Thread: The Hamster -vs- RBoS

The schedule so far...

21st Feb 2007: Sent S.A.R - (Subject access request) letter...

Dear Sir or Madam,

Re. Account number: xxxxxxxx

I am writing to request a fully comprehensive list of all the default charges for direct debit, unauthorised overdrafts and standing orders I have paid over the last six years.

Please find enclosed a cheque for the maximum statutory charge of £10. If you are unable to provide this data, I will accept a copy of my statements going back six years; I understand that statements on their own are not covered by the Data Protection Act 1998, yet I’m not requesting the statements per se, but the charges, which I’m entitled to by law.

I look forward to your response within 40 days, as The Royal Bank of Scotland is obliged to reply under the Data Protection Act. If not I shall seek remedy from the Information Commissioner.

Yours faithfully,

Received reply about 17th March 2007

Similar Threads:

• GRH vs RBOS - RBOS defending the claim
• Amanda v's MBNA, Eggcard, BOS, RBOS, RBOS credit card & Capital 1
• The Halifax ate my Hamster
• Hamster vs BOS
• Ola Hamster

22nd March 2007: Sent first shot across the bows...

Account: xxxxxxxx

Due to recent media coverage on bank charges I am now aware that you, The Royal Bank of Scotland, have been charging me, charges, that are contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Schedule 2 (e) of the said regulations gives a non-complete list of terms, which may be regarded as unfair, such as a term that requires me as a consumer who fails in his obligation, to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.

I believe that your charges are disproportionately high and therefore they are contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999. In addition I believe that your charges are a Penalty. Penalty charges are irrecoverable at common law. The precedent for this was Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor co Ltd [1915] AC 79.along with Murray v. Leisure play [2005] EWCA Civ 963 It was held that a contractual party can only recover damages for an actual loss or liquidated losses. It is clear that your charges do not reflect any actual and or real loss.

Furthermore if you fail to comply with this letter, I request without further notice a Breakdown and proof of all costs involved, in regards to your actual or liquidated losses involved in any breach of contract to which these charges relate with yourselves, and that these charges reflect your true costs In relation to the said charges, and are proportionate to the charges levied on my account as defined in Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Schedule 2 (e)


I also hereby request a detailed report of which clause in your terms and conditions each charge has been applied against.

Your charges appear to be nothing more than a profit-making scheme. Therefore I require you to refund me at a total of £2,188, representing the total, unlawful amount during the last 6 years. I hereby give you 14 days to refund the charges back on to my account. For the avoidance of doubt, if this is not done within 14 days, I will commence my claim in the courts without further warning. This action will inevitably involve you in additional costs.

Yours Sincerely

I eventually received their standard "we are considering your claim" letter on 19th April (dated 17th April)

Between the RBoS receiving my 14 day letter (on the 23rd March) and 13th April they hit me with a further £434 pounds in bank charges. According with their late reply letter and the constant charges I deemed this to be their answer and I decided not to give them a further 14 days to get me closer to bankruptcy.

So on the 13th April I went into my local branch, took my last £100 from my savings account to pay for the small claims action. Whilst I was there I confronted the teller and asked to see someone about the current batch of charges, she refused to let me see someone, she also explained that she didn't have the authority to refund that amount of charges. I inforemed her that I was about to sue the RBoS and the £434 was in addition to my original demand for refund. She promised to escalate it to "branch level".

I proceeded to Stockport county court complete with what I thought was the right amount of money and the right number of completed forms. Got to the court to find out I was £20 light, and I didn't have 3 copies of the schedule of charges. Damn! I asked the court clerk to look at my form to see if it was filled in correctly, she noted a few omissions which I would have to fill in.

Managed to borrow £20 from my daughter, went home hurriedly reprinted some slight changes on the N1 (I have Acrobat Pro so can save filled in PDFs) and printed further copies of the 14 day letter, and schedule of charges.

I then returned to the court with my sweaty mitts wrapped around the £120 and the freshly printed sheets. When I got there I met a clerk who was slightly more on the ball than the first one and she noted that I had used RBoS' Scottish head office address. She said this was no problem, but I would have to add an extra bit in the "particulars of claim" section of the N1. I had to write in my spider scrawl on my nice and neatly printed forms "No proceedings between the parties concerning the same cause of action are pending in the court of any other part of the United Kingdom and the defendant is domiciled in the United Kingdom"

So on the 13th April, 2007 I entered my claim against the RBoS. The particulars of the claim stating...

The claimant holds a current account with the defendant, conducted on their Standard terms and conditions. The defendant from 8th March, 2001 to 8th March, 2007 has applied charges to the claimant account, totalling £2,150.00.

The bank's charges are a disproportionate penalty and therefore unenforceable. Penalty charges are irrecoverable at common law. The precedent for this was Dunlop Pneumatic v New Garage [1915] AC 79.along with Murray v. Leisure play [2005] EWCA Civ 963. The Defendants charges are also contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Para.8 and sch.2(1)(e)

The claimant has asked the bank to refund their charges or offer proof that they are true pre-estimate. They have declined to do so.

The claimant claims £2150.00, being the sum unlawfully debited

The claimant claims interest pursuant to S69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum, being the sum of £652.38

(Itemised list attached)

By the 20th April (a Friday) I still hadn't received any letters from the court so I phoned them up, they told me that it had gone out and that the RBoS had been deemed to have been served on the 17t April.

The next Monday (23rd) I received duplicates of the relevant documents noting the time travel aspects of the dating applied by the courts ie...

Your claim was issued on 13th April 2007.
The court sent it to the defendant on the 12th April 2007, and it will be deemed to be served on the 15th April 2007.
The defendant has until the 30th April to reply.

...so I crossed my fingers and hoped the slow moving corporate internals would lumber past the due date...

Bugger!

On Friday 27th I received a letter from Cobbetts solicitors stating they had put in their AoS on the previous day, the 26th April.

I am now awaiting their standard stalling and intimidation letter asking for all manner of information in the most complicated legalese.

Meantime back at the ranch...

20th April:
I received a letter from my local branch manager (who for some reason I have visions of a permed blonde in an 80s power suit, must be my sexist genes or something).

It contained a "goodwill" offer of an £88 refund on the "provision that no further refunds were made to my account". At this point in time the current charge level was at £464.

My reply was rather more restrained than I was actually feeling...

Case Ref: ********
Account: ********

With reference to your letter of the 17th April, 2007.

In your letter you state that you have been investigating my case, if this is the case you will know that on the 23rd March, 2007 you received a letter from myself requesting that you refund a total of £2,188 of unlawful bank charges which have been levied on my account by the RBS over a period of six years. As your bank did not respond with the refund within the 14 days stated in that letter I accordingly instigated court proceedings on 13th April, 2007 for which your head office will have been served on 17th April.

Since receiving my letter I have had one letter from yourselves telling me that you are considering my claim. Further, and more relevantly, between the 23rd March and the 21st April the RBS has levied a further £464 in bank charges on my account. I fail to see how a conditional offer of an £88 refund could be remotely considered as goodwill.

Surely your investigation must have shown that I am on a fixed income (I am disabled and on state benefits), and that it is impossible for me to either pay or recoup these charges?. Consequently whilst the RBS is making billions in profits I am now having to borrow from friends and family just to buy food. Your bank charges are unlawful and your charging methodology immoral. You make no attempt at tailoring penalty charges to a customer’s ability to pay and there are no safeguards to mitigate the “snowball effect”, i.e. exactly what is happening to me now. Due to the RBS’ greed my finances are now in tatters and it will take a long time for me to sort out the knock-on effect after you have left me with an inability to pay any of my bills.

Although I do accept the offer of the £88 refund as a precursor to the remainder of £376, I do not accept the conditions that come with the offer. Further more I formally request that you unconditionally refund me the full total of £464 on the basis that I believe that your charges are disproportionately high and therefore they are contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999. In addition I believe that your charges are a Penalty. Penalty charges are irrecoverable at common law. The precedent for this was Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor co Ltd [1915] AC 79.along with Murray v. Leisure play [2005] EWCA Civ 963 It was held that a contractual party can only recover damages for an actual loss or liquidated losses. It is clear that your charges do not reflect any actual and or real loss.

If these unlawful charges are not refunded to my account within 14 days (ie by 8th May, 2007) I will be forced to again take the matter to the small claims court. I will do this without any further warning. Further, I will add to the claim any more charges that are added to my account in the intervening period. As is my right under English law I will additionally add 8% interest and claim back any court fees.

I await to hear your comments.


Yours faithfully,

Currently the bank charge level as of this Sunday evening is at £616.

I have opened another account with another bank. I have phoned my pension provider and the DWP to pay into the new account.

Unfortunately I was too late to prevent this month's pension and this week's benefit being paid into the RBoS account.

In the last couple of days I have since learned of the Social Securities Act 1992 with regard to the bank taking my benefits. As such I am thinking of sending the bank a "goodwill" letter that will arrive on the 8th May. This will give them a further 7 days to pay up, but simultaneously announce that they have contravened the SSAA 1992, and unless an immediate refund is made I will make an official complaint to the DWP, the Financial Ombudsman and the Financial Services Commission. Furthermore I will attempt to garner as much negative media attention as possible. I will also try to instil in them the knowledge that I am prepared to go the whole way with this as although it is primarily about the money because I need it, it's also about the principle of the matter. I am known for my general lack of interest in money and for my stubbornness about principles, I'm just hoping I can convey this to the bank.

Originally Posted by gingershoese

I am impressed with your restraint!!!!!

Actually I was far less restrained when at my local branch. I was deliberately raising my voice so that the rest of the long queue could hear with the minimum amount of straining. Given that the branch is in what might be termed, in Non-PC days gone by, a "lower class" area of Manchester so the chances were that a fair few of the queue were on benefits too.

I am not knowledgable enough on this one, but many others are on the site - however fwiw I would contend that this would add to your case of intimidatory tactics.....

The eighties power suit is a worry though!!!!

That was my view too heheheh

Originally Posted by gingershoese

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...stop-bank.html

Might be worth a quick look at the above template........

Yes, thanks I've already seen that, unfortunately it's only useful for forthcoming benefit payments and I've already stopped them so there won't be any more going into the RBoS.

What I was thinking of doing was taking the lba template and adding pertinent bits about the SSA Act.

I can't make my mind up yet whether displays of legal knowledge and education are perceived by the banks as someone to settle early with or go for harder from the legalese angle.

Hi all, I'm so pleased to be seeing so many `winners` now. I have a question re my case and the Royal Bank of Scotland. I put in 2 claims for 2 different accounts one being £650.00 which was agreed within a week! the second however which is for £250 they are denying and have replied to the small claims court summons that they are defending it saying they believe their charges are fair!. Surely by settling one account with me they have set a precedent with me by settling on one account, also are they now saying they will defend just to try and scare people off the whole court process? surely they are not going to the wall and defending £250.00? I really feel I should keep going with this one, I would love any help and advice here as I know lots are in my position.

TJ (Cornwall)

Bummer!

My last letter, which I sent via first class recorded delivery, has just been returned by the Post Office. The excuse given was that there was no-one to sign for it, and it hadn't been picked up from the sorting office.

I delivered it by hand today (and asked for a receipt from a confused receptionist who doesn't seem to have been asked for one of those before). I told the girl that I was impressed as the contents had been time sensitive. She reckons the bank had been shut when the mail delivery had been made (WTF does Royal Mail deliver recorded mail to a Bank when the place is shut?!!!!).

Fair enough I say, so why didn't someone go to pick it up from the sorting office after the postie had put his slip through the door? "Oh we don't go to the sorting office" was the haughty response

So my rhetorical quandary is... who do I get p*ssed off at, the RBoS or the Royal Mail?

Ah well, I was going to write them another letter ripping them a new one for contravening the Social Security Act 1992 anyway.

I'm sorry, but I rather enjoy getting stroppy with banks.

Originally Posted by gingershoese

Hi Kurt, Where are you addressing them to? I am using a HO address in the links pages and seems to have no issues.......

Some Hamsters have all the luck!!!

Ging

In this instance I was replying to a letter I'd already received from the branch manager of my local branch, so that's where I sent it. They seem to be dealing with it at branch level at the moment, presumably as I haven't started legal proceedings on this set of charges, which currently has escalated, as of today, to £838 (not a bad total given that they managed to do it in only 6 weeks!).