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.
I used to work for Barclays . Left a few years back as I could not handle the sales pressure. I felt like I was ripping people off as the banks products are normally more expensive and less flexible and attractive. The Whistleblower programme is exactly how it is, pressure selling, making people feel uncomfortable....but this is the way not just in banks but in a number of areas in our daily lives.
I agree that we are responsible for managing the balances in our accounts, but we all have times when times are tough and these charges are outrageous and I tried to refund as many as possible...but got in trouble.
Now for the interesting bit which I am going to use in my court papers when I finally get the date through.....
.....for certain accounts Barclays have their own pre-determined internal limits, which were known as 'anticipatory limits' or 'A' limits. These were internally scored limits and would allow customers to overdraw. For example if I had a monthly income of £1000, and an overdraft of £500, if I ran my account well I might have an 'A' limit of £1250 which would mean Barclays would let me overdraw up to £1250.
The sucker punch ...yes they will charge you £35 for going over you £500 limit.
So Barclays is authorising you to go overdrawn and charge you for it.
Worth putting in your defence and claim.
We have a similar system, its called a shadow overdraft and only long serving employees seem to know anything about it. The more I think about it the more the system is to blame, why doesn't anybody ask why does the bank allow you to go overdrawn? It can't happend on a savings account (unless an employee makes a blunder with a transaction!)
Hi, in relation to this issue (and others), i'm in the process of drafting my response to the section of the Ombudsman's form "please give any more details."
I thought the following might be appropriate to write in there, what are your thoughts?
I do not believe that the Nationwide have acted appropriately in this case. Following my initial letter requesting that penalty charges applied to my account be returned, they sent out a standard letter, which appears to be a computer generated response to every such request.
The Nationwide did not even attempt to address my concerns as an individual, which frankly concerns me. I believe that the Nationwide has a duty to be fair and transparent under the Banking Code, the Nationwide has not addressed my concerns whatsoever relating to its breaching of the Unfair Terms of Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (which does state that unless a contract is individually negotiated, not merely a template contract which gives disproprtionate advantage to the supplier over the consumer it is unenforceable) and refusing to account for its excessive penalty charges regime by means of explaining exactly how they arrive at a charge of £90, or even £120 in one month when 3 or 4 direct debits are returned, the law states that such charges are supposed to be proportionate to the suppliers costs of the breach, and not exceeding that.
I have attached a copy of the Nationwide's leaflet titled "Important information Changes to your FlexAccount" (ref. P7850 March 2004) in which they state very clearly that their charges are penalty charges caused by a breach of contract, and admitting in the same leaflet that they don't conform to the law by purely charging what it costs to process such breaches, but use their charges to subsidise "an excellent range of benefits and competitive interest rates".
Additionally, I would like an explanation from the Nationwide relating to the system they have in place which allows them to manage my account in a manner which permits my balance to exceed its authorised overdraft limit. This appears to be a cynical move on the part of the Nationwide to not only apply a further unfair term on my contract, but then exploit their privelaged position as managers of the account by adding further penalty charges once they have allowed me to exceed an agreed overdraft limit.
On no occasion have I agreed that the Nationwide may manage my account in a manner which appears to breach the part of the banking code which states that I should be able to enjoy secure and reliable banking and payment systems which I can trust. Given the above, I cannot trust the Nationwide's systems, and their systems certainly are not fair and transparent in this regard.
I would welcome a full breakdown of exactly how much it costs the Nationwide to process breaches of their terms and conditions, and what percentage of penalty charges the Nationwide are using to subsidise services for the benefit of other members. The Nationwide are not being fair at all and their terms and conditions allow a disproportionate advantage to the supplier over the consumer as I have explained above.
indebtstudent "The more I think about it the more the system is to blame, why doesn't anybody ask why does the bank allow you to go overdrawn?"
So they can charge you, over the years, they have moved the goal posts to their advantage, but I feel this is an area that should be looked into deeper, as I think it could bite them on the bum
Marky, have you got that written in stone? we know this is happening, but it would be classed as hear say, you have to have proof.
If you have a read of stax on the ltsb Kev berwick case, the Judge talks about breaking the contract by going overdrawn, but as you have pointed out they are letting us (I use that term loosly) so they can gain.
How UNFAIR (t/c's) is that
LTSB court date 25/7/07
17/7/07 I WON I WON I WON!!!! :grin:
HSBC court date 11/9/07 (stayed)
CapOne lba 7/1/08-15/3/08 WON.
Citicards lba 14/1/08
Read Read and Read Some More
If I've been helpful in anyway please tip my scales
Please note that this advice is given informally, without liability and without prejudice. Seek the advice of an insured qualified professional if you have any doubts.
Crazyworld, have you pm'd a mod with those t/c's? every bit helps
LTSB court date 25/7/07
17/7/07 I WON I WON I WON!!!! :grin:
HSBC court date 11/9/07 (stayed)
CapOne lba 7/1/08-15/3/08 WON.
Citicards lba 14/1/08
Read Read and Read Some More
If I've been helpful in anyway please tip my scales
Please note that this advice is given informally, without liability and without prejudice. Seek the advice of an insured qualified professional if you have any doubts.
Hi Remus, I certainly have, as well as emailed copies to anyone who'd like a copy (a few people have PMd asking for copies, and i'm only too happy to help where I can)
After careful consideration, I've also decided to attempt to reclaim the losses caused which were purely due to the Nationwide's maladministration of my account, and have attached a separate schedule accordingly to my form (i've only just finished completing it, and taking copies of all correspondence and relevant material - it's taken hours to get all the relevant info from statements).
So that's all going to be sent off to the Ombudsman. The Nationwide will wish I had gone down the court route, or they'd settled earlier after the've been contacted by the Ombudsman relating to a few (11 actually) specific instances of their maladministration over the past 2 years alone!
If they refuse to refund those amounts which I incurred a loss by, then i'm going to do whatever it takes to find every single instance of maladministration by the Nationwide over the past 6 years which were in effect service charges for a service I did not request. On no occasion, as i've said did I request an unauthorised overdraft service, so i'm not paying for it. If the Nationwide want to argue that I did so under the terms of the contract, they have to point to the specific terms of the contract individually negotiated which say that, otherwise they're applying yet another unfair term on the contract, and as such, i'm not going to be liable for those amounts.
140A Unfair relationships between creditors and debtors
(1) The court may make an order under section 140B in connection with a credit agreement if it determines that the relationship between the creditor and the debtor arising out of the agreement (or the agreement taken with any related agreement) is unfair to the debtor because of one or more of the following-
(a) any of the terms of the agreement or of any related agreement;
(b) the way in which the creditor has exercised or enforced any of his rights under the agreement or any related agreement;
(c) any other thing done (or not done) by, or on behalf of, the creditor (either before or after the making of the agreement or any related agreement).
"140B Powers of court in relation to unfair relationships (1) An order under this section in connection with a credit agreement may do one or more of the following-
(a) require the creditor, or any associate or former associate of his, to repay (in whole or in part) any sum paid by the debtor or by a surety by virtue of the agreement or any related agreement (whether paid to the creditor, the associate or the former associate or to any other person);
(b) require the creditor, or any associate or former associate of his, to do or not to do (or to cease doing) anything specified in the order in connection with the agreement or any related agreement;
(c) reduce or discharge any sum payable by the debtor or by a surety by virtue of the agreement or any related agreement;
(d) direct the return to a surety of any property provided by him for the purposes of a security;
(e) otherwise set aside (in whole or in part) any duty imposed on the debtor or on a surety by virtue of the agreement or any related agreement;
(f) alter the terms of the agreement or of any related agreement;
(g) direct accounts to be taken, or (in Scotland) an accounting to be made, between any persons.
Surely the banks allowing themselves to temporarily allow an account to enter an unauthorised overdraft purely for the benefit of debiting their unlawful penalty charges, while returning unpaid direct debits and cheques would fall under the above?
BTW for future info if you wirte to the CEO you will get a response or acknowledgement within 48 hours. Not really treating all customer fairly but I like the idea of his desk being full of charges queries. Only snag is I don't know how to get direct to the CEO
I presume that any correspondence addressed to Mr Graham Beale, Chief Executive, should be addressed to their head office at:
NATIONWIDE BUILDING SOCIETY
NATIONWIDE HOUSE PIPERS WAY SWINDON SN38 1NW
And, seemingly, as there are legal issues here, that a copy should be sent to their "Divisional Director, legal compliance", Mr Russell Johnston.
I've mentioned on another thread, I think it's in the General section that I think in these instances, the banks and building societies may well be in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 regarding "Unfair Relationships between Creditors and Debtors", as well as in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
Do you think it may assist our case, and make them take a little more notice when writing to both gentlemen, that I shall be requesting the Ombudsman to additionally review their Consumer Credit licence as I feel they have acted unlawfully?
indebtstudent "The more I think about it the more the system is to blame, why doesn't anybody ask why does the bank allow you to go overdrawn?"
So they can charge you, over the years, they have moved the goal posts to their advantage, but I feel this is an area that should be looked into deeper, as I think it could bite them on the bum
Marky, have you got that written in stone? we know this is happening, but it would be classed as hear say, you have to have proof.
If you have a read of stax on the ltsb Kev berwick case, the Judge talks about breaking the contract by going overdrawn, but as you have pointed out they are letting us (I use that term loosly) so they can gain.
How UNFAIR (t/c's) is that
Nothing in stone as it was all internal reports and I didn't keep any when I left. I think if we pushed the banks to find out how it works they would buckle under the pressure, the same as them not telling us how much it costs to return a DD or cheque or just go overdrawn
Nothing in stone as it was all internal reports and I didn't keep any when I left. I think if we pushed the banks to find out how it works they would buckle under the pressure, the same as them not telling us how much it costs to return a DD or cheque or just go overdrawn
The Banks answer to the FSA, ergo the FSA must be allowing these practises to carry on (my simple thinking ). Why do the Banks seem to be a law onto themselves?.
CW, "which were in effect service charges for a service I did not request. On no occasion, as I've said did I request an unauthorised overdraft service, so I'm not paying for it." my argument as well .
If you are going down the Ombudsman route, then I wouldn't hold back on any points, go get em .
my pet hate, DD's another system that lets us down, used to be funds in on the day (close of business) now day before (tough if its a BANK holiday/we.). And don't even go down the dd guarantee, its not for us, its so companies and banks can blame each other, and guarantee that we end up out of pocket.
Ok, thats my rant for today
thanks for the click (?)
LTSB court date 25/7/07
17/7/07 I WON I WON I WON!!!! :grin:
HSBC court date 11/9/07 (stayed)
CapOne lba 7/1/08-15/3/08 WON.
Citicards lba 14/1/08
Read Read and Read Some More
If I've been helpful in anyway please tip my scales
Please note that this advice is given informally, without liability and without prejudice. Seek the advice of an insured qualified professional if you have any doubts.
CW, "which were in effect service charges for a service I did not request. On no occasion, as I've said did I request an unauthorised overdraft service, so I'm not paying for it." my argument as well .
If you are going down the Ombudsman route, then I wouldn't hold back on any points, go get em .
my pet hate, DD's another system that lets us down, used to be funds in on the day (close of business) now day before (tough if its a BANK holiday/we.). And don't even go down the dd guarantee, its not for us, its so companies and banks can blame each other, and guarantee that we end up out of pocket.
Ok, thats my rant for today
thanks for the click (?)
Oh, i'm not holding back on anything Remus. I've also just lodged a complaint relating to their possible breach of the data protection act (they sent my statements to my previous address after i'd followed all the necessary steps to change my address with them)
So I can now add another act of negligence to the others. You know, I wouldn't have believed how negligent and incompetent they are, if it weren't for starting down this route! On one occasion you know they returned a direct debit for £14.99 unpaid when my balance was at +£46!
Dead right on the direct debits, they definitely don't appear to work in the consumers favour. Hmmm, I wonder if because they are variable any of those areements could be also classed as unfair because they act to the detriment of the consumer? Any thoughts on whether they could also be in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations?
They're not getting away with it anymore so easily, that's for sure thanks to sites like this.
Doesn't the law say that when any losses are awarded due to unlawful actions, then the claimant should be in the position they would have been in had the unlawful actions not happened in the first place?
If the above is the case, then, say for example someone is in the unfortunate position of their balance being into the unauthorised overdraft when they are claiming, before they actually claim their losses from the charges themselves, shouldn't people question the legality of these unauthorised overdrafts first?
If it is true that people should be in the position they would have been in before any unlawful actions are carried out, then if it can be proven in court that unauthorised overdrafts are unlawful (I think an argument could be made about this under the Consumer Credit Act 2006 as I mentioned earlier in this thread) then before any charges are credited to a claimants account, the balance should be brought upto the legally enforceable overdraft limit before any charges are returned.
I have asked Natwest why they have allowed my account to go overdrawn on numerous occassions and so far have not had an answer to that question. They just change the subject or say it is my responsibility to manage my account correctly - which is very difficult to do when they are applying charges left right and centre.
Natwest, have bounced 2 payments of 5 pounds due to insufficient funds (i was due to get paid the following day) yet the same day taken out the charges that were £38 EACH, which then put me over my overdraft so more fees were applied. I dont call that responsible.
Pre-determined internal limits
. Left a few years back as I could not handle the sales pressure. I felt like I was ripping people off as the banks products are normally more expensive and less flexible and attractive. The Whistleblower programme is exactly how it is, pressure selling, making people feel uncomfortable....but this is the way not just in banks but in a number of areas in our daily lives.
...yes they will charge you £35 for going over you £500 limit.
Reply With Quote
More
(1) An order under this section in connection with a credit agreement may do one or more of the following- 
Originally Posted by remus
