Jump to content

bernard coleslaw

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    42
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

9 Neutral
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. People need to be a little circumspect with regards to this morning's announcement. This judgement is merely about whether the banks charging T&C's can be assessed under the fairness regulations or not. If the judgement says they can be assessed under the regulations, the banks may appeal against this, and we're into another round of court cases. Assuming these still go against the banks, only then can the OFT assess the charges for fairness. And this assessment will then have to form part of another legal case (more time, potential appeals, etc). The point I'm trying to make is that this morning's announcement, at the most, moves things on a step. It doesn't actually resolve anything finally. Sorry to put a downer on things, but I think people (including a certain M Lewis ) need to manage their expectations a little.
  4. To be honest, whilst that was probably not a nice letter to get, it could have been a lot worse. This looks like early notification of the outstanding amount. If, as they've said, they've suspended your mobile then they possibly wouldn't have been able to call you or text you, so a letter was probably their only option. It's better that they warn you of potential termination charges now than simply applying them to you with no notice. And they have said they're willing to talk through options to deal with the outstanding balance, which you yourself admit is a little late. I don't think that this: Please call us as soon as possible on 08700 765 123 and we will try to help sounds all that nasty, to be honest. You want to see some of the leters people on here have got over the last couple of years! Seriously - give them a call. Tell them your circumstances. They will default you if you don't talk to them. But if you keep them in the loop, they might want to help you.
  5. Tom Brennan? Over a week since his case, and nary a squeak from Mr B himself. No updates on his website, no interviews with the press, nothing on here. Has he gone on his hollies too?
  6. It's not propoganda. It's lazy journalism. It goes like this: "I don't understand the issues, so my audience won't. I'll simplify it, and if it turns out I'm inaccurate, what the heck, I've filled some seconds of airtime / inches of newsprint in any case."
  7. Started at 10.30am and still going on now. What could we read from this?
  8. Bookie - ready, aim, fire!!! Well done, I'm soon to start chasing after these chancers - your story is inspriation to us all. bc
  9. That's the one - thanks elsinore.
  10. Afternoon all. I'm sure I remember seeing somewhere that banks had been officially advised to tread carefully in recent months re: closing down the accounts of complainants. Could have been the FSA, OFT, BBA giving the guidance, but I can't seem to find it anywhere. Could sone kindly soul point me in the right direction? TIA
  11. Why pay someone to do this for you. Hate to big up the British Bankers Association (that's a rarity for this forum!) but they have a dormant account finder service you can use for free. Go to this link for details: http://www.bba.org.uk/bba/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=144 Hope this helps.
  12. I doubt it. These are charges for specific services received (i.e. foreign exchange interchange), rather than penalties levied for breaches, so they are valid, in legal terms. Whether they're good value for money is another thing, however.
  13. I know what you mean. The particular point I quoted was an interesting one, as I'm sure that they cannot use the income raised from default charges to subsidise their operations - it should only be enough to cover any actual loss caused to them by your breach of the contract. To get someone admitting in writing that the fee you've paid goes to fund their banking operation might be significant!
×
×
  • Create New...