Fallen 404's Natwest Diary

[fallen404]

Right, got the usual "We believe our charges are fair, reasonable and transparent..." letter. Having looked through the leaflets of charges, etc. which we have laying around, we can find no reference to the Banking Code. This may seem wildly random, but as all the charges I'm going at them about are instant, I'm going to hammer at them if they supposedly subscribe to it.

 

Does anyone know, definitively, if NatWest are supposed to adhere to this Code?

[Spiceskull]

The code is voluntary. However, by subscribing to it, they are bound by it's rules. In a lot of areas they do stick to them, but I have found many examples of 'cherry picking':

 

5.4: We will tell you the charge for any other service or product before we provide that service or product, and at any time you ask.

 

As the banks claim that charges are for a 'service' they should be telling us BEFORE they provide the 'service' (and the charge), although they do stick to the rules (in the main) about telling us 14 days in advance of the charge actually being deducted from accounts.

 

7.5: Under normal circumstances, we will not close your account without giving you at least 30 days’ notice. Examples of circumstances which are not ‘normal’ include threatening or abusive behaviour towards staff.

 

For those banks closing accounts where people have claimed a refund (successfully or otherwise) can they honestly say that disagreeing with the bank is considered 'not normal circumstances?' If this is the case, then they are effectively seeking to negate free speech and the right of reply...

 

Also good reading is the Banking Code Rules. Whilst adherence to the code proper is voluntary, it would seem that acceptance of the code opens the bank to regulation from the Banking Code Standards Board:

 

Points to consider:

 

Compliance (Breaches):

 

2.4 Recognising that each case has its own particular features, the factors which the BCSB will take into account in assessing the seriousness of a Breach will include:

(a) the extent of actual or potential customer harm;

(b) whether the problem was isolated or systemic;

© whether the Breach was inadvertent, or represented a knowing act of commission or omission;

d) the length of time over which the Breach continued undetected or without effective remedial action being taken;

(e) whether there were any warning signals, such as concerns expressed in the media, customer complaints, or guidance from the BCSB, and what heed was paid to such signals;

(f) the extent of damage to confidence in, or the reputation of, the banking industry at large

(g) the extent to which the Subscriber sought to profit, or to avoid or mitigate a loss, by its actions or omissions.

 

It is worth noting that point (e)(warnings) is something the banks should consider seriously. The heed paid seems to be obstruction or even blind indifference...

[fallen404]

Sorry, Spice. Didn't quite make myself clear. Are NatWorst actually signed up to this? That was the question.

[Spiceskull]

I think that First Direct are the only bank NOT subscribed, so that implies that NatWest are...check their website, it will tell you there...

[fallen404]

Oddly, there's mention of the RBS, but not NatWest themselves...

 

http://www.bankingcode.org.uk/supportlist.htm

 

"Curiouser and curiouser."

[Spiceskull]

Check Point 24:

http://www.natwest.com/global_options.asp?id=GLOBAL/LEGAL_INFORMATION#regulatory_information

24 NatWest subscribes to the Banking Code and Business Banking Code. If you would like a Banking Code or Business Banking Code leaflet ask a member of staff at any branch. Full details of the Code are also available from the British Bankers' Association website.

[thecornflake]

Natwest do indeed subscribe to the banking code. I know because I am checking out the fact that apparently the code says that a bank should make sure someone in financial difficulty has enough money left in their account to cover basic expenses (won't go into this too much as I've already posted it on a nother thread).

 

However, I'm not sure if the banking code is strong enough to be used in court - the most you can probably do is complain to the organisation that governs the code as it is only a code of conduct rather than an official law or contract.

[fallen404]

Guess I'll be firing off another letter to "Stuart Higley" then, explaining to him that he'd better tell his organisation to remove anything implying that they genuinely subscribe to the banking code from all of their publications, both internal and external, since their total non-adherence to it is nothing short of libellous.

[thecornflake]

To save you searching in other threads the information I found was here -

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmtreasy/uc848-iv/uc84802.htm

Find question 372

 

Quotes -

 

"Mr Lemos: Could I say one more thing in relation to your last question. There is a provision in the Code relating to customers in financial difficulties already, which says that they should be left with enough funds for their basic requirements."

 

"Mr Fortescue: The Guidance on this point says that banks should leave the customer with sufficient money for day-to-day expenses, taking into account individual circumstances. We are aware of instances where that has not happened; where the bank has grabbed all the money when it is paid in after the salary date. We have got a very good liaison with a lot of money advisers and Citizens' Advice Bureaus who have frequently told us of this. We have taken them up with the bank concerned and been able to rectify the situation."

[fallen404]

I got a reply today from the BCSB:

 

Thank you for your email. The BCSB is an independent body that polices the Banking Code and the Business Banking Code. We do not investigate individual complaints against banks and building societies, because that is the role of the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). The BCSB Helpline can only advise on your rights under the Banking Codes, and cannot give legal advice.

 

Yes, Nat West is a Banking Code subscriber.

 

If you have a problem, you should complain first to your bank. They will give you a copy of their complaints procedure. This sets out the legal timescale they are required to follow in dealing with your complaint. Your complaint should be made in writing, to their designated complaints department.

 

After they have looked into your complaint, they will write to tell you of the outcome of their investigation. They will also tell you about your right to bring your complaint to the FOS if you are still not happy.

 

The FOS helps settle disputes between individuals or small businesses and financial organisations. If a settlement cannot be agreed, they decide who is right. The service is free to consumers and its decisions are binding on financial organisations. FOS can make awards of up to £100,000. You can find their contact details on their website at www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/> The FOS takes account of the Banking Codes in making its decisions.

 

The BCSB is always pleased to hear from customers where there has been a serious breach of the Codes. Customers who let us know about serious Code breaches provide useful intelligence and may help us to correct a problem before it becomes more widespread.

 

But most individual problems are usually best dealt with via the firm’s own complaints procedure and if necessary the FOS. The BCSB cannot generally take action just because you have received poor service, nor can we become involved in matters that are going through the courts or where another regulator is involved.

 

A serious breach of the Codes is likely to be one that has affected other customers, has been systematic, has continued for a long time or is suspected of having been deliberate.

 

I hope that you are able to resolve your complaint.

 

Regards,

 

Jane McCue

 

Helpdesk Manager

 

 

 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

We would ask you to treat any communication from us as confidentially as you would want us to treat communication from you. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately, and do not use, disclose, print or forward this email or any part of it. You should know that some of our communications may contain confidential information which it could be an offence for you to disclose or use without authority.

Banking Code Standards Board Limited, 4th Floor, 6 Frederick's Place, London EC2R 8BT

www.bankingcode.org.uk http://www.bankingcode.org.ukconfidentiality/>

 

I'd say that the total lack of notice re: penalty charges constitutes a serious breach, so I'm guessing this is yet another point to nail NW on.

[Spiceskull]

You might want to consider this (which formed part of my LBA):

In light of this, I would also draw your attention to the Banking Code Rules, which, by implication, HSBC is also signatory to. Paragraph 2.4, Section Compliance (Breaches) states: "Recognising that each case has its own particular features, the factors which the BCSB will take into account in assessing the seriousness of a Breach will include:"

 

(a) the extent of actual or potential customer harm

(b) whether the problem was isolated or systemic

© whether the Breach was inadvertent, or represented a knowing act of commission or omission

(d) the length of time over which the Breach continued undetected or without effective remedial action being taken

(e) whether there were any warning signals, such as concerns expressed in the media, customer complaints, or guidance from the BCSB, and what heed was paid to such signals

(f) the extent of damage to confidence in, or the reputation of, the banking industry at large

(g) the extent to which the Subscriber sought to profit, or to avoid or mitigate a loss, by its actions or omissions

 

It is my belief that in levying these unlawful charges against my account, HSBC is in breach of all of these factors for the following reasons:

 

(a) that actual harm has been done to me, as a customer, insofar as I have had money unlawfully deducted from my account in an unlawful manner

(b) that the problem is systemic, insofar as the charges have been unlawfully applied in each and every instance of HSBC believing that I have breached the terms and conditions of my contract with HSBC. Furthermore, as the charges have been unlawfully applied 'automatically,' due consideration has not been given to recognising that each alleged breach of the terms and conditions by myself has its own particular features

© that the breach represented a knowing act by HSBC, insofar as the punitive nature of the unlawfully applied charges represents a commission to HSBC

(d) that the breach has been committed at every opportunity that HSBC believed it could apply the unlawful charges. Furthermore, that the breach has been committed outside of the timescale for which I am requesting repayment of the unlawfully levied charges against my account, and that a large organisation such as HSBC could reasonably be expected to have checks and balances in place to ensure that such breaches do not go undetected and unremedied for such a period of time

(e) that there have been numerous warning signals in the media, and that I have, on occasion, raised my concerns over these unlawful charges, and that no heed has been paid to these warning signals

(f) that my confidence in HSBC to demonstrate integrity and expertise as my fiduciary has been severely damaged, and by association, my confidence in the banking industry at large has been damaged in the same manner

(g) as a subscriber to the Banking Code, HSBC has sought to profit by unlawfully applying punitive and unlawful charges against my account through its continued actions in doing so

[fallen404]

Thanks Spice. I'll give that a closer eye-up later. It looks like I'll be able to just cut, paste and do a Find+Replace on "HSBC". I'm really determined now to hit NatWest everywhere and every which way I can: I'd say that proof of a systematic, repeated and deliberate breach of the BC is hopefully going to have a similar effect on their defence as a ten-pound lump hammer on a raw egg.

[Spiceskull]

Go for it - I checked all of the points whereby the BCSB could 'discipline' the bank, and then contrived a breach for each and every point based on my own account...ONCE I have got my money back I am going to put out an APB for HSBC with every authority possible...so far the list is:

 

OFT

BCSB

IC

BBA

FSA

 

I'm sure there are others, but I just want to get a list together and draw up some template letters for now - want to join the club?

[bram stoker]

If you receive statements in the same condition as I did please let me know, and don't dispose of the packaging.

[fallen404]

Why not? In for a penny, and all that.

 

Vampiress, I plan to take video and photographic evidence of the state they arrive in. NW still have 19 days to comply with my request. I'm going to write to them on the 7th to remind them they only have 14 days left.

[fallen404]

Hoping banks aren't too imaginitive with their email addresses, I've just sent the following to [email protected]:

 

Dear Mr Higley,

Thank you for your letter, which, despite it’s representations to the contrary, answered none of the points of law raised in my email, but instead merely expressed your belief that your charges were fair and transparent.

In light of this, I would also draw your attention to the Banking Code Rules, which, the BCSB have informed me, NatWest is a signatory to. Paragraph 2.4, Section Compliance (Breaches) states: "Recognising that each case has its own particular features, the factors which the BCSB will take into account in assessing the seriousness of a Breach will include:"

 

(a) the extent of actual or potential customer harm

(b) whether the problem was isolated or systemic

© whether the Breach was inadvertent, or represented a knowing act of commission or omission

(d) the length of time over which the Breach continued undetected or without effective remedial action being taken

(e) whether there were any warning signals, such as concerns expressed in the media, customer complaints, or guidance from the BCSB, and what heed was paid to such signals

(f) the extent of damage to confidence in, or the reputation of, the banking industry at large

(g) the extent to which the Subscriber sought to profit, or to avoid or mitigate a loss, by its actions or omissions

 

It is my belief that in levying these unlawful charges against my account, NatWest is in breach of all of these factors for the following reasons:

 

(a) that actual harm has been done to me, as a customer, insofar as I have had money forcibly deducted from my account in an unlawful manner

(b) that the problem is systemic, insofar as the charges have been unlawfully applied in each and every instance of NatWest believing that I have breached the terms and conditions of my contract with NatWest. Furthermore, as the charges have been unlawfully applied 'automatically,' due consideration has not been given to recognising that each alleged breach of the terms and conditions by myself has its own particular features

© that the breach represented a knowing act by NatWest, insofar as the punitive nature of the unlawfully applied charges represents a commission to NatWest

(d) that the breach has been committed at every opportunity that NatWest believed it could apply the unlawful charges. Furthermore, that the breach has been committed outside of the timescale for which I am requesting repayment of the unlawfully levied charges against my account, and that a large organisation such as NatWest could reasonably be expected to have checks and balances in place to ensure that such breaches do not go undetected and unremedied for such a period of time

(e) that there have been numerous warning signals in the media, and that I have, on occasion, raised my concerns over these unlawful charges, and that no heed has been paid to these warning signals

(f) that my confidence in NatWest to demonstrate integrity and expertise as my fiduciary has been severely damaged, and by association, my confidence in the banking industry at large has been damaged in the same manner

(g) as a subscriber to the Banking Code, NatWest has sought to profit by unlawfully applying punitive and illegal charges against my account through its continued actions in doing so.

I would be grateful you would actually honour your supposed commitment to customer service this time, and actually address the points raised by this email, rather than simply send me out another automated form letter, which is even signed on your behalf by the computer that generated it. If I find your answer to be in any way unsatisfactory, I will once again be contacting the BCSB, this time with regards to a serious breach of the Banking Code by yourselves, as well as the FSA and BBA.

I would attach the aformentioned form letter, but it was sent to me via Royal Mail, and I lack both the time and inclination to copy a document which I'm sure you already possess. For your reference, therefore, I include below my original email request, along with your colleague's automated reply.

Yours Sincerely

Fallen 404

Hopefully, they'll realise I'm not going to take "no" for an answer...

[Spiceskull]

I couldn't have put it better myself (he he he) - good luck.

[sweetcyanide]

Wow, I'm making you write my letters in future hon!

[fallen404]

Yeah...I'm a little concerned about the bit with my having raised my concerns on occasion. I suppose "once" is an occasion...

[Spiceskull]

Yeah...I'm a little concerned about the bit with my having raised my concerns on occasion. I suppose "once" is an occasion...

I was initially concerned about that too...but as my account goes back 24 years, and they have confirmed that they have no notes further back than 6 years, I'm in the clear. I actually checked the issue of limitations with BF before finalising that sentence.

 

However, it would be inconceivable that they have a transcript of EVERY phone call you will have made over the years, and your are right, it only has to happen once for it to be considered 'occasional'

 

Now, how does that affect the mental state of occasional tables...?

[fallen404]

Your bank account is older than I am!

[Spiceskull]

Your bank account is older than I am!

I know...are you scared?

[fallen404]

Of you? dream on, grandad!

 

On an interesting note, I've just been in to NW to find out where the £100 I paid in on the 2nd had gone (wasn't showing up on a mini-statement). I found out the money was marked as going in on the 2nd. The statement (in chronological order) reads:

 

02-May-2006: Paid In: £100

02-May-2006: Charge: £38 Unpaid Item(s) D/D £66.99 NEST MANAGEMENT

 

My balance after this is just under £100. So, assuming the charge is pretty much instant when the DD bounces (which it must be, as it's due on the 1st day of the month), then surely, according to their printouts, I must have had enough money in the account to pay the DD.

 

I asked about this, and the lady behind the desk said "yes, but it's decided the preceding day not to pay the DD. You need the funds cleared in your account for the day it goes out." Being a little irked at the fact that NW would rather take almost £40 for themselves, instead of allowing me to honour a charge of just £30 more, I forgot to ask precisely WHEN the preceding day it's decided. I wouldn't be too surprised if the answer was 9:00am.

 

It'd be nice if they bothered to send you some kind of warning a few days before they decide to bounce them. I'm sure for £38 a time, they could afford to send someone a letter. Although, if they did, they wouldn't make that £38, would they?

[Spiceskull]

There is a prime example of your Banking Code argument...take it in next time, and give them a kick in the cobbl*rs...

[bram stoker]

That's absolutely disgraceful. They should be ashamed of themselves. Did you ask them to refund it as you were unaware of this, apart from it being totally wrong? My Natwest seem to be playing along nicely.