Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Meat smugglers using English vehicles to evade border checks - Farmers Weekly WWW.FWI.CO.UK Criminal gangs are buying English-registered coaches and vans to smuggle large amounts of illegal meat into the country, Farmers Weekly has learned.  
    • I've used payslip, passport, driving licence, still can't identify me, everything is upto date address etc, 1 attempt left then it blocks me H
    • Thanks for the replies and sorry, as it seems I haven't communicated my question clearly. I'm not after advice about how to deal with the situation I'm in. I'm on top of that and sent a SAR to Scottish Widows the day before I sent one to the FOS. My query was around the FOS interpretation of personal data and the extent of their obligations under GDPR, hence the original title They have said that "personal data is defined as any information relating to an [...] identifiable natural person (‘data subject’)" They then define an identifiable natural person as "one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as [...] an identification number. My view is that I have a complaint reference number, which identifies a complaint raised by me about the administration of my pension so it therefore indirectly identifies me If I'm right, then I believe that all the data related to my complaint is personal data about me, including the screen shot that purportedly establishes that I received my statements. I was hoping there might be someone with better knowledge of GDPR that can clarify whether I'm right or wrong before I react to the FOS's failure to disclose  
    • Please bear with me here i shall try and make this short but with all the detail, but i need help ASAP as there is limited time allowed for this process. I have been with my company 4 years and have advanced through the technical ranks to my current position,  we have an annual report which goes from 0-4 and for three years i have never scored lower than a 3. I was promoted to the role i am in now as an area quality assurance lead and the location was for the NE ( i live in the NW) eventually a similar role became available for another role in the NW. I asked my line manager if he minded me applying for it and he had no issues, i applied sat the multi stage interview and was given the role. My role is now classed as "at risk" of redundancy as we are moving from 4 regions to two which means they are also moving from 4 roles to two roles in my position. Two people are considered safe and myself and another at risk, my question is what is the criteria to separate safe from at risk . In the documentation received from my company it is below, i have zero issues and i know cv against cv mine wins, i was even selected by the company as a company mentor because of my experience in engineering and leadership. This is a closed group of maybe ten people and i am the only non senior executive included.    ·         Performance and Behaviour : I have zero behaviour issues, no issues with performance from my current line manager.  ·         Performance Improvement/ Disciplinary Records   : Zero disciplinary's and no performance issues, in fact my line manager on record has said I'm forthcoming ·         End Of Year Rating : Issues explained below Now my line manager was leaving the company and he did tell me "there was some politics involved with you getting that role, the city build manager and head of area build had promised it to their lead engineer (something they had no right to promise as it has to go though the process ) anyway from day 1 it became very clear that i would not be accepted for this reason within their community although i did just try to help them achieve quality and specification as that was my role. After a few weeks it became very apparent as to why the role had been promised to their man, i found issues where properties had been signed off as ready to accept subscribers when they were not ready (for bonus and stat reasons) and several quality issues i discovered which we could remedy and improve our productivity (unfortunately this would highlight that these issues had been there and not dealt with) My new head of area build (part of this trilogy of him, city build manager and lead engineer)  clearly did not want me there (for the reasons stated) but paid lip service, i had highlighted that i needed to walk off some structured with our canter of excellence counterparts ( as this was part of my role to link in with them for national issues) and he responded by saying i am not to walk them off, and that we have sufficient engineers to do that task (by saying this he could make sure that the engineers would take them round to structures that are A not the ones i have highlighted, and B would have very minor issues) This battle went back and forth over the months where i tried my best to build up the relationship with  them, my attitude was ok you have made some mistakes here, but we are all a team and even though you have hidden issues i can help you remedy them and hopefully we can do so and keep them off the radar,  but they just never did, So moving forward to October last year (2023) this is getting near to annual review time, now i had helped the company out massively by working a substantial amount of weekends and nights to fix issues, and i said i would take most of the time as TOIL ( as agreed with by my previous head of area build) this was 30 days. My current head of area build said i needed to put my leave in as it had been flagged as having a large amount. When i did input the leave (it would result in me taking all of December off) he was unhappy with me and was extremely curt in his responses as he could find nothing on the system for my TOIL , i explained the situation, my line manager would ask if i could work the hours, i would, and when i wanted leave he would authorise (we had an good working relationship, he was an excellent manager) he ended up going to HR to ask their advice and a teams call was set up with myself, head of area build and HR, it was confirmed by HR that it was a company error, when you want to input TOIL there should be a dropdown option in the leave menu and one of the options would be TOIL, this had not been setup on mine. So the company authorised the leave explaining that this should have been done and hadn't, i did say that this is the way it had always been and pretty much everyone on my team then operated this way, TOIL had never been discussed and none of had this option available. So i entered my leave from 4th December - 2nd January,  My line manager was an outside contractor and was leaving the company on the 15th December. On my return i found that we had a new head of area build, it would be a temporary position as they were not going to fill the position permanently and he would be covering his role (Scotland) and this role (NW). I contacted him to say that i had not received my end of year report yet and when would this happen as i had not sat with my line manager tor mine. A little over a week later my HoAB and i had a teams call, it was a introduction meeting and end of year report, he said that he had received feedback from the outgoing manager and he had given me a 2 (i have as explained before never scored lower than a 3) he asked hoe long i had been in the current role (just over a year) as this grade can mean you are new to the role and need a little supervision, haven't built up relationships with stakeholders etc. So he explained what my grade and bonus would be and if i had any feedback, i explained that this was unfair, i had proof that i had not met my targets (i say targets as there were never really any set, but going from emails and conversation we have had, and the job description) i had even created Powerpoint presentations which were very complex into how our network works from beginning to end  as there was distinct lack of knowledge here and i am a lead trainer / assessor (this btw he was extremely impressed with) He did say he had spoken to people in the centre of excellence which o believe was the head of operations, and he did look confused as to the disparity in feedback from them and the original manager that wrote my report. I contacted HR to raising my concerns that i had not sat with my line manager to go through my report,  had i had the chance to do so, i could have rebutted anything said as i had proof of my achievements even though he had set no defined targets, i could prove that i had been extremely active in identifying and remedying issues, HR did come back to me and these are their comments  1) "Your rating was submitted by your manager at the time xxx xxxxxx and he should have carried out an EOY review with you. The rating would not have been provided in this review but feedback should have been shared" [this never happened] 2)  Initial ratings where then discussed and reviewed during a calibration process (for your team) this will have included HOABs and RDs. During this session ratings can be challenged and changed. I can confirm that your rating was not changed as a result of this session and it remained at the rating that xxx submitted. 3) xxx did provide thorough feedback to xxx xxx in a handover so if not already done so it may be worth speaking with him to understand that feedback further.   4) In terms of reputation and the concern you share – ratings are not made public and are private to each individual. 5) And this first line obviously is incorrect " As far as i can see this would be the only separator they could have measured me on to separate safe from not safe, and if so the company did not follow its own procedure. My current line manager said " an error had occurred as you had not received the option to  sir with your manager for your review, and the company needs to make sure this error does not happen again) Well then they are admitting there was an issue and it needs remedying not sweeping under the carpet. All of this is documented. To remind the rating of a 2 is not a concerning grade. Please see descriptor below Generally, needs little supervision but does on occasion require direction/supervision. Does not always anticipate changes to the work environment and could adapt more quickly. May be seen as a strong performer in certain situations or by some audiences but may not perform at that level in all situations. May need some development or guidance to carry out some elements of role. May not consistently demonstrate the right behaviours. May have been on Performance Improvement during the year but has since shown strong improvement        
    • Also, what is the value of the dress and have you refunded the purchaser?
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
        • Like
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Bank Charges - Any News


lovejoy
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5223 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

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:)

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Bigdebtor
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

LTSB PPI on various loans (current/settled) - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 1 Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

MBNA 1 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Charges - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 2 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Accident Ins - Refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage Charges -Partially refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage PPI - Refunded inc CI & 8%

 

Sainsburys (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI +8%

 

Sainsburys (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

M&S Money (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

M&S Money (closed) Card PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Direct Line (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

Debenhams Card (closed) PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Swift Mortgage Charges -Refunded

 

Hitachi Finance (closed) Charges - Refunded

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

LTSB PPI on various loans (current/settled) - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 1 Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

MBNA 1 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Charges - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 2 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Accident Ins - Refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage Charges -Partially refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage PPI - Refunded inc CI & 8%

 

Sainsburys (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI +8%

 

Sainsburys (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

M&S Money (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

M&S Money (closed) Card PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Direct Line (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

Debenhams Card (closed) PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Swift Mortgage Charges -Refunded

 

Hitachi Finance (closed) Charges - Refunded

Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

LTSB PPI on various loans (current/settled) - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 1 Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

MBNA 1 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Charges - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 2 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Accident Ins - Refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage Charges -Partially refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage PPI - Refunded inc CI & 8%

 

Sainsburys (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI +8%

 

Sainsburys (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

M&S Money (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

M&S Money (closed) Card PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Direct Line (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

Debenhams Card (closed) PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Swift Mortgage Charges -Refunded

 

Hitachi Finance (closed) Charges - Refunded

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks YB:D

LTSB PPI on various loans (current/settled) - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 1 Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

MBNA 1 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Charges - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 2 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Accident Ins - Refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage Charges -Partially refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage PPI - Refunded inc CI & 8%

 

Sainsburys (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI +8%

 

Sainsburys (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

M&S Money (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

M&S Money (closed) Card PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Direct Line (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

Debenhams Card (closed) PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Swift Mortgage Charges -Refunded

 

Hitachi Finance (closed) Charges - Refunded

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.:eek:

 

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.;)

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

subscribing

Me

A&L - Overdraft / Charges On Hold £300

 

Mum v's the DCA

NatWest. No CCA - For around 6 months no DCA has chased for this amount :D

MBNA. No CCA - First Court Claim :( Panicking. Just about to start the small claims

Lloyds TSB. Overdraft / Charges On Hold Waiting for test case

 

Sister

Halifax - No CCA. Keep getting the man and his dog chasing, again the 'go away' letter is sent :p

M&S - Have CCA. Nothing for 2 years from anyone?! :)

Argos - No CCA or DCA involved for over 2 years now :)

Next - No CCA or DCA involved for over 2 years now :)

4 x Others accepting token payments of £1 as CCA in place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :eek:

 

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

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

:(

Link to post
Share on other sites

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". :evil:

 

BD

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...