Bad news for any RBs Group (inc Natwest and all the others) credit card holders

[telewest]

edited

[Guest NATTIE]

I wasn't going to post for a few days but this is 100% correct. Only exception is BANK ERROR and you have to have proof or it is a NO. That means if you cancel a DD or SO make sure you get a reference over the phone or a copy of the cancellation in the branches. Otherwise customers will get a simple and straightforward NO. Telewest as ever, great info!

[telewest]

Cheers NWSM, sometimes it sucks being right.

 

In a few years my reputation might move above novitiate !

[Bookworm]

Cheers NWSM, sometimes it sucks being right.

 

In a few years my reputation might move above novitiate !

 

Your pleas have not fallen upon deaf ears. ;-)

[dave]

Ha ha - well fine then.

 

Let the courts decide. It'll just cost them more in the long run!

[Bookworm]

On a separate note, maybe that will push more people on the litigation path... I aked Barclays for a refund of £30, they said no, so I sued them for the lot, claim is standing at nearly 500 quid now...

[Bookworm]

Snap, Dave, lol.

[pugsley]

this NO will surely just drive more people onto this site and others and down the litigation route, so a silly move really.

[Guest Niklowe]

It's not going to stop me!

[Guest Alison82]

Sorry but that must be one of the most ridiculous things I've heard on here for a long time!! Your brother says don’t bother ask for a refund and then everyone is supposed to give up! You’re having a laugh aren’t you!

 

Me have my money or the bank have my money?! No contest really no matter how long it take or what lengths we need to got to we won’t be giving up until the banks decide to FOLLOW THE LAW!!

 

Sorry, don’t mean to bite your head off but I had to say

[jo5ephedward5]

i think Telewest suggested not bothering to ask them

 

sueing them is a different matter - you should still win this way!

[Guest The Terminator]

I've got a question for NWSM and it is simple.Do the banks comply or even know what the CCA(1974) is and how it is interpretated because in my opinion none of them comply.On info received from elsewhere and reading the act(I actually work in law) it would seem that in a short time down the road they are all going to pay for over 30years of "pelfring" from the public.Your comments would be appriciated.

[Guest bluecloud]

I think I can answer this one (sorry NWSM).

 

When was the last time that you performed an action that resulted in you gaining money?

 

We've all found pennies in the street or even as much as a fiver blowing in the wind. We may even look round briefly to find the true owner.

 

Next stage is to increase you apparent standing in the eyes of the public. Your once friendly bank manager has been replaced by a cloned university graduate with all charisma and sensibility removed. They don't care about individual customers any more just what they are told by head office.

 

Then consider that nearly every bank is now a public limited company with shareholders to appease.

 

The general public are conditioned from an early age to believe that the banks are implacably respectable and are there merely to care for our money. Over the last three decades, the pressure on banks to make a proft for their shareholders has increased such that they have needed to make as much money as possible as quickly as possible and have tried many routes.

 

I'm sure that there are many readers out there that will remember being charged by the bank for processing a cheque or standing order. I personally remember visiting the bank each week with my parents to withdraw "9 fives and 5 ones please" for the shopping; this had to be done with a chegue made payable to CASH.

 

Banks came under pressure to gain customers and the concept of free banking was introduced for personal account holders.

 

The problem with free banking is it removes a very large income from the bank so penalty charges have increased inexorably to the ridiculous levels we are faced with today.

 

The problem with charges are that they only ever affect the poorer members of the public but that doesn't bother the banks as the more affluent account holders provide the bank with an income through the use of their money.

 

So in the end we have organisations that are trusted by the public, a desire of the owners of the bank to make as big a profit as possible and the ineffectiveness of a legal system that places litigants in rank order of how much money they have i.e. the more money you have the more likely you are to be believed by a court.

 

Finally, any legislation introduced must be enforced. The legal system in the UK relies on one party suing another. The claimant must show that the defendent has breached the law. Before the ruling from the OFT about bank charges was announced when was the last time you considered taking your bank to court?

 

It does have a happy ending though as consumer power is coming to the fore, as this site is proving.

 

 

.

[Guest The Terminator]

Very well presented Bluecloud and I respect your opinions like I do everyone elses.The question I posted was do the finiancial institutions(banks,cc providers) comply with the CCA(1974).My opinion is no they don't.The reasons being: 1) Why is it so difficult to get a straightforward answer from them.2) Why do they tend to cheat and be uneconomical with the truth. 3) Why do they break the law and get away with it.4) Why do they throw their rattles out of the pram when things go against them(good article in todays guardian) I could go on and on.The biggest mistake in my opinion was GB giving all the power to the banks.I see it as a David and Goliath battle and we know what the result was there.

[Guest bluecloud]

I think one simple phrase answers all of the questions.

 

Because they can.

 

Rapidly becoming,

 

because they think they can.

 

 

 

 

 

 

PS. I like being David.

 

 

.

[meagain]

Is this only for the credit cards, or will it affect personal accounts too?

[Guest NATTIE]

meagain- what telewest has been saying is that unless it is a BANK ERROR for the charges or you are suing, that no refund will be given. As to others issues raised on here, I am merely commenting on Telewest who's information is very accurate in what is actually going on certainly within NatWest in relation to charges. Only comment I would make on managers is that it isn't always University Graduates who are managers, education must surely have told them that they could earn better money elsewhere other than a high street bank.

[Bookworm]

Before the ruling from the OFT about bank charges was announced when was the last time you considered taking your bank to court?

 

Erm.... By the time the OFT ruling came out, I had 3 ongoing claims, actually!

[meagain]

meagain- what telewest has been saying is that unless it is a BANK ERROR for the charges or you are suing, that no refund will be given.

 

OK, but is it only for RBS' credit card operations, or will it also apply to their personal accounts (at RBS and NatWest branches) too? I ask because I have just opened an account at my local NW, on account of the fact that I've not dealt with them before, they asked fewer questions, and, of course, They're Not HSWC (it used to be a "B" for "Banking").

 

Also, to back up the Bookie, I was aware that this might be an issue as early as 1998 (many years before the OFT's previous publication about credit cards), thanks to a really big and bulky book, that is currently in a box locked away in storage. Not the best place for it, IMHO, but it stays there until I have somewhere else to put it.

[gforce]

I'd just like to say that it is still possible to get a charge refunded from an RBS credit card without it being a banking error. My OH got his £12 charge back a couple of wks ago. He had to threaten to close his credit card and speak to three people first, but it can be done!

[Joa]

gforce; your other half should have to be forced to speak to three people, plus it would have been a very different story if the amount was £120 or £1200.

[pugsley]

I have only asked for £140 the LBA hasn't been replied within the time limit to so putting in a claim anyway, I go with the assumption court action will need to be started not the assumption they will settle beforehand. That way I'm unexpectedly surprised and happy if it is settled before the claim is issued.

[krimewave]

OK, but is it only for RBS' credit card operations, or will it also apply to their personal accounts (at RBS and NatWest branches) too?

 

I was about to ask the same question, as I've just sent them a LBA for over a grand of charges on my current account.

[daveyloon]

Bad news for any RBs Group (inc Natwest and others) credit card holders

 

WORSE NEWS FOR BANKS! WE ARE COMIN TA GET YA!

 

Its not up to the consumer to prove anything at all, it's up to the bank to prove that the charges are not unlawful and put simply this cannot be done.

 

If the amount of the banks charge varied depending on the seriousness of the breach of contract ie. The more the account was short by the heavier the banks charge it may be deemed a "liquidate damages clause" in which case if challenged, the bank is legally obliged to provide evidence of the actual financial loss or liquidate damage they experience as a result of the customers breach. (Or prove that the charge represents a genuine pre estimate of loss.) ha ha ha. They can't do this. If a first class stamp and a sheet of A4 costs the halifax 39 quid, I really wish I supplied their stationery.

 

Since the charge is not linked to the costs incurred it would be deemed a "penalty clause" which would mean that the charge was unenforcable at common law. However I hear that what your saying is actually that the organ grinder has told all his poisonous little monkeys to refuse to refund our charges when we ask nicely in the hope that we don't bother. What they are actually doing is making it more expensive for them in the long run only if people don't give up. WE WON'T! but most people wouldn't bother if they thought they were really going to have to go to court. It's quite intimidating for some, although personally I'll get more satisfaction out of winning if they do make this happen.)

 

TOGETHER WE WILL HAVE OUR GLORY DAY.

[meagain]

Bad news for any RBs Group (inc NatWest and others) credit card holders

 

WORSE NEWS FOR BANKS! WE ARE COMIN TA GET YA!

 

Thank you for taking the time to summarise the information in the CAG Library for us. Really, we never knew that, did we?