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.
During the last year I've had a total of £80 in bank charges on a joint account. I realize that this isn't much compared to some of the claims I've seen on this site but nevertheless £80 is £80!
Initially I phoned the bank explaining that I considered them unlawful and requested that they be refunded. Two weeks later, as expected, I received the standard letter explaining the justification of the charges and therefore why the bank wouldn't be refunding them. I replied to this letter saying that the charges were unlawful and that they must justify the charges, or else refund them. I received another standard letter saying the previous decision by the bank had been investigated and upheld. I wrote another letter saying that unless all the charges could be justified then I would refer the matter to the Ombudsman. Again, a standard reply was sent saying no.
However, since reading this forum and discussing it with other people, I get the impression that going the ombudsman route would achieve very little; all they would say is that they agree and I should pursue a claim through the courts.
So I have a few questions I need answered before I go any further.
1) If I get the fees back and the bank close the account - which is not a problem as I have opened another one - will this be reflected on my credit report? I don't want difficulty in getting future credit for the sake of £80!
2) I currently live in Scotland but my statement address is still at my parents address in England. Do I go through the English system but be prepared to attend court there, or do I change address and go through the Scottish system?
3) I haven't quite followed the route of sending out a preliminary letter followed by an lba but have sent two letters. If I decide instead to bypass the ombudsman and go straight through the small claims court, should I still send a final letter in the guise of an LBA?
That's all the questions I can think of right now.
PilotJames,
1. Your £80 is yours, not for the bank. It has nothing to do with your credit file. You do not owe them now. They owe you £80 by law because they took the money from you unlawfully.
2. It is better if you use your most convenient address where you can receive court papers. Scottish or English law, they both support you.
3. You can send the final letter in the form of an lba because you have exhausted the other options. Modify the LBA letter so that you allow 7 days instead of 14 days because you have explored the option to get your money in your previous letters but without success. It is now a matter for the court to clear the impasse.
The reason I asked about the credit report is that under the FAQ there is the following:
Will suing my bank affect my credit report?
A. No - unless the Bank closes your account - see below.
However, when you 'see below' it doesn't say what will happen to your credit report if they do close it, only that they may close your account.
I appreciate that they're the ones at fault; however, could they play dirty and spoil my record by placing a comment on my credit report?
I have another query on the following FAQ about using Money Claim online:
This method can ONLY be used if money is the only thing being claimed. However, you must make sure that the bank has received a schedule of your charges at least twice during your preparatory correspondence.
In my original phone call to the bank I asked for the £80 in charges. In my second correspondence - by letter this time - I again asked for the £80. In my third, and final, correspondence - again by letter - I didn't specifically quote the amount. So have I satisfied the above requirement of having sent my schedule of charges at least twice? Or do I have to detail the three separate occaisons when these charges were made to my account?
... because you have explored the option to get your money in your previous letters but without success. It is now a matter for the court to clear the impasse.
It is a good idea to specify the actual instance when they applied the charges to you account. Use the spreadsheet template even though it is for only three transaction instances. It will save you the trouble of creating something yourself that may not be as good.
After reading their information booklet on the small claim's procedure, it appears that any claim under £200 does not attract legal expenses for the winning party if the claim is defended. This is good if I were to lose. But if I win then I will have paid £39 for an £80 claim.
Looks like the English system would be preferable unless I've got the facts wrong!
I know the Ombudsmen have a pretty bad name on here but I'm thinking of involving them for two reasons. Firstly any answer would be binding on the bank but not on you. Also I believe it costs around £360 if the ombudsmen take up your complaint and there are no repercussions for you even if your complaint was totally groundless. I like costing them money
That Ombudsman idea is not good. It may make the banks pay them for their intervention in the matter but you will get far reduced amount. The ombudsman will use £12 charge as the determining factor. The OFT did not say conclusively that one instance of charge should be £12. The ombudsman only tries to mediate between both parties without favouring any party.
However, the ombudsman idea favours the banks more and deprive you of your whole cash.
Where to go now with Nationwide
. Again, a standard reply was sent saying no.
Reply With Quote
