SR7133 v Clydesdale Bank - Pre-June 2005

[SR7133]

Having had the first set of charges refunded from June 2005 to date from the Clydesdale I am now after them for the charges pre-June 2005 before which they were refusing to provide statements.

 

Now that this has been resolved and the statements received, they owe me £1780 over the past 5 years.

 

Sent initial claim reminding them that I had successfully concluded the first set of charges and offered to accept the full amount as it would save time & court costs.

 

The letter I received back declined my generous offer and laid out the terms & conditions of running an account.

 

On page 2 they have included a couple of interesting paragraphs which I have not seen before:

 

Further, the terms and conditions were fair having regard to the following matters:

 

a) the cost to the Bank of maintaining administrative systems relating to unauthorised overdrafts, unpaid cheques and direct debits and abuse of cheque and debit cards for the purpose of keeping the level of overdrawing under review and controlled as far as possible

 

b) the increased risk of loss to the Bank arising from such unauthorised transactions and the associated cost of enforcement and recovery systems

 

c) the need to operate standard procedures and to set standard charges in order to avoid the substantial costs of individual assessment in relation to each particular case.

 

This was followed by the usual "not prepared to refund" & then in conclusion that "if I proceed straight to court action then the Bank reserves the right to lodge a counterclaim for damages suffered as a result of the breach of contract with the Bank"

 

Sent of LBA and pointed out that they had not responded to whether "manual intervention" had taken place and to provide evidence of true breakdown of their costs - I'll not hold my breath on that!

 

Looks like we are off to court again in a fortnight!!

[zebbydog]

Para C says it all really.It looks to me as if they have made a boo boo with that statement.What they are actually saying is that they havent made any manual interventions because it is costly and far cheaper to do it the auto way.Which brings us back to the main question,why are their charges so high then?The only answer can be that it is a penalty charge and they are making a profit from this.You win I think:p

[caro]

I hope the next settlement is quicker than the last.

[SR7133]

No response from Clydesdale Bank so off we go with the first Small Claims Action - breaking them down into three to avoid going over £750.

[SR7133]

Lodged Court papers and Return Date is 6 November 2006 and Hearing Date is 13 November 2006. The 13th is likely to be the Preliminary Hearing Date rather than the full Hearing so a bit of time to go. Claim is for £732 + interest etc

[SR7133]

Received letter today from Neil McKirdy, Customer Relations Manager, along with a cheque for £1276.75 to "resolve this matter without the disproportionate expense of court action". (The original claim is for £1789.50 and I have already started a Small Claims action.) One condition was that if the cheque was cashed then that would be taken as acceptance of the offer.

 

Wrote back, declining the offer & enclosing their cheque & advised them that due to interest & court costs the amount being reclaimed was now £1934.01. Also reminded them of the court timescales and that I would be attending the preliminary hearing on 13th November and that is was my view that I had a good prospect of winning.

 

I will wait & see what happens next.

 

I was thinking about calling an official from the Clydesdale Bank as a witness for the full hearing to explain their charging regime and I am considering citing Mr McKirdy as he is the person who instigates responses on the Bank's behalf and should therefor be in a position to explain the charging details to the court. I'll raise this at the Preliminary Hearing if it gets that far.

[caro]

I understand where you are coming from on this but I don't think Neil McKirdy would have the first idea of how the charges are calculated. He is from Customer Service and I doubt that he would know anything useful.

[Robertxc]

I agree. I think you'd be dealing with the monkey, and not the organ grinder.

[caro]

The question is though, who is the organ grinder?

[SR7133]

Who would you suggest would be a suitable person within the Clydesdale organisation to call then?

 

I thought of Neil McKirdy because he responds in letters with the same information put forward by the Clydesdale in their defence in court therefore either he knows this information or is getting briefed. Either way if he is writing it then he has to take some responsibility for the detail and anyway it might be interesting at the preliminary hearing to suggest him as my witness.

[Rhino69]

May I suggest that you issue a suumons to the Chairman of The Bank as a Witness? I for one would like to see them squirm under oath in a courtroom as if they defended their charges as lawful wouldn't they be committing perjury?

 

Rhino69

[caro]

I must admit I had been thinking along similar lines Rhino, but hesitated to post. I have a feeling that Robertxc might approve of this idea, but I had better not speak for him.

[SR7133]

I think the suggestion is interesting but in reality there is little prospect of this happening - there is comment in another thread where a Sheriff agreed to Clydesdale Bank witnesses being summoned but NOT the Chairman/CEO. What is needed is someone within the organisation who has the responsibility for making or implementing the charging policy - the key is to identify that person and get him/her into court.

[Robertxc]

I think the suggestion is interesting but in reality there is little prospect of this happening - there is comment in another thread where a Sheriff agreed to Clydesdale Bank witnesses being summoned but NOT the Chairman/CEO. What is needed is someone within the organisation who has the responsibility for making or implementing the charging policy - the key is to identify that person and get him/her into court.

This was actually in my thread. At the hearing, the sheriff made it clear that I am perfectly entitled to summon witnesses from CD, but it would have to be someone specific. She made it clear that just summoning the Chief Executive would not be acceptable. I actually have someone in mind who works as a analyst there and who I've been told is familiar with all this stuff. I need to make a few more enquiries before issuing the summons however. The penalty for failing to appear on a properly served summons is quite severe.

[SR7133]

Thanks Robertxc - I recall reading it but couldn't remember where. I am sure that the need to summons a CB witness is unlikely but if there was an individual who could be identified as an "expert" in the charging regime then that could be useful in the future should CB decide to give their defence a run in court.

[SR7133]

I was having a look at the CB website and there are a couple of Senior Executives who might just fit the bill:

 

Glenn King, General Manager, Operations - Glenn King - General Manager, Operations

or

David Thorburn , Chief Operating Officer, Clydesdale & Yorkshire Bank David Thorburn Chief Operating Officer, Clydesdale Bank

 

Both have responsibilites for "operations" and Mr King specifically for customer processing operations.

 

Now they might be worth suggesting as potential witnesses at the Hearing!

[caro]

This little nugget about Glenn King might suggest that he would have some knowledge that could help.

 

Within the UK operations Glenn has responsibility for Operations, which covers all of the Bank's back office and customer processing operations.

 

I would be interested to see what others think.

 

Thinking about it I am not sure that I like the idea of customers being processed! It makes us sound like tins of peas, and we probably don't mean much more to them than that anyway.

[Robertxc]

I was having a look at the CB website and there are a couple of Senior Executives who might just fit the bill:

 

Glenn King, General Manager, Operations - Glenn King - General Manager, Operations

or

David Thorburn , Chief Operating Officer, Clydesdale & Yorkshire Bank David Thorburn Chief Operating Officer, Clydesdale Bank

 

Both have responsibilites for "operations" and Mr King specifically for customer processing operations.

 

Now they might be worth suggesting as potential witnesses at the Hearing!

Having looked at a bClydesdale Bank £20 note, I notice that it is signed by David Thorburn!

[caro]

Would this be considered like calling the Chief Exec or similar in Sheriffs eyes and not acceptable. Are Chief Execs etc above the law and don't have to answer in court I wonder?

 

Paul Burrell was set to call the Queen at his trial.

[Robertxc]

I think you'd have to show that the person you're calling has direct relevent testimony to give, and isn't just being called for the sake of inconveniencing the other side.

[caro]

The Chief Exec has overall responsibility, and as such should know what is going on. These are issues of their charging policies, and policies are generally made at a high level, especially when they are about matters involving millions of transactions a year. If he doesn't have testimony then I don't know who does. He is certainly in a position to be fully briefed.

[SR7133]

I think that the key decision is whether it should be a policy maker or someone who knows the practical details surrounding the charging regime. If it is a policy maker then to go too high in the organisation may be seen as being mischevious while the practical individual may know how the system operates but may not have the ability or authority to explain "why" the charging regime operates as it does.

 

The trick will be to identify the correct person at the most appropriate level.

 

I still think that Mr King or Mr Thorburn might be the right level and perhaps Mr Thorburn could come along to the court and sign a few notes for me!

[Bigmac versus]

As i see it this Neil mckirdy is the person who responds to most, certainly at the later stages of claims, if he was cited then surely he himself would be pursuing the settlement of the claim before such an appearance was required. My 28 days is up this week and this neil mckirdys only response was that he may need more time to get further information, sure ive read a post previous where someone phoned him up and got a settlement offer without the need to file, be nice to put a voice to the name anyway, shall phone him to see if he has all the info and update him of claim to court this week.

[SR7133]

Letter received from CB acknowledging the return of their "offer" cheque and stating that the Small Claims Action takes precedence over the Bank's complaint process. Further correspondence will originate from the Bank's legal department.

 

I get the feeling that the Customer Relations Department was unaware of the legal action until I told them!

 

Return Date for the Small Claims Action is today so I will wait and find out what their legal department intend doing & if they are lodging a defence.

[SR7133]

Contacted the Sheriff Clerk and CB have advised that they intend to defend the action and will be represented at the Preliminary Hearing on 13th November - here we go again!!!