Jump to content

KSmith82

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About KSmith82

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. This is an unfortunate situation but technically she would still be liable for the debt. For joint accounts, overdrafts can be applied for by any party without the permission of the other parties.
  2. No. You just didn't apply for a planned overdraft. Any current account can go overdrawn (into an unplanned overdraft). This is probably true. When using your card, sometimes small transactions are automatically approved straight away without checking with the bank first. The shop then processes the transaction a couple of days later. Until then the bank has no idea of the transaction even occurred. However, it would be your sons responsibility to monitor his spending and account balance.
  3. As I presumed. Great, I work full-time and am on this forum to help people too. You've mis-understood me. I wasn't asking for a specific BCOBS case. I was asking you to find a specific example where my approach to the financial issues of other posters shows that I am not aware of BCOBS or don't understand it. The OP's issue is in respect to an unauthorised overdraft. Overdrafts are not covered by BCOBS. For overdrafts, the relevant legislation includes CONC and the Consumer Credit Act. That's not quite true. Only certain aspects of BCOBS (e.g. rules NOT guidance) may be actionable by a private individual in a County Court. Yes, Halifax would have to positively deal with customers in financial difficulty. However, that isn't at all relevant to the OP's case as there is no evidence of hardship or financial difficulty. The unauthorised overdraft was caused by a mistake by the OP, not financial difficulty. And he/she has already stated that they might have to just suck it up and pay (suggesting that they do have the means to pay these charges). And in any case, Section 5.1.4 which you are referring to is a piece of guidance NOT a rule (and is therefore unactionable by a private individual in a County Court) so this has no relevance to your original statement about steamrolling charges being unlawful. It says gestures of goodwill. That doesn't mean that steamrolling charges is unlawful.
  4. I must admit I still disagree with you. He was made aware he had cause for a complaint because he now realised the account was unsuitable. I definitely agree with you on the last sentence though! It sounds like Natwest may have issued their final response for the complaint, in which case the next step would be the FOS. And the OP would have to counter Natwest's assertion that they should have been aware they had cause for complaint at this meeting in March 2009. So it would be good to explain exactly why you didn't think/know to make a complaint within 3 years of this meeting.
  5. So is steamrolloing charges on charges unlawful then? Or are you still looking? I disagree, I understand BCOBS perfectly fine. Obviously you're free to disagree aswell but it would be good if you could find a specific example which has led you to think otherwise.
  6. That's an outright lie. You wouldn't need to see an article published by the FOS in order to realise that you had cause for complaint.
  7. I'm not disputing this. What do you mean no? I don't think you're reading my posts properly. Well it does play a part if it means that chesterpug realised he/she would have grounds to complain. The exact wording in FCA DISP (as I have already posted for you multiple times) is "three years from the date on which the complainant became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) that he had cause for complaint". And Natwest's argument is that chesterpug did become aware during this meeting in March 2009 that there was cause for complaint. And even if chesterpug didn't realise at this time he/she reasonably ought to have been aware that he/she could complain. This is simply untrue and doesn't make any logical sense. Quite obviously chesterpug already realised back in March 2009. In fact the FCA (as per Consultation Paper 10/6) take the opposite view on media publicity and becoming aware that you have grounds to complain. Look at this quote using PPI as an example: "However, in our view, general media coverage of the PPI issue, including comments or publications by the FSA, would not be enough to have given a consumer the kind of specific ‘constructive knowledge’ (of a potential problem with, and potential financial loss from, the PPI policy sold to them) which is required to trigger the start of the three-year time limit within the DISP rules." Surely you mean 3 years. I think YOU need to be careful how you interpret the rules on time-barring. That's because you are mis-informed. A chargeback has nothing to do with becoming aware they 'could' do something. Chargebacks are not complaints-related and they are covered by completely different rules to FCA DISP. The different card associations have quite clear time limits which they publish in their relevant operating guides.
  8. It isn't clear what you mean by this comment. If the original mis-selling event is January 1999. Then 6 years after is January 2005. If you realised you were mis-sold in March 2009, then 3 years after this would be March 2012. (So that's 13 years and 2 months. And quite obviously 13 years 2 months is MORE than 6 years) So a complaint in May 2015 is well out of time.
  9. Well aware of BCOBS, it gets mentioned so often. But thanks anyway. Look forward to it.
  10. I get the feeling you are not reading or understanding my posts properly. THIS INFO IS WHAT I HAVE ALREADY SAID. I can't see why you are copying and pasting this information again? Anyway. So in chesterpug's case, Natwest are saying that he realised he was mis-sold in March 2009 but didn't make a complaint until May 2015 which is more than 3 years after the event. Therefore, they don't have to consider the complaint. This makes no sense and doesn't seem to have any relation to what we are talking about. What is a CCL letter anyway?
  11. If those complaints were made more than three years from the date on which the complainant became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) that he had cause for complaint then those complaints would not have likely been considered. However, most people would not realise their account was mis-sold and then wait more than 3 years before making a complaint. Unfortunately, chesterpug realised the account was unsuitable but didn't make a complaint until now which is MORE than 3 years later. Therefore, chesterpug is out of time and Natwest don't have to consider the complaint. Amazing. I am using my knowledge of the FCA DISP rules. You are using information on the website of claims management companies (who take a no-win-no-fee-solicitor type approach of taking on any case in the hope of a result) and the Daily Mail. It speaks volumes.
  12. Yes. The only thing they wouldn't be able to do is file a default notice "if the amount outstanding is solely made up of fees or charges". As you said, you might just have to suck this one up. If you had gotten in touch sooner they may have been able to do something about your mistake and maybe make a one off gesture of goodwill and stop some of the charges from being applied Or even more ideally, you could have signed up to text alerts in which case you would have known you were overdrawn pretty much as soon as it happened and then you could've transferred some money into the account to cover the shortfall and thereby avoid any charges. Care to back that up with any facts?
  13. Fair and reasonable or not, those are the FCA DISP rules regarding the time-barring of complaints. The fact that both your (dx100uk & Baz1994) complaints were upheld even though they relate to events way back in the past is irrelevant. Your complaints may well have been time-barred too, in which case the banks wouldn't have been obliged to consider them but they could do if they wanted too. Natwest are simply within there rights and are not obliged to consider chesterpug's complaint.
  14. They can quite rightly reject a complaint without considering the merits if it's more than six years after the event complained of OR (if later) more than three years from the date on which the complainant became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) that he had cause for complaint. You complained about your Advantage Gold account in May 2015 and stopped having this type of account in March 2009 - which is more than 6 years ago. Although your complaint is actually about the sale of your account which seems to be back in January 1999. At your meeting in March 2009 you should have reasonably been aware that you potentially had cause for complaint. Any assertion that you didn't realise you could complain at this time is an extremely weak point (in fact I consider it to be ridiculous). And to address your other concern: Any verbal complaint is still a complaint. As long as they issued you a final response (the fact that you don't recall this or didn't retain any paperwork is irrelevant) then they wouldn't have to consider your complaint again.
×
×
  • Create New...