Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

copperman05

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About copperman05

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Had standard, 'sorry your not happy' letter through today, with a added bit by Abbey that they are not liable to pay for solicitors fees, etc, which seems like a new one, anyway, so things are moving on slowly.. Edd
  2. If the charges may be leaving you short for the month you could do what I did and call Abbey and ask for them to be removed, I did, and they did remove £80 of £100 which I believe is fair, means I wont be another £80 short this month. Just my 2pence Edd
  3. Now this may be old news but I have just finished a conversation with someone from Abbey as I was seeking that they refund some recent charges, which I might add they did, £80 of £100, which I believe is fair. Anyway we were talking about the charges, etc and she said Abbey's charges are actually at the moment under review, and the way she said it appeared that they were under review due to the amount of media coverage, people claiming charges back, etc. She said there would still be a few months for the review to be made and so carefull account managing was still required. Is it possible that Abbey could pre-empt a disicion by the OFT? Or perhaps this is just another fob off? Would be interesting to hear if anyone else has been told the same... Edd
  4. I think this attitude is typical of us British, we dont want to cause to much fuss, shouldn't claim the higher rate because its too much. Come on if Yankeeruinx is entitiled to it he has the right to claim it. I believe we have a better chance of claiming the higher rate, as thats what the banks charge us, and their charges are unlawful, the end amount claimed is immaterial, if your entitiled to it, claim it. Lets stop being easy on the banks, its our money, our contracts, our right to claim the higher interest. I have a fairly large overdraft facility with my bank, which I believe is mainly due to my banks penalty charges, how many times have you extended your overdraft to 'accomodate' the charges... I believe claiming the higher rate is not only justifiable but only goes some way to compensating me of my loss + large O/D + plus numerous other unpaid items in the past. Of course we need to know what we are claiming and be able to justify it at court, I believe I can, and at the higher rate, but lets not 'go for the lower rate' just because the higher rate produces a larger amount of money. Just my 2pence Edd
  5. Yes my fears exactly... But I cant see how it can really effect the economy, if it is (the money from charges) not in the hands of the banks then it will be in the hands of its customers, who will then have more expendable funds to feed the economy with anyway...? If it was any other industry that was flouting the law they probably would have been held to account long ago, but as it is our banks, it would seem we are left to fight this one on our own...one by one. Well I for one am not going to let them keep their greedy hands on my money! Oh plus interest.... Edd
  6. No, its simpler than that...money...banks have lots of it and so it makes them powerful and this is why trading standards or other statutory body's are so unwilling to take action against them, maybe they are afraid or the banks tell them that a ruling such as a injunction for them to remove the unfair condition would create a crash in profits that have a larger effect on the economy as a whole. I guess it seems large international finance organisations can be above the law, as no one it would seem (apart from the average person here) is willing to stand up the them and challenge these unfair conditions. The banks have been flouting the law for too long, taking charges off those how aremost likely to need it most, filling their fat pockets, and here I was thinking they were meant to be providing a service when they are just using me as a money making scheme. Its disgusting that these bodies are doing nothing when they have the power to do something, and stop the banks making their fat profits off us. Just my 2pence Edd
  7. I would like to know who these consumer associations are, as they are one of the 'qualifying body's' that can take legal action... why arent they taking legal action?
  8. Now forgive me if I am being niave but I have just been reading through the The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regs. 1999 and here it mentions the condtions that may be regarded as unfair, and which we are now I would imagine all aware. (e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation; (schedule 2, regulation 5.5) The act also states: - 'The Regulations maintain the obligation on the Director General of Fair Trading (contained in the 1994 Regulations) to consider any complaint made to him about the fairness of any contract term drawn up for general use. He may, if he considers it appropriate to do so, seek an injunction to prevent the continued use of that term or of a term having like effect (regulations 10 and 12). The Regulations provide for the first time that a qualifying body named in Schedule 1 (statutory regulators, trading standards departments and Consumers' Association) may also apply for an injunction to prevent the continued use of an unfair contract term provided it has notified the Director General of its intention at least 14 days before the application is made (unless the Director General consents to a shorter period) (regulation 12). A qualifying body named in Part One of Schedule 1 (public bodies) shall be under a duty to consider a complaint if it has told the Director General that it will do so (regulation 11). The Regulations provide a new power for the Director General and the public qualifying bodies to require traders to produce copies of their standard contracts, and give information about their use, in order to facilitate investigation of complaints and ensure compliance with undertakings or court orders (regulation 13).' Now my question is (actually I have several:D) have any qualifying bodies (trading standards, consumer associations, etc) made any comlpaints to the director general of fair trading regarding the continued flouting of the above 'unfair condition' by our banks? Or are any of the qualifying bodies in a possition to apply for an injunction to prevent the continued use of the unfair contract term as pointed out above. Am I right in thinking that this legislation has enpowered certain individuals (the Director of Fair trading) and organisations (trading standards, consumer associations, etc) to use powers given in this act to stop the kind of unfair penalty charges, but that these 'qualifying bodys' have not as yet sought to even challenge these unfair charges? Has an official complaint been made by our consumer organisations (whoever they may be) to the DFT? It seems to me we have a very powerful piece of legilation here, however it does not seem to be being used, or enforced... or have I missed something?? Edd
  9. Thanks Lucid, probably should have mentioned I'm with the Abbey hence the 28.7%, sorry:o. But the question was a general one and not just aimed at my bank Abbey so you have still managed to answer my question. I am also claiming the higher rate of CI and so am watching your thread with great interest.... keep at it, and best of luck Edd
  10. I too am claiming CI at 28.7% on £1605 of charges, and have just sent my LBA, I have a question for you Mindzai/Lucid hope I'm not highjacking your thread but I am seriously considering moving my monthly payment of wages into my parachute account as I am afraid my bank are suddenly going to take my O/D facility away, I think you have had a simialr experience? If I keep my money where it is the bank could withdraw my O/D facility and I might be up s**t street or I move it to another account and they start demanding the repayment of my o/d facilty, it seems a bit of a catch 22 situation. Should I move it or not? Whats your experience with this? Anyway, been following your thread closely as I am going down a similar route, I wish you good luck with your claim... Edd
  11. Ha, 3 months, we will see....I'll get back to you on that one, prepared to eat humble pie if I have to....but I wont..
  12. I dont see it taking any longer myself, infact things should go quicker, which is my whole point. I guess like you say we will see, I hope to show you I'm right, hehe, but then I would say that wouldn't I. To be honest Im more worried about the contractual interest and if I can make it stick... I see Abbey fighting that one with more vigour than 14days. Just my 2cents.. Edd
  13. Well LBA sent today asking for £2562.90 which includes £1605.00 in charges plus compounded contractual interest at 28.7% of £957.90. Im giving Abbey 14 days to return the above amount or I will be starting court action. I know some of you think I should give another extra 14 days but I have been told its unnessesary, so I'm not. Apparently 7 days would be sufficient... This obviously doesn't mean we should all stop using the guidlines of CAG. I very much appreciate the help available here without it it would certainly be much harder claiming these charges back. A big thank you to all those that have helped so far, I hope I can return the favour at some point... I believe this will work and so that why I'm doing it. Edd
  14. Thanks for your comments guys I thought it might cause a stir but I personally dont see there's an issue here. When I sent Abbey my SAR I also outlined my intention to seek the refunding of my penalty charges, I told them after I had worked out the amount I would be sending them a letter demanding the refund or I would go to court after 14 days. Abbey were sent the SAR on the 13th December 2005, I think they will have had ample time and notice by the time this might go to court. Abbey have had plenty of time to work out how much they owe me since i sent the SAR and do not really need me to spell it out for them (they are a bank after all), they have been warned of my intentions, with good time, I could give them an extra 14 days but it just doesnt seem nesessary. If I sent the LBA today they would have had 45 days totalp since I told them of my intentions, I think that will be sufficient for any judge. There have been many successfull claims using this method. Looking forward to your comments... Edd
×
×
  • Create New...