100mel v Yorkshire Bank

[100mel]

I'm posting the following which I've just received from the FOS in response to my claim against Yorkshire

 

As outlined in our last letter, the bank recently told us that hereon in it proposed to 'defend' complaints that its default charges were illegal or unlawful as it did not believe that it had done anything wrong, nor that any refund of those fees was warranted. However, in response to our enquiries, the bank undertook to provide fuller details/evidence to support its position once it had obtained advice from its external legal advisers.

By way of further explanation the legal action brought by the OFT against the banks is to determine whether it has the power to investigate default fees levied on personal bank account customers. Whilst the judge found in favour of the OFT at the hearing in April 2008, the banks subsequently appealed that decision and the matter has been referred to the Court of Appeal. Because business accounts do not form part of the current OFT investigation, as industry regulator the FSA instructed banks to resume dealing with such complaints. It is for this reason that we have been able to consider complaints about default fees on business accounts.

I acknowledge that you contend the default fees levied by the bank are disproportionate to the cost it incurs of performing the task - your argument therefore appears to be that by acting in this manner the bank is charging a penalty and thus is breaching 'common law'. However, the gist of the bank's initial response is that at the OFT High Court hearing in April 2008, the judge expressed the opinion that such charges would not be considered to be penalties; it follows that the bank is of the opinion that it has not breached common law, nor done anything unlawful. Consequently, its argument appears to be that there is no requirement for what it charges to approximate to its costs.

Nevertheless, until we have received and considered the bank's submission in detail, it is not possible to assess properly the validity of those arguments. In the circumstances the purpose of our last letter was to make all those customers so affected aware of the bank's stance given the effect it undoubtedly will have on the resolution of their complaint. We will keep you updated as matters develop.

 

 

Mel

[caro]

They clearly haven't heard of the Plain English Society.

[100mel]

I referred my claim for unreasonable penalty charges to the FOS back in April 08. To date Yorkshire Bank have refused point blank to settle or discuss with FOS

 

The latest response YB refers to the OFT case and says that the penalties have not breached common law nor have they done anything unlawful. I had asked them for a precise breakdown of its costs on such charges - the response is that it is not required to justify how they are calculated. It believes that the decision in the courts in relation to personal accounts applies equally to its business terms and conditions and that it has done nothing unlawful...........

 

I would be interested in anyone's comments on this or any other experiences with YB on business charges

 

Mel

[100mel]

After over 12 months I have finally had a response from FOS to my complaint on business charges from YB. In short they have refused to uphold this in any way. They make several points but say that charges are in line with terms and conditions

 

I can scan the letter if anyone is interested. It is looking as if business charges cannot be reclaimed unless someone knows differently

 

Any advice welcome

 

Mel

[100mel]

So can anyone clarify what exactly is the current situation on business charge claims? Has anyone succeeded - particularly with YB and how did they do it

 

My response from FOS would seem to indicate that this route is a waste of time?

 

Mel

[100mel]

I am just posting the full response I received from the FOS in response to my claim - it may be of interest to all on this group. If anyone has any suggestions as to where I might go on this business claim I would be glad to have any advice

 

Mel

yorkshirebank.pdf

[caro]

Are you a sole trader?

[100mel]

No sole director of limited company

 

M

[gandolfi]

Are you a sole trader?

 

Hi

Caro, would being a sole trader make a difference...? As a sole trader myself (with no employees, not limited company), I would be interested to know how this might affect my case.

 

I'm very interested in new approaches to business claims...will it be possible to include these approaches 'in the alternative' when amending POCs after the SC judgement?

 

Need to sharpen all possible angles of attack.

 

Best,

Gandolfi

[steven4064]

...will it be possible to include these approaches 'in the alternative' when amending POCs after the SC judgement?

Yes, why not