Natwest business account

[tifo]

Sent this to them :

In conclusion, I look forward to :

 

 

• Why the fees I have detailed in my request and schedule are considered non-refundable.
  

 

• For what type of activity is a ‘cheque return fee’ and ‘excess borrowing fee’ applied to the account and what exactly is this fee for.
  
• For what type of activity is an ‘unarranged borrowing fee’ and ‘paid referral fee’ and ‘unpaid fee’ applied to the account and what exactly is this fee for.
  
• For what type of activity is an ‘interest or monthly packaged account fee’ applied to the account and what exactly is this fee for.
  
• A full breakdown of how each charge or fee was applied to the account and its exact calculation to arrive at the amount charged.
  
• An investigation into how and why my account was put on hold and why my letters and telephone calls were ignored at the time.
  
• Compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by putting my claim on hold and the 8 months that passed.
  
• A true copy of the credit agreement that applied to this account and any overdraft, together with any documents mentioned in it, including the Terms and Conditions applicable at that time.
  
• A payment of £X,XXX or £X,XXX or another sum and a full explanation of how this amount is arrived at.
  
• A full statement showing all charges and fees applied to the account as ‘cheque return fee’ and ‘excess borrowing fee’ or any other charge or fee.
  
• A copy of the relevant section and clause used when each charge or fee was applied to the account.
  
• Any other information which may be useful in this investigation and my claim.
  
• This list is not exhaustive but an indication of what needs investigating and responding
  

Edited July 14, 2008 by tifo

[tifo]

as you know yourbank, my statements say 'cheque return fee' at £30 each and 'excess borrowing fee' at £3.50 per day instead of 'unpaid item' and 'unarranged borrowing fee', so the bank say there are no valid charges to refund. This is a play on words and i can ask them why they have not used the appropriate terms in my statements.

 

So in my follow up schedule i have used the words above.

 

Hope they don't get confused.

[yourbank]

They may reply,(cos those scottish ones that took NatWest over do appear to be a bit dim on the old bank charges) that was the old NatWest Group Terminolgy.

I do hope they don't tempt me to point out which process manual(internal) that they are located in cos that would mean I would have to get the trusty steed out again that has been grazing for months. I look forward to the response you get tifo.

[yourbank]

Tifo, as a young whippersnapper on CAG, I remembered I had looked at business charges. I know banks views these forums so, for RBS Retail Regulatory Risk, I have something for you to read.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/40151-natwest-business-charges-guide.html?highlight=natwest+charges+guide

 

Sadly, I never got round to finishing that guide.

[tifo]

got the same offer again as i did last year, i.e. less than 50% of the charges for returned cheques and being overlimit that i am claiming.

 

they still insist there are no charges to be refunded of the type i am asking for, but i only got this offer again because of the complaint letter i sent to Chief Exec, who's office haven't responded to any of the points i raised.

 

so basically, they offered me this money last year, put my account on hold for 9 months, say they're sorry about that and offer me the same again, still insisting there are no charges to refund, and i say my statements detail 'cheque return fee' at £30 each and totalling over £800, plus around £200 of 'excess borrowing fee' at £3.50 per day.

 

do they really think there are no penalty charges on the account and the statements are wrong or are they hoping i'll go away?

 

Chief Exec's office sent a letter saying they'll investigate and get back to me, after i sent the second letter i detailed above. I'm hoping they'll accept my points and make a higher offer more in line with the amount of charges, otherwise it will be court soon.

[yourbank]

I think this weekend I will re look at that business charges thread. THe bank are wrong, £3.50 excess borrowing fee is the antecedent to Unarranged borrowing and then Maintenance charge(I have to say I was sure UBF was from 2000 but will do some research on it). The cheque return fee is what it says on the tin.

[tifo]

THe bank are wrong, £3.50 excess borrowing fee is the antecedent to Unarranged borrowing ...... The cheque return fee is what it says on the tin.

 

I know it is what it says, but they're saying it's not that, it's a legitimate business fee and they only return 'unpaid fee' or 'paid referral fee', which is what it may be called now. So they're saying it's not a charge for returning a cheque, even though it says 'cheque return fee'! Are they mad?

[yourbank]

I say that is a load of billhooks(I am sure you have seen the "Fork Handles" sketch!!)

[tifo]

I say that is a load of billhooks(I am sure you have seen the "Fork Handles" sketch!!)

 

From the Two Ronnies !

 

You mean Four Candles sketch don't you?

 

Yeah, they're playing on words.

 

Don't know how they're going to convince a judge it's not a 'cheque return fee', i.e. it wasn't charged for returning a cheque, your honour, it just says that. He actually paid a fee for us to refer it back to the payee !

[yourbank]

It is in Plain and Intelligible Language. Excess Borrowing fee(what could that mean )

[tifo]

It is in Plain and Intelligible Language. Excess Borrowing fee(what could that mean )

 

Yeah, and i wonder what 'cheque return fee' means?

 

Well, i've asked them to tell me exactly what kind of activity the £30 and £3.50 per day was for and to provide a breakdown of their costs involved.

 

I'm still expecting the same kind of waffle i've already had.

[yourbank]

these terms are so very difficult to undestand, eh, tifo?

[tifo]

these terms are so very difficult to undestand, eh, tifo?

 

Yeah, they're totally confused!

 

Anyway, going off now, thanks for the help.

[tifo]

interesting development, though confusing ...

 

they offered £420 before, now they've offered £700. It's not clear if the offer is in addition to the £420 or including it, as the letter says 'this is in addition to the refund agreed' but then states 'revised offer'. So it says both and 'final offer'. It also says they 'cannot locate any overdraft agreements'. Does this mean they cannot claim the £1400 overdraft on the account, which would be wiped out anyway if they pay me what i am asking for?

 

Then, i've received a settlement letter of £700 for my personal account i hold with RBS and the letter says the offer is 'in light of my financial situation and background info' though test case is ongoing and my acceptance 'does not prevent me from benefiting if the findings are more advantageous to me'. The RBS account number and ref number is used and the settlement form does not say 'full and final', only 'accept your goodwill offer'. They've previously put my claim on hold re test case.

 

To recap, i have an offer of £420 on my NatWest business claim and a letter stating an offer of £700 will be sent. I have received an offer on my RBS personal current account of £700.

 

Looks like they've got confused but my letters always use the correct account and reference numbers for my Natwest business account and i've not wrote to them regarding my RBS personal account since it was put on hold.

 

What to do? I could accept £420 on Natwest and £700 on RBS and wait for an offer of £700 from Natwest. But then they might claim a mistake and take the money back from my personal account, even though it's from the same bank to the same person, just different accounts within the group.

Edited August 2, 2008 by tifo

[yourbank]

They won't use full and final(cos that is a breach of the FSA waiver). Worth asking for clarification on the offer you are not sure of.

[tifo]

It also says they 'cannot locate any overdraft agreements'. Does this mean they cannot claim the £1400 overdraft on the account, which would be wiped out anyway if they pay me what i am asking for?

 

By paying £700 into my personal account, there will be nothing going towards the business account, except maybe the £420 offer they have sent me, which i will ask them to pay into my personal account. Then, i may receive an offer of £700 from NatWest as the RBS offer is for different reasons, they say. It's confusing.

 

I've been paying £2.00 a month towards my business overdraft which they've been paying back into my personal account, which makes me think they're confused somewhere. Now they've said there is no overdraft agreement. I hope they mean the business account because i have no overdraft on my personal account.

Edited August 2, 2008 by tifo

[tifo]

I'm going to accept their offer of £700 charges refund and £250 compensation for putting account on hold, to be paid into my personal account so at least it doesn't get swallowed into the business overdraft, for which they've admitted they have no agreement.

 

They'll send me a full set of statements to confirm all charges have been paid, so at least I have some comeback if it turns out they've paid me less.

 

The £250 makes up for the interest they're not paying.

 

So i've got £950 and a £1,400 overdraft still remains which they've never chased for years anyway, as i've been paying a nominal amount towards it. No default exists for this.

 

Makes sense to write to the Chief Exec's Office if anyone has RBS group complaints.

[photoman]

Tifo,

 

Have you seen lancasterchelseas great Business account claim win ?

 

Just shows that Business claims are very much back on track !!

 

 

PM

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/business-claims-bank-charges/110522-lancasterchelsea-lloyds-business-1995-a-3.html#post1662503

[steven4064]

Not wanting to pour cold water, but I thing there were special features in lancasterchelsea's win. The judge caused confusion by splitting the limitation issue and taking that first.

 

If he had decided to do it the other way round - ie unlawful charges first and then the limitations issue, Lloyds could have applied for the charges case to be dismissed under CPR 3.4(2) on the grounds that there is not sufficient cause of action (OFT case saus they are not penalties - although there is still the issue of historic terms I suppose but I don't hold out much hope there) and then had the limitations issue dropped as irrelevant.

 

By going the way round he did, the judge prevented this line of attack - they would have had to go to court (which we know they won't do) and argue the limitations issue in isolation - hence the cave in.

 

Of course, I may be wrong.

 

This line of attack could be used by others but it would rely on getting a judge who would respond in the same way - 50-50 at best IMHO.