Bank Charges - Any News

[Falkirk1298]

Are we not going to get a template any more?

 

I have just had a letter from HBOS saying "it's all over - we won in Supreme Court - you lost. Just because our charges were sky high doesn't make them unfair! Ha! Bl**dy Ha!"

 

Just watch their bonuses grow and grow at our expense.

 

Their letter mentions nothing about the other part of the chairman's summing up - using a different part of UTCCR regs - and actually says "fees cannot be assessed for fairness under the UTCC Regulations".

 

Such a one sided and misleading letter should be illegal! One for the OFT I think? Anyone else seen the same letter?

 

BD

 

The last charge letter I got from HBOS, back in 2006, used the phrase:

 

"To cover our costs, we make a charge of £30 (maximum 3 charges per day) for any item we pay when your account is overdrawn in excess of any agreed limit. We will take this money from your account seven days from the date of this letter. If this causes you to have an unauthorised overdraft, we will also charge you interest at the unauthorised rate, and a monthly unauthorised overdraft fee of £28*. However, if your unauthorised overdraft is £30 or less the unauthorised overdraft charge will not be applied."

 

I'm wondering if there's mileage in challenging them on their claim that charges cover their costs. The implication here is that they cover the cost of paying any items and running your account specifically, not that they are contributing to "free" banking for others.

 

I believe that HBOS have subsequently altered their wording?

[caro]

The last charge letter I got from HBOS, back in 2006, used the phrase:

 

"To cover our costs, we make a charge of £30 (maximum 3 charges per day) for any item we pay when your account is overdrawn in excess of any agreed limit. We will take this money from your account seven days from the date of this letter. If this causes you to have an unauthorised overdraft, we will also charge you interest at the unauthorised rate, and a monthly unauthorised overdraft fee of £28*. However, if your unauthorised overdraft is £30 or less the unauthorised overdraft charge will not be applied."

 

I'm wondering if there's mileage in challenging them on their claim that charges cover their costs. The implication here is that they cover the cost of paying any items and running your account specifically, not that they are contributing to "free" banking for others.

 

I believe that HBOS have subsequently altered their wording?

 

Very interesting.

 

Would you be so kind as to scan that letter and send it to [email protected] and head the email "HBOS claim charges cover costs"

 

Thanks:)

[Bigdebtor]

That is what all such HBOS letters USED to say - but they changed the words a bit later - not sure when but probably not much later than this letter was sent.

If we paid these £30 charges "to cover costs" under a false premise then surely such payments are recoverable if they refuse to justify their statement by disclosing the actual costs?

A template specifically dealing with this single issue would be most helpful.

Incidentally I have just done a SAR to HBOS and copies of these letters don't get sent out again under it. Should they send further copies as part of the SAR?

 

Also could them changing the wording suggest they no longer wanted to "cover costs" - but wanted to charge a PENALTY?

 

BTW I recollect another thread reporting on Nat West's consistent refusal to a court to provide details of such "costs". I can't remember which thread this was and if this is still ongoing. Does anyone else know?

 

BD

Edited January 21, 2010 by Bigdebtor

[paulif]

I have had a letter from Northen Rock saying "we won ha ha ha ha"

they also kindly filled in the court forms for me to sign saying I am giving up my case

 

I look forward to the imminent new advice from this site

[Bigdebtor]

HBOS have done the same letter - and in it they only talk about "unauthorised overdraft charges not being unfair - no matter how high". They ignore the other unfair/illegal charges for bouncing cheques and DD's because they refused to allow an unauthorised overdraft to happen.

 

I think they could be accused of being misleading and also of giving unqualified legal advice.

 

I have just written back to say I do not accept they have given a fully accurate account or summary of the actual Supreme Court judgement and I am awaiting fresh advice before deciding how to proceed from this point.

 

BD

[landy_alert]

HBOS have done the same letter - and in it they only talk about "unauthorised overdraft charges not being unfair - no matter how high". They ignore the other unfair/illegal charges for bouncing cheques and DD's because they refused to allow an unauthorised overdraft to happen.

 

I think they could be accused of being misleading and also of giving unqualified legal advice.

 

I have just written back to say I do not accept they have given a fully accurate account or summary of the actual Supreme Court judgement and I am awaiting fresh advice before deciding how to proceed from this point.

 

BD

 

Is 'unauthorised overdraft charges' not used to describe all types of bank charge? That's what I have been led to believe................

 

Landy x

[Bigdebtor]

if so it's very imprecise - even inaccurate - if one has been charged for cheques being bounced - and as result was forcibly kept within overdraft limits so there was NO unauthorised overdraft.

 

I recollect on one thread that LTSB had nearly folded on that very issue just before OFT stuck its oar in in 2007.

[landy_alert]

if so it's very imprecise - even inaccurate - if one has been charged for cheques being bounced - and as result was forcibly kept within overdraft limits so there was NO unauthorised overdraft.

 

I recollect on one thread that LTSB had nearly folded on that very issue just before OFT stuck its oar in in 2007.

 

Hi BD:)

 

I quite agree - and as for your last comment, oh how I wish they had:mad:

 

Landy x

[IainHL]

For those following this thread, here is a link to a post I have made on the main thread about the Supreme Court judgement: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/oft-test-case-updates/139905-h-o-l-test-232.html#post2716378.

 

Personally I am hoping that we can start a great big wave of court actions that the banks can't cope with again. I have a feeling BigDebtor will be in accord!

[yourbank]

Is 'unauthorised overdraft charges' not used to describe all types of bank charge? That's what I have been led to believe................

 

Landy x

 

It was used by the OFT as a one terms fits all term for unarranged borrowing, referral fees, unpaids and guaranteed card payment fees/card misuse fees.

Do I need to get the link for this one?

[landy_alert]

It was used by the OFT as a one terms fits all term for unarranged borrowing, referral fees, unpaids and guaranteed card payment fees/card misuse fees.

Do I need to get the link for this one?

 

Hi YB:)

 

Not on my account thank you - but maybe others might wish to see it!

 

Landy x

[yourbank]

Hi YB:)

 

Not on my account thank you - but maybe others might wish to see it!

 

Landy x

 

A pleasure as always, Landy.

 

OFT launches test case on unauthorised overdraft charges - The Office of Fair Trading

This is the original press release, however it is note 1 you need to look at.

[landy_alert]

Thanks YB:D

[caro]

Well I think I'm going to send Alliance and Leicester a copy of the letter I had from my MP today when I respond to their latest distortion of the truth. He said:-

 

Thank you very much for your e-mail dated 11th January 2009 (was 2010 actually), on the subject of bank charges.

 

The Government has taken a look at the Supreme Court's ruling. We see that it has left open possible routes for dealing with the issue of bank charges. Some media reports suggested that the Supreme Court had closed off the opportunity for taking action. On the closer reading of the ruling it is clear that is not the case.

 

The Government does want action to be taken on the subject of bank charges and we have made that view clear. We are in discussion with some of the groups concerned about this and we would certainly be supportive of further action to try to tackle the problem.

 

Yours sincerely

 

James Plaskitt MP

[Bigdebtor]

Caro

 

Would it be possible to get a template incorporating this kind of MP message to refute the lies now being told by HBOS and others that "we won - you lost - the supreme court agrees with us kind banks that high charges do not mean unfair charges".

 

We could then all blitz the banks with these and then if nothing settled 8 weeks later go to FOS and get them multiple £400 -£500 charges - plus a lot of hassle?

 

I think the OFT did us all a favour by pulling out. We are back in pre 2007 where each individual complaint/court claim needs dealt with individually - a lot more hassle for them than sending out the previous letters which apparently cost them £35 a time in admin costs!

 

BD

[Falkirk1298]

Very interesting.

 

Would you be so kind as to scan that letter and send it to [email protected] and head the email "HBOS claim charges cover costs"

 

Thanks:)

 

Will do

[Bigdebtor]

This is a very old letter- HBOS changed its tacked some 2 years or more ago.

 

BD

[caro]

Caro

 

Would it be possible to get a template incorporating this kind of MP message to refute the lies now being told by HBOS and others that "we won - you lost - the supreme court agrees with us kind banks that high charges do not mean unfair charges".

 

We could then all blitz the banks with these and then if nothing settled 8 weeks later go to FOS and get them multiple £400 -£500 charges - plus a lot of hassle?

 

I think the OFT did us all a favour by pulling out. We are back in pre 2007 where each individual complaint/court claim needs dealt with individually - a lot more hassle for them than sending out the previous letters which apparently cost them £35 a time in admin costs!

 

BD

 

I must admit that I was thinking that it could be quite useful and might be used in some way. Need to work out how to use it without all the banks knowing it's me and where I live.

 

Will do

 

Thanks

 

This is a very old letter- HBOS changed its tacked some 2 years or more ago.

 

BD

 

There are an awful lot of HBOS claims stuck in court with charges from that time.

[Mrsmancmonkey]

subscribing

[GLoyal]

I downloaded these from The Govan site on another post.

 

I think I'm going to proceed with these and see what happens.

 

NEW Bank charge form.doc

NEW ombudsman letter.doc

[yourbank]

I downloaded these from The Govan site on another post.

 

I think I'm going to proceed with these and see what happens.

 

 

Be careful, the first feedback I have heard on this new template is one from NatWest. They looked at the person's case as hardship rather than bank charges related challenge because of the omittance of the word Challenge. Furthermore, Martin Lewis has suggested that they should only be used for reclaimers in Scotland.

[GLoyal]

Any idea what is happening dawn sawf then?

 

I have stopped getting letters from the bank and DCA's but I don't think it will last for long.

 

It's like a game of Stares.

[yourbank]

Any idea what is happening dawn sawf then?

 

I have stopped getting letters from the bank and DCA's but I don't think it will last for long.

 

It's like a game of Stares.

 

Is your case in court or are you in the first processes of sending a letter to the bank?

[GLoyal]

Sent letters, threatened court. Held off when the OFT took over.

 

Had the claims held with the FOS till the case had been to the Supreme Court.

 

I owe them around £3.5K in frozen overdrafts

 

I'm claiming about £7K in charges.

 

[Bigdebtor]

Be careful, the first feedback I have heard on this new template is one from NatWest. They looked at the person's case as hardship rather than bank charges related challenge because of the omittance of the word Challenge. Furthermore, Martin Lewis has suggested that they should only be used for reclaimers in Scotland.

 

YB

 

Any news of this Govan letter being successful yet in Scotland - even as a "goodwill" payment - like they used to do before OFT butted in?

 

Are you saying that down south they are actually looking at hardship claims again - as I was told by HBOS (and this was accepted by FOS) that all they needed to do with my "hardship" claim was to think about it for a nano second before saying "no".

 

BD