time and trouble to write.

Yours sincerely

Kerry McCrone

Service Quality Advisor

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Funnily enough I was actually at school with her, but hey!

If I'm honest, my experiences with the RBOS have actually been fairly good so far, and because it's a relatively small amount I hadn't originally planned on making a claim against them.

HOWEVER! - I do fully intend to pick holes in that letter, especially the bit about transparant charges. I'll send them another letter asking for a full breakdown of how these charges are made up, bearing in mind that the use of Punative Charges for financian gain is not legally enforcable.

Mods - if my terminology isn't correct please let me know!

Sorry if this annoys you but take a step back and look at the bigger picture - whats more important getting the money you are due back quickly (by using the templates and taking court action if need be) or wasting your own time dragging it out by being creative and writing your own letters to gain a feeling of self-importance? RBS churn out their replies in bulk and no matter how cleverly worded your letter may be it will have next to no impact on their decision.

Follow the processes and templates already listed on this site - It's not going to be a walk in the park by any means but you'll have the quickest and most hassle free resolution.

(By the way I'd disagree with what RBS said in their letter about the OFT ruling only applying to credit card charges - that's not what they said. It was basically about CC charges but stated it could be applied to financial products across the board if i remember right)

Sorry if this annoys you but take a step back and look at the bigger picture - whats more important getting the money you are due back quickly (by using the templates and taking court action if need be) or wasting your own time dragging it out by being creative and writing your own letters to gain a feeling of self-importance? RBS churn out their replies in bulk and no matter how cleverly worded your letter may be it will have next to no impact on their decision.

Fair point mate! You're absolutely right, the main aim was & most certainly still IS to get my money back.

Letter Before Action letter sent today.

This topic was closed on 08 March 2019.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group