This topic was closed on 10 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

This topic was closed on 03/08/19.

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

You give me more attention than I require. lol

Thanks to all the support and I will be donating shortly... Yorkshire or clydesdale will not resist and I hope that EVERYBODY PERSISTS

I think that where mortgages are concerned, there should be no reason why you cannot claim for late payment fees and arrears charges as the process effectively is the same as your bank charges. An automated letter is issued and then you may get a phone call if you do not pay up within a few weeks of the letter being issued.

Clearly each lender has its own process but pick up the tarrif of charges for your lender and you will clearly see what they will charge should this happen.

The difficult part of being in arrears is that when solicitors get involved and legal action is taken, you are actually paying for actual costs incurred, i.e. a solicitor preparing the legal docs to get the case to court etc. As these are not punitive then you cannot claim for these.

Where you may have an argument is that should the punitive charging not have taken place, the arrears would not be as high as they are at the moment and therefore legal action should not have taken place. Example:

100 arrears

25 arrears charge

You pay 50 off your arrears

Your arrears is now 75 rather than 50

following month your arrears is 175 and then you get charged 25 fee

arrears now 200

you pay 50, arrears 150..

Sorry if that is not clear but it just indicates how arrears charges on mortgages snowball debt.

Charges on mortgages is something that I would like to see more discussion on as I know that reposessions are on the increase and arrears balances would naturally be on the increase to reflect this.

Good question, I think it was Clydesdale though...

It was yorkshire but the rules do not differ..

Yes we had a pre-estimate amount. The amount was not correct and they finally sent copies of all statements for us to check. They offered us a portion, we kindly said no and told them that the only acceptable resolution was full payment plus the court fees that we had incurred.

Having received the accurate figures plus interest they decided that "without prejudice save as to costs" that they would accept this rather than go to court.

Bank agreed to pay up today... Looks like I am no longer off to court.

Personally speaking, this article has not been a suprise in my eyes, we all knew that the banks had to show reaction due to the 31st May deadline set by the OFT.

It is in my opinion also that the OFT ruling and the banks response to the OFT has no bearing on our claims. This is because the basic argument that we are all making is that these charges, whether they be at 12 or 35, are still punitive and unlawful.

General UK contract law which is not set by either the bank or the OFT states that the it is perfectly lawful for your bank to reclaim liquidated damages, however, the amount that they reclaim must be an accurate and true reflection of the loss incurred. If we can prove that the charges that the banks have imposed, once again whether at 12 or 35, is not a true and accurate loss then this becomes punitive and therefore unlawful.

I personally believe that banks will always be able to get their cut of the pie in whatever they do, so it is going to take a lot to get the situation to be as it morally and legally should be.

Sorry, not sure if this has been mentioned already, had a quick look but couldnt see.

If it has - apologies..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5036098.stm

looks like they are trying to stuff us another way now to make their profit!!!

I think we stand a good chance too.

I just hope that their legal eagles dont start baffling us with all the legal jargon. I guess, I will just have them to get them to explain everything if they do!

I have a few points that I want to focus on and I know its all about getting the judge to side with you over the other party and believe I can do this with

Failure to comply with DPA

Failure to supply information required

The fact that they have admitted that the charges they applied were pre-estimates of losses and not actual losses.

The whole contractual law and liquidated damages argument too.

I have supporting letters from others where they are still refusing the DSA requests to their customers.

I hope that I can paint a very nice picture.

Blimey. When you say 'going to court,' do you mean you will be raising the claim on Tuesday? If so, then it is a fair bet that they will settle quite soon.

 

But anyway, good luck...you are obviously very determined to get your money back.

The banks sols asked for a 1 month stay, I agreed as I thought the sols had realised what a mess the bank had made of all this. We have failed to reach an agreement as their offer was about 50% of what I needed to claim my charges back and court fees. I now have to write to the court and say that mediation has failed and I want a hearing!

I am determined and I really think that they want to go for it. I did put in my last letter to them that I was not afraid to be the landmark case should they proceed to gain an actual judgement - which I am not.

Well you may have read through other peoples posts that my partner and I are in the process of reclaiming some charges from the Yorkshire Bank. To briefly outline the story so far:

DSA = Data Subject Access

ICO = Information Commissioners Office

Wrote to bank asking for a DSA.

Response - no can do

Spoke to bank to discuss DSA

Response - still no can do

Letter confirming this and cheque returned.

Spoke to ICO - was told to put copy transactions rather than Statements

Letter to Bank to request copy transactions

Complaint lodged with ICO.

Estimated Charges guessed by us and court claim started.

Still no response from bank after 40 days

ICO spoke with bank - no response after 14 days

Contacted ICO - ICO advised they would make contact with bank

Bank contacted me to say they would give copy of transactions within 7 days

Bank Acknowledge and Defend Claim. Instruct external sols with list of transactions.

Copy Statements for one account and not other 3 arrive on doorstep 7 days later.

Correspond with solicitor having seen defence filed and sols ask for 1 month stay.

Still waiting copy statements from bank for other accounts.

So this is where we are today - our one month stay officially ends over the weekend and I am told by the solicitors that an offer is in the post. The offer has transpired to be less than the actual charges applied against our account 4 years ago, no offer to reimburse court fees or anything - another delay tactic! Do not go there if anybody else gets this far!

I have told them that we are unable to accept anything less than the actual losses incurred and gave them until close of business today to make that offer to avoid a court hearing. No response so it now seems as though we are going to have to go to court.

Maybe we will be the landmark case? Anyway, I am really looking forward to it and I know that we have the sufficient ammo to argue these punitive and unlawful charges.

I will keep you all posted on how it goes.

Right!!

 

Just spoken to our Mr Gordon Watt, ooooh that was nice - I could almost hear the sound of his sweaty cheeks squirming around in his chair throughout my conversation! THAT alone was priceless!

 

Anyway, the jist of it is, that (as expected) he refused to comment on another persons case (Homer_J's), refused to even look at the case after I asked him too because I was fed up of his 'I don't have the details to hand' spiel.

 

This guy clearly is not used to dealing with customers (expecially assertive & irate ones at that!), which probably explains why his phone number, isn't published on his letters... Ooops - bit of a shame someone's left it on the previous page of this thread then eh!?

 

In short - he's left me with little choice than to wait on the ICO to get involved, and I'll also be lodging a complaint with the FSA.

 

 

*** MY ADVICE TO ANYONE IN THE SAME SITUATION ***

 

If I was going to approach the CB again, I'd do this:

 

-- DPA Letter along with £10 as normal (recorded delivery).

 

-- When they send you their standard "£5 per copy statement" letter, send your reply to BOTH the branch & Neil McKirdy (Customer Relations Manager - address is on this thread), stating that if they don't provide ALL of the information that you requested within the 40 days, you'll go to the ICO.

 

-- When you get their standard letter (probably from Fiona Hutton or someone else at Network Support), saying that they're only going to send you details from (circa) July 2005 under their interpretation of the DPA, and that everything else comes a a £5 per statement cost - Phone the ICO, fill in their Complaint Form and get them involved. This Gordon Watt guy (despite his best efforts) made it perfectly clear that he was very uncomfortable about my threat to go to the ICO & FSA - SO DO IT!!!

 

The people on the ICO DPA Helpline are very very helpful - DO NOT hesitate to give them a call for advice - they really couldn't be any nicer!!

 

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

Again - good luck and keep us all updated!

I bet he was lol.. He must really love me - I hope he gets called as a witness to my case so I can ask him about his blatent disregard for the DPA. I find it virtually unexplainable why they are doing this knowing that the ICO will tell them to do it. I guess the only explanation is that it reduces their liability through the Limitations act.

If you are going to follow the good avice above, I would make it clear that if the first response is that you are not entitled to this, you will make immediate complaint to the ICO rather than wait the 40 days for it to not turn up.

Anyway, we stand together in this and we will triumph I am sure.

Just a thought here and apologies if it is placed in wrong area.

Could one of the principals of the Financial Services Authority of Treating Customers Fairly be used to make complaint towards those regulated by them.

I have read constant inconsistencies with Banks etc treating customers with varying levels of service and actions. Is there a way of collaberating the information to put as a "super complaint" type of action?

Is it fair that one person gets their statements and others dont? Are they acting with integrity by not disclosing the information on how they calculate their fees etc.

Im not really an expert on it but if for the purpose of discussion there is something hidden within my idea that can be used, I am sure somebody will have some comment.

We sent ours to the local branch. I would send to Mr Gordon Watts. Check JImo's post below yours on the last page. His Address is there but dont expect too much.

We are in the process of taking them to court for the charges going back 6 years ago for 2 years (when I was young, not so sensible with money and enjoyed life to the max) . They seem to play delay tactics all the time and I am trying to put a stop to it.

Got 2 x letters from the Clydesdale this morning:

 

Letter #1

 

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

 

Dear Mr JMio,

 

I refer to your letter dated 19th April to Neil McKirdy, which has been pased to me to provide you with a response.

 

I confirm that we shall be happy to provide you with all the information to which you entitled under your right of access to your personal information under the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

With regard to the information concerning charges applied to your account, those records held exclusively in electronic form date back only to July 2005. Records prior to that data are only accessable via a combination of electronic and manual means. The latter is not referenced by criteria relating to individuals. We therefore consider that this does not constiture a relevant filing system, as defind in Section 1 (1) of the Act, and that this information is outside of its scope.

 

I hope that this satisfactorily clarifies out reasoning in this matter. If, however you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Gordon Watt

Data Protection Advisor

National Australia Group (Europe) Limited

 

Regulatory Compliance

3rd Floor

The Athenaeum

8 Nelson Mandela Place

Glasgow

G2 1BN

 

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

 

 

Letter #2

 

Dear Mr JMio,

 

DATA PROTECTON ACT 1998 - DATA SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST

 

I refer to previous correspondence and now enclose the relative information, however I understand Gordon Watt in our Compliance area was making contact with you regarding outstanding issues.

 

If you require any additional information regarding your accoutn please contact your branch.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Fiona Hutton

Network Support

 

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

 

Along with Letter #2 was copy statements from July '05 - total of £110 charges on there.

 

Looks like I'm going to have to report them to the IC & hope like hell that they intervene for me!

Hi,

Just to let you know that we had the exact same problem with Mr Watts. However, following a complaint to the ICO and starting court proceedings without the information, I am now in correspondece with a firm of solicitors that they are using to defend the claim.

In fact, Mr Watts actually called me personally to apologise because he accepted that the information contained within my statements was covered by the DSA request and subsequently received copy of the statements from 2000-2002.

If you want some ammo, I am more than willing to let you refer to my conversation . Also could I ask if you would be prepared to allow me to have a scanned copy of that letter from Mr Watts, so when I go to court I can present my argument that they are stalling with customers to reduce their liabilities through the 6 year rule?

I have a feeling that you may struggle to go back so far as I recall that some records the FSA only state you must keep for 7 years. Not sure if this includes bank statements though. Will have to wait and see..

Just a quick question. Is there anybody that can give me a rough dea of how many customers the YB have or how I can find this information? I have checked their website and I can find the figure for the group?

All I am trying to do is work out what a realistic charge will be based on customer base etc. Has anybody got this information or done any research on this?

I dont think KMC can justify th £50 charge tbh as it does not cost that to send a letter and it does not take one person 8 hours to review an account if you were to base your calcs on mininum wage.

I am guessing that they will have automated reports and diary systems to allow them to speedily identify accounts in arrears and those that are defaulting against arrangments etc.

The other point is that KMC do not directly get charged the cost of hiring staff because of the outsourcing contract in place and it is a proven case that the cost of staffing is one of the main reasons companies use outsourcers.

I would imagine it to be fairly difficult for the outsourcer to immediately charge that to KMC. KMC would have agreed a price before signing the contract and would have set key performace indicators which would activate penalty clauses should they not be met.

I would imagine with the market that KMC operates that they have to keep that arrears below a certain level. If this level goes above a certain amount and doesnt show sign of being reduced then I would imaging penalties will be imposed .

The outsourcing company then I guess would employ further staff to reduce this and I am led to believe that it has not been unusual to hire temps. The cost of hiring these staff will no doubt be cheaper than the penalties incurred.

I obviously do not know the ins and outs of the contract but I think that with what I have said, you would have to get KMC to show their hand in the court room if you got that far when they were explaining the true cost of chasing arrears.

Check all your paperwork to see if it stated that the box was a refurb. If you cannot find anything tell them so and ask them to prove otherwise.

If they can then I guess that you are not going to get very far. If they cannot then I would look at speaking to somebody like the Office of Fair Trading or Trading Standards and get them involved.

Sorry if I cant be much help.

I will let somebody else answer regards to whether you can claim for charges. My initial thought would be yes but I am not sure.

However, I thought you may be interested in this website that I believe will help a little hopefully.

You may be aware but hopefully you can talk to people who are experiencing the same as yourself. I know that the company might as well wear a striped jumper and a mask..

Thanks Homer J.

 

your post is very interesting.

 

It is only now having read your reply that I realise that many companies use the same address.

Before remortgaging with Kensington, my previous mortgage was with a company called Amber Homeloans, which later became Redstone Mortgages.

Have just checked and found the addresses are very similar and the phone number also starts 0870 601 ----.

 

When I was with them, I incurred arrears fees, so might try to recover those aswell.

 

 

 

Cheers

 

Buzz.

You are correct and both those companies are still there.... They are different companies (amber/redstone) and KMC. So they will have their own charging structures and staff but they are employed by the one outsourcing company using the same computer system, using the same printers etc.

You just need to follow the claim guidance notes provided by this forum to justify taking court action, if required. If you do get to court, read the notes by bankfodder when you get to that stage and you will see that it says that you should use specific questions to prove your case and to get the judge to think (my words not bankfodders) they are the incompetent fools we know they are and dont have a clue.

you have mail..

I know kensington mortgages fairly well as I am a mortgage adviser and can tell you that the response you have got is the biggest load of BS that I have ever heard.

There is a nice big office in Skipton, North Yorkshire, and they administer mortgages for over 30 different mortgage companies. Kensington being one of them.

I know this because I have to send mortgage apps off to the same address for each one

Having spoken to intermediary support staff for the various lenders that hold this same address, I can confirm that these companies have outsourced the administration to the company that occupies this building.

I also understand that they all use the same computer system for all the different lenders as their main call centre has to be linked into this. I know this because all the numbers are the same except for the last 4 numbers - so it is 0870 601 xxxx.

This should aid your case because if you go down the route of charges are not a true reflection of cost incurred, then you could argue that the cost of system is not anything to do with it because the system services over 30 different lenders and was not a cost to Kensington directly.

For specific work which may be different to the other lenders whilst trying to administer your account whilst in arrears, I am not sure but I am pretty certain that you will be able to prove that it isnt a true cost.

I make this assumption on the basis of experience of outsourcing. Usually when this happens the company receiving the contract will have bonuses and penalties for hitting certain teargets and I would argue that the fees you mention help pay these bonuses that Kensington would have to pay or offset losses of the penalties that the administration company pay when targets are missed or hit.

I would imagine that if you can just follow the CAG recommended steps and letters and take them to court when they fail to pay, You could use this knowledge a little more to get get the judge to think in your favour...