Hardship claim trouble

[WOOD73]

YES YES YES is my answer, even the utility companies threatening to cut me off and I have tried all the routes with the above. My Income Support sheet with figures 'that the government says you need to live on' haven't been updated for a few years I think!

 

I qualify for ALL the conditions as listed by the FSA in their Right to Waiver the Stay on Bank Charges Reclaiming under hardship! Woody, do we need to go directly to them, not the FOS, and query the action under their authority?

 

The fsa do not act on individual cases, I complained to them last november, they say if they get enough complaints they will look at the wider picture, but I doubt they give a s**t, to be honest, its their waiver, they had every chance to make it fairer when it was put together and reviewed.

[yourbank]

The fsa do not act on individual cases, I complained to them last november, they say if they get enough complaints they will look at the wider picture, but I doubt they give a s**t, to be honest, its their waiver, they had every chance to make it fairer when it was put together and reviewed.

 

The Waiver is reviewed and renewed every 6 months. The problem and I think it is a relevant topic, is that hardship is not clearly defined. There is no prescribed method of deciding on hardship. One bank may make a partial payout based on your specific circumstances, and another will not. One bank may only look at 1 years charges as a maximum interim payout, while another may only look at 3 months. I think the FSA Waiver on Bank Charges can be improved but I completely disagree with the assumption that they do not give a ****. They are under the same problems as the OFT, they cannot act on one sole case alone but have to build up a caseload prior to taking action. The waiver is next due for renewal in July. I think any campaign on this area has to be done probably from towards the end of April(we may know by then if any HOL appeal may be being done).

[WOOD73]

The Waiver is reviewed and renewed every 6 months. The problem and I think it is a relevant topic, is that hardship is not clearly defined. There is no prescribed method of deciding on hardship. One bank may make a partial payout based on your specific circumstances, and another will not. One bank may only look at 1 years charges as a maximum interim payout, while another may only look at 3 months. I think the FSA Waiver on Bank Charges can be improved but I completely disagree with the assumption that they do not give a ****. They are under the same problems as the OFT, they cannot act on one sole case alone but have to build up a caseload prior to taking action. The waiver is next due for renewal in July. I think any campaign on this area has to be done probably from towards the end of April(we may know by then if any HOL appeal may be being done).

 

are in difficult financial circumstances – 'financial difficulty cases'

If you have a case of genuine financial difficulty, your bank or building society must still deal with your complaint.

 

This is a direct quote from the fsa money made clear site, but this is not what is laid out in the waiver!

The waiver says they must investigate your claim to be in financial hardship, when they have done this they need do nothing more if they dont want to!

 

Its all smoke and mirrors, so joe public sits back and says we are being looked after, when in reality theyre sitting in the boardrooms with the banks sipping g&t and the fos are like the little foot soldiers dreaming of joining them.

[WOOD73]

So it is irrelevant how they decide on hardship, because when/if they do, they dont have to do anything anyway.

[AA99]

I am sticking to my guns with this one as I know and my bank knows I am suffering extreme financial hardship. Wood, did you see these posts

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/nationwide/187053-nationwide-hardship-claim-response.html

 

also, Caro and BankFodder, have template letters and guidance but can't find the thread

[WOOD73]

I am sticking to my guns with this one as I know and my bank knows I am suffering extreme financial hardship. Wood, did you see these posts

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/nationwide/187053-nationwide-hardship-claim-response.html

 

also, Caro and BankFodder, have template letters and guidance but can't find the thread

 

I am the same, the bank are quite aware of my situation, but they dont care, I've stuck to my guns since last october, but I dont know where to go from here, I could go to court and hope they dont stay it. but fos wont help, although I will have to put together a response to their letter.

[AA99]

Wood, I have copied and pasted this that I had elsewhere. I was thinking of suggesting it to my bank:?

 

I have just been on Mr MSE's site and someone on there has just had £2,000 worth of mortgage and council tax arrears paid off directly by the bank as part-settlement of his hardship charges claim. He is happy with that. The balance of the claim will progress with the FSA/Lords decision on charges.

 

I am about to submit my claim regardless as we are now in severe hardship and the account I've had for 25 years is my single biggest source of funds for payment of utility bills (£800 shortfall) over 6 months:cry:

 

Wondered if anybody else thinks could be a good way to go, or not

[yourbank]

I hope you don't mind but I went back to the original post. I write in red by the way to distinguish your thread from my comments not for any other reason.

 

hi

story so far, like everyone else put my claim in and it was put on hold.

Last july I lost my job and although had a bit of agency work for a while, had a considerable drop in income.

I submitted a request to nationwide to look at the claim under hardship in oct, they replied saying I wasnt in hardship etc., I asked them how they came to this conclusion as I was no longer using the account, due to excessive charges, and I had not supplied them with an income and expenditure.

They wrote back, this time with the standard bog off letter from when you first claim charges back.

I wrote to them again stating I was in hardship and asking them to look into my claim.

after a bit of to and fro they finally sent me an i+e form mid november,after I had threatened with the FOS!, I filled it in and returned it asap.

I received a letter from them end november saying, yes I was in hardship and they would refund £80, which by the way was the amount I was overdrawn with them because of charges.

In all instances has this offer still remained open?

 

 

I replied that I was not happy, and their final response was they will do no more. I would have, in hindsight, gone with the fact that the water arrears was at x amount and that you then had an amount owed in council tax which reduced your benefits(I believe you said that November was when there was an attachment of earnings or that it was taken from benefits).

I complained to the FOS straight away, and some while later I received a response stating, that nationwide were not obliged to do any more at this stage.

I replied to the FOS stating they hadnt even commented on nationwides handling of my complaint, which was diabolical to say the least, and express my disapointment in no uncertain terms.

 

I have received a reply from FOS today, It says that although I am in hardship the waiver does not mean the bank has to do anything, other than accept your in hardship! and the fact the bank refunded £80 which put the account back in credit was a great step in that now I wont be pursued for the debt blah blah, 'and the bank is under no duty to consider wider financial circumstances other than the extent to which they affect their ability to repay sums owed to it.' ignore question above. They have paid £80 of the amount you were claiming. It is a payout regardless of whether it can be seen as paltry.Banks do not have to pay out 1p under Financial Hardship. Did the FOS do another Income and Expenditure form as things had moved on or how did they deal with an I&E form re hardship?

in other words feather their own nest!

they accept my point about the handling of my complaint, 'but it appears that you woul like us to order the bank to refund all the charges'

but as I didnt have significant debts with nationwide, and was receiving regular credits until august, their actions were not so unreasonable that action other than already taken was inappropriate.

Never expect the bank to payout in FULL 100% of a claim under Financial Hardship because that is not the norm, I have seen a handful of cases where that has happened and sometimes it has been paid directly to where the arrears are from.

There has been no action taken regarding the treatment by nationwide.

 

I have written back to the Fos, and asked him to explain what action has been taken, as the £80 refund was in connection with my being in hardship, and my treatment by the bankers.

 

If I issue proceedings for the charges which amount to nearly £2000, what are the chances of it not being stayed, bearing in mind I have a letter from the bank accepting I am in hardship.

 

Sorry for a long read

 

I have made the comments above. I know that may not be something that you may think are fair re the FOS and the FSA Waiver on Bank Charges. I think for me, the way I see the FSA Waiver on Bank Charges is that there is no real clear definition by which to work on. I wish it was more specific but some people are clinging to the exemption as a way of claiming 100% of their charges back rather than alleviating Financial Hardship(not saying that you are, just so I am clear that it is a general statement). When an offer is made the immediate response is to press for more which is right if hardship has worsened due to perhaps how slow the process may take.

[WOOD73]

The Fos never asked for an i+e, The bank knew all the facts re council tax etc.

[AA99]

Good advise there yourbank, but would that also be a better ploy and get the bank to pay all your outstanding priority debts directly out of the proceeds from a charges claim:???: I'd be happy with that but then they'd probably turn round with a sting in the tail and close your account:(

[WOOD73]

that would suit me fine.

[yourbank]

Good advise there yourbank, but would that also be a better ploy and get the bank to pay all your outstanding priority debts directly out of the proceeds from a charges claim:???: I'd be happy with that but then they'd probably turn round with a sting in the tail and close your account:(

 

That is one thing they can't do under the waiver.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/disp_monthly.pdf

That is the waiver in full. Page 6 onwards probably covers that point.

[AA99]

Have printed that off for a bit of bedtime-reading, thank you very much:)

 

However, this begs the question of the panic for a parachute account:???:

[WOOD73]

because it is not unknown still, for the banks not to do this, even though it is wrong.

[WOOD73]

I have just received the final letter off nationwide telling me the charges cannot be penalties or assessed for fairness due to the court ruling, and they therefore do not believe there is any legal basis on which the amount may be challenged.

so is this the end of the road?

[Youngandsilly]

I have just received the final letter off nationwide telling me the charges cannot be penalties or assessed for fairness due to the court ruling, and they therefore do not believe there is any legal basis on which the amount may be challenged.

so is this the end of the road?

 

Got this letter too this morning - However it was my understanding that although the court ruled that charges cannot be penalties, the court didn't say that they were fair or cannot be assessed for fairness, only that the OFT couldn't do it.

 

It left the door open for individual cases to still go ahead and argue themselves.

 

If my understanding of the judgement is correct, then it would still be in the banks interest to pay out before court, and there is still that chance of an individual precedent?

[veester]

Hi,

Got that a few days ago - replied with the following:

 

I am in receipt of your letter dated January 2010 which details your belief that the recent judgement by the Supreme Court in the OFT v you and seven others is an end to these matters, you are wrong.

 

Although the OFT effectively lost the “test case” the chief judge of the Supreme Court thought it important enough to say this ruling didn't stop people challenging fairness under 'Regulation 5' of the Unfair terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations, which the Supreme Court case did not cover.

 

In addition to this I believe section 140 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which again did not form any part of the “test case” also contains powerful arguments in relation to my claim against you.

 

I confirm following the judgement by the Supreme Court and in light of the above:

A) I have written to the presiding courts asking for directions.

B) Will be as appropriate and following guidance from the courts amending the particulars of my claim and these will be submitted to the court together with my request to have the stay set aside and our dispute listed for hearing.

I trust this clarifies the situation for you.

 

 

-----------------

 

I have also now recieved instructions from my local court stating

 

A) List of application for stay to be lifted before Designated Civil Judge on 18th March 2010 at 1030 am with a time estimate of half a day with case XXXXXXX

 

B) The parties are to file and serve not less than 3 days before the hearing writeen sumbmissions setting out their position in respect of these actions, given the terms of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the OFT Bank Charges Litigation

 

C) The parties will, at the hearing, be asked to state wht steps each has taken to compromise the claim.

[Youngandsilly]

Be interested to see their response to this... and whether they'll let it go to court with the Section 140 and Reg 5 arguement...