Jump to content

missdpd

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    193
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by missdpd

  1. I might just add, as this only came out the beginning of November I think, has this not coincided with the banks restructuring their charges as well? Linked perhaps? or just coincidence xx
  2. Has anyone taken a peek at BCOBS? (Banking Conduct of Business Sourcebook) My particular favourite is held within section 5.1 Post Sale Requirements: 1 A firm must provide a service in relation to a retail banking service which is prompt, efficient and fair to a banking customer and which has regard to any communications or financial promotion made by the firm to the banking customer from time to time. BCOBS 5.1.2 01/11/2009 In determining the order in which to process payment instructions in relation to the retail banking service, a firm must have regard to its obligation to treat banking customers fairly. BCOBS 5.1.3 01/11/2009 To the extent that it relates to a retail banking service, a firm may find it helpful to take account of the British Bankers' Association "A Statement of Principles: Banks and businesses - working together". My most favourite though: Dealings with customers in financial difficulty BCOBS 5.1.4 01/11/2009 Principle 6 requires a firm to pay due regard to the interests of its customers and to treat them fairly. In particular, a firm should deal fairly with a banking customer whom it has reason to believe is in financial difficulty. xx
  3. Well I was unaware of it, or should I say I had heard it was going to be done but unaware it was already up and running! I shall be phoning tomorrow for application form, it is such a brilliant idea and my son will be over the moon if he can get his hands on a computer that doesnt keep freezing up everytime he tries to go on the website to do his homework (my graphics card is breathing its last breath and hates too much graphical movements lol). xx
  4. matess..........but only on a good day thanks for that, will take a toot tomorrow, my brain has been frazzled enough by all the thinking I have been doing today, can't take much more lol. xx
  5. I like my straws today, keep grasping at them lol. Have read a bit of The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading 2008 and I keep coming back to this section: Aggressive commercial practices 7.—(1) A commercial practice is aggressive if, in its factual context, taking account of all of its features and circumstances— (a) it significantly impairs or is likely significantly to impair the average consumer’s freedom of choice or conduct in relation to the product concerned through the use of harassment, coercion or undue influence; and (b) it thereby causes or is likely to cause him to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise. (2) In determining whether a commercial practice uses harassment, coercion or undue influence account shall be taken of— (a) its timing, location, nature or persistence; (b) the use of threatening or abusive language or behaviour; © the exploitation by the trader of any specific misfortune or circumstance of such gravity as to impair the consumer’s judgment, of which the trader is aware, to influence the consumer’s decision with regard to the product; (d) any onerous or disproportionate non-contractual barrier imposed by the trader where a consumer wishes to exercise rights under the contract, including rights to terminate a contract or to switch to another product or another trader; and (e) any threat to take any action which cannot legally be taken. (3) In this regulation— (a) “coercion” includes the use of physical force; and (b) “undue influence” means exploiting a position of power in relation to the consumer so as to apply pressure, even without using or threatening to use physical force, in a way which significantly limits the consumer’s ability to make an informed decision. Have highlighted the bits that stood out and my interpretation of it. On 7(1)(a) im being drawn to the consumers 'Freedom of Choice' and the rights they have (or not) as to whether to make the decision to allow a transaction to progress through their account that may result in them going overdrawn. By my logical (or illogical) thinking, we do not have that choice unless we cancel a DD upon realisation it may take us overdrawn prior to the transaction. As the banks state in the T & C's it is at their discretion as to whether to allow a payment to go through or not, if this is the case then, us, the consumer, has had that freedom of choice taken away from us. This then places us in a position to incur charges because of the banks decision (not ours) and so the vicious cycle starts. In the event that realisation is not made as to whether we may go into an unauthorised overdraft or not, the bank, by way of authorising this payment must surely put them in a position of power by the pure fact they authorised it and us, the consumer, were not even given an option to make an informed decision as to whether we would like it paid or not (where was the transactional decision? we were not allowed to make one, the bank did it for us?) I would also like to know who is classed as an 'average' consumer? How do they define that? Ok thats my thoughts on that bit, any other views would be most interesting xx
  6. I wonder if anyone who is more clued up on reading and interpretating things could take a look at the following and then either clarify or tell me im way over my head and reading it all wrong. After reading 'Restoring Consumer Trust in Retail Financial Services" ESBG Conference "Retail Banking in Europe – the way forward, lessons from the crisis and priorities for the future" Brussels, 22 September 2009 (not done a link as I am not sure I am allowed, but google it and it will come up), I was led to have a nosey at a couple of things, namely The Payment Services Regulations 2009 and The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Within The Payment Services Regulations 2009 I was interested to find the following: Charges 54.—(1) The payment service provider may only charge the payment service user for the fulfilment of any of its obligations under this Part— (a) in accordance with regulation 66(3), 67(6) or 74(2)(b); (b) where agreed between the parties; and © where such charges reasonably correspond to the payment service provider’s actual costs. (2) Where a payment transaction does not involve any currency conversion, the respective payment service providers must ensure that— (a) the payee pays any charges levied by the payee’s payment service provider; and (b) the payer pays any charges levied by the payer’s payment service provider. (3) The payee’s payment service provider may not prevent the payee from— (a) requiring payment of a charge by; or (b) offering a reduction to, the payer for the use of a particular payment instrument. particular attention was drawn to 54(1)© where such charges reasonably correspond to the payment service provider’s actual costs Now I know charges were found not to be penal, however, the actual true cost of the charges to the banks were not actually clarified. Am I right in thinking that maybe by using this bit of legislation this may be clarified? Like I said before, I am totally floundering about here but want to feel I am at least doing something whilst we wait for further directions with regards to cases stayed so I do apologise if this is all nonscence and I am totally off the beaten track so to speak. The second one The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, I have no idea to be honest, I brought this up as it was mentioned within the report as being relevant with regards to bank fees. If someone could look and clarify what that part is it may or may not be helpful. Right I have babbled enough, once again I apologise if what I have found and typed is not relevant, but if it is, maybe it might be helpful xx
  7. Don't know if this has been posted up before but some pretty good bargins to be found HotUKDeals - Deals - All xx
  8. God forbid if you get caught sneezing.....eyes closed and all that!
  9. Just re-read the bit I stated and I have made a slight error sorry. It actually says " If your complaint does not relate to the level and, accordingly, the fairness or lawfulness of these charges then please let us know by contacting us setting out the details so we can consider this further." So sorry about that, that will teach me not to shove my glasses on. xx
  10. Interestingly, received a letter from NatWest stating that my complaint with regards to charges is not being upheld etc. They do say, however, that if my complaint is not in relation to the level of charges but to the fairness or lawfulness of them, to let them know by way of setting out details so that they may consider my complaint further. xx
  11. Just a thought here but is there anyway he can be seeing the moon or the light it is casting through a window where he is? Seeing as this seems to be the focus of his chuffing at, maybe he sees it and wants to 'scare' it off by getting out there and barking.
  12. Is it wrong to feel excited over a regulation? I think I need to get out more lol.
  13. Have just checked my paper work and it states: 'The Defendant shall within 28 days of the final decision in the test case file at Court and serve on the Claimant (a) a case summary of not more than 500 words setting out the effect of that decision; (b) their proposed directions in this claim.' It then goes on to say that the documents will then be referred to the District Judge to consider further directions. So looks like I shall be hearing sumit within the next 4 weeks or so, hmmm great Xmas pressie lol.
  14. Just a quick question then.... I obtained my POC off here back in March and have just had a read of what I sent to the courts back then and it only mentions Reg 8. Would this cause any problems or would I be able to argue reg 5 as well on the basis that it mentions reg 8 in the event I get my day at court or would I have to complete an amendment? I just want to say what fantastic work people have done to get us this far anyway, regardless of the outcome. Without their input and help I would, and im sure there are others on here that would agree, have never gotten this far on my own. thank you xx
  15. Gordon Brown says they imposed new charging structures to make it fairer to the consumer? Surely thats saying that the old system was unfair then?
  16. omg lol, thank you to both of you for making me laugh so much, face aches and belly hurts now! xx
  17. Don't know if anyone has heard of them but I subscribed a while ago so that I could see what was going on in the finance world, anyways, I have received an email which I found highly amusing and thought I would share. Re: Support the petition backing the Collections and Enforcement industry As we all know, our industry comes under a lot of pressure, from the media and sometimes politicians on an almost daily basis. Some of this is fair, but much of it is not fair at all. At the same time, every day the debt avoidance culture seems to be becoming more of a part of modern society, where people feel little moral obligation to pay what they owe. At CCR we feel that it is time to make a stand against this and so we have placed a petition of Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s website Number10.gov.uk to ask him to make a statement of support for the industry and to encourage debtors to understand that they should pay what they owe, or at least what they can sensibly afford, and not try to avoid payment. I do have the link to the petition as well but am not sure on the do's and dont's of posting it so I have omitted. Im sure it can easily be found on No.10's petition site anyways It is titled CCR Petition. xx p.s I apologise if I have posted it in the wrong section as well
  18. Have received a response from Natwest and will type the relevant bits up: Dear missdpd, I note that you are refusing to make any realistic repayment proposals in respect of your accounts until the outcome of the test case, regarding bank charges, which is presently before the High Court, is known. The office in Edinburgh that is dealing with charges claims has confirmed that you have made claims of £xxx in respect of account xxxxxxxx and of £xxxx in respect of account xxxxxxxx. If both of your claims are upheld in full, which has yet to be determined, this still leaves the sum of £xxxx owing to the bank. I cannot see any reason, therefore, for you to withhold repayments in respect of £xxxx. It then goes on for me to phone them to discuss repayment proposals. Now then, the amounts they have obtained from their Edinburgh office do NOT include the interest incurred on the charges, nor does it include the 8% court interest. Had it done so, the amount they say I owe would be reduced considerably. This therefore is not a 'true' reflection of the amount I am claiming in court. Should I therefore write back to them pointing this out and outline the figures as shown on my court claims, including pointing out the 8% interest being incurred at a daily rate whilst on the stay at court. I have no problems whatsoever coming to an agreement with regards to a repayment plan over the amount outstanding once this has been acknowleged, based on my figures, I do however have a problem with them ignoring this fact and trying to make me pay over £2,000 more than I may possible owe. Thanks xx
  19. Just a quickie to maybe clear any confusion up over the RBS/Triton thing. Triton is actually the inhouse collections people for the RBS group. I've just had some dealings with them with regards to Natwest. That is why when you send a letter to Triton, RBS reply xx
  20. Well I have received yet another letter from Natwest saying they are still investigating my complaint; this now makes three letters in total since I sent my letter to them threatening to report them for pursuing collection on overdrafts in dispute due to bank charges incorporated into the amount owed. Not quite sure why it is taking them so long but one theory I have is that they may be dragging this 'investigation' out until the outcome of the appeal and then, depending which way the appeal goes, inform me of their findings. xx
  21. If I just want to have a quick look on the site and don't plan to post owt, then I sometimes don't bother logging in. These 'guests' may also be innocent people who are looking for advice without wanting to ask anyone; they might not know if the advice they want will be found here or whether the site is for them. I for one would not want to become a member of every single site I look at when seeking information so to impose this restriction may hinder rather than help.
  22. Well in response to the letter I sent, I have received a letter from Natwest stating they are investigating my complaint. Here's hoping they have finally got the message and realise i'm not going to be messed about.
×
×
  • Create New...