Fallen 404's Natwest Diary

[fallen404]

errrrrmmm...I just finished adding another bit on to the bottom of that, hit save reply, and it's deleted it...

 

My additional bit was basically this:

 

I've paid in another £70 in cash and £21 as a cheque just now, so that my tesco.com food order should be okay this evening. I'm having to do this because Tesco won't take Electron (which is all that A&L are prepared to give me, card-wise). However, two cheques have come out today, which put me the horrifying amount of £7.73 over my overdraft limit. Thing is, the second of these (higher cheque number and most recent on the statement) is for £5.49, so I'm wondering if NW are going to try and take 2 "card misuse fees" (guaranteed cheques), which'll be 2x£35, thus making my paying in that £70 totally pointless. I expect that if they do, they'll also stop my grocery payment going through.

[fallen404]

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

 

which bit of my rant is that, spice? Their argument is "uncleared funds." I agree that their printouts are essentially pieces of wilful deception, which is why I'm keeping them for shoutiness purposes later.

[Spiceskull]

Fair bet you will get a 'charges pending' statement. Check through the following, tart it up, and send it on the same day...worked a treat with HSBC:

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

I find myself in the position that your actions require my intervention for the [HOWEVER MANY] time in the space of a few days. I am seriously reconsidering my view that [bANK] has the capacity to act as my fiduciary in a responsible and lawful manner, as implied by the terms and conditions between both parties.

 

[WHENEVER] I received a statement from [bANK], stating their intent to unlawfully apply penalty charges to my account on [DATE]. These charges are to the sum of £XX.

 

As you are aware, I have asked you to demonstrate to me that these punitive charges are fair and just, that they are lawful, and that they are being lawfully applied. You have failed to demonstrate this to date, and therefore it is implied by your refusal or inability to supply such demonstration, that these penalties are, indeed, unlawful.

 

Therefore, I would draw your attention to the following point: you have stated that these charges will be applied on [DATE]. If these charges ARE applied, then you will be required to explain why you have, in my view, committed a pre-meditated breach of the law, and I will be reporting such breach to all of the relevant authorities.

 

However, as this has not yet happened, I require that you take action forthwith, and cancel this transaction prior to its execution. Furthermore, I require confirmation, in writing, that this transaction will, indeed, be cancelled.

 

I shall be checking my account on [DATE], and if I see that the penalty charges have been unlawfully applied to my account, I shall lodge a claim at the county court to recover these charges, plus my costs and interest calculated at 8% APR, without hesitation. Furthermore, I shall require that you confirm whether these unlawful charges have resulted in a default notice against my record with credit reference agencies, and if so, I will seek appropriate action to have this notice removed.

 

In view of my first paragraph, and considering your apparent incompetence to act as my fiduciary in a lawful manner, I will start to consider a course of action whereby I may seek redress for all the inconvenience you have caused me.

[bram stoker]

I'd have kept the cash and gone to Tesco's with it. It's a never ending circle. You'll be amending your claim every day once you've raised it.

 

Have you called Natwest about the situation? Tell them it's a timing thing and they're supposed to be sympathetic.

[Spiceskull]

which bit of my rant is that, spice?

This bit:

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?

The banking code states:

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.

[fallen404]

Spice, I can see you're unfamiliar with NatWest's charging practice: Over-limit fees, and interest on overdrafts are the only things they charge monthly/give notice about. "Card Misuse" (guaranteed cheques and debit card payments that put you (further) over your limit) and "Unpaid Item(s)" (DDs and SOs that you have insufficient funds for) appear the following day and are applied retroactively to the day you commited the "card misuse" or when the automated debit failed.

 

I think their argument would be that the T&Cs booklet informs you of their fees (and presumably their effectively instant taking of such), thus giving "fair warning" or whatever they're supposed to give you. Being a b***ard, I can usually guess what other b***ards are likely to do.

 

Vampiress, I'm regretting paying that cash in now. Sweetcyanide's going to put it on her card, and I'm going to give her the cash for it straight away. We can't really get to Tesco very easily, since we don't drive anywhere near enough to justify owning a car.

[Spiceskull]

The point I was making is that ALL of these things fall under 'services provided' (services? ha!)

 

As such they should be asking you if you actually want these services, rather than making an assumption. If they asked, you would likely decline the service, and therefore the bank would only be able to charge you once, with no supplementary charges to follow...

 

I see it that banks either follow the banking code or they don't - I don't have any truck with greedy cherry pickers

[fallen404]

Ah. I see...yeah, I guess I shall have to modify that letter a little and send it off, like you said. I'll see what tomorrow brings.

 

On the upside, apparently my payment to Tesco has gone through...

[Spiceskull]

On the upside, apparently my payment to Tesco has gone through...

They only did it so that they could position you to receive more charges...that you will get back...

[fallen404]

I know. After tonight, the account will effectively be closed. I've got one or two things still coming out of there (although not after today) and then all there'll be is their charges.

[Spiceskull]

I hope they can whistle!

[fallen404]

Okay, just got another letter from Stuart Higley (well, actually, I got 3, sent in 2 different envelopes, but they're all pretty much the same)

 

Customer RelaUons

 

Ground Floor

National Westminster House 225 Shen/ey Road Borehamwood WOO HE

 

Facsimile: 020 8236 8010

 

Our ref: SJH Your ref:

 

 

A NatWest

 

4 May 2006

 

Dear Mr O'Four

 

Thank you for your further e-mail regarding charges debited to your account. As I anticipated the letter was unlikely to resolve matters to your satisfaction.

 

Before turning to the main focus of your complaint, I should explain that my letter of 26 April 2006 was written by me personally and signed using a fountain pen rather than by a computer *generated facsimile signature, as you claim.

 

The matter of our fees generally has been referred both to our separate Legal and Compliance departments and they are satisfied that the charges conform to the information I shared with you on 26 April 2006. I am aware that the OFT have been considering penalty charges on credit cards and they issued a statement on 5 April 2006, to which we have until 31 May to respond. This statement refers to charges on credit cards only.

 

Our fees have been openly published and as I mentioned previously, they were only applied to your account because insufficient funds were available to meet items presented for payment. Our charges are flat fees and do not vary depending on the face value of offending items.

You have an authorised overdraft limit of £1,200 and on each occasion this was insufficient.

 

Before I wrote on 26 April, having reviewed your account, I could find no instance where charges had been applied when they were not properly due. They were all associated with a lack of covering funds in the account at the time items had been presented for payment.

 

However, if you feel that any of the charges are incorrect, please let me know the date(s) and amount(s) of those you dispute together with a brief explanation why and I will be pleased to arrange for them to be reinvestigated. In the meantime and in the hope of helping you, I will outline the transactions that prompted the various charges to your account: *

 

National Westminster Bank PIc, Aothorised and regulated by the Registered in England No 929027. F"lI'IMCial SeMces AuthorIty Registered 0fIce:

'35_

EC2M 3UR

 

i L

 

 

Date Balance Umit Available Item Fee. Amount

to soend

1.3.06 Dr £1,241.03 £1200 Nil Card transaction £360 CMF £35

1.3.06 Dr £1,241.03 £1200 Nil Standina Order £5 Unod £38

1.3.06 Dr £1,241.03 £1200 Nil Direct Debit £66.99 Unod £38

2.3.06 Dr £1,386.03 £1200 Nil Point of Sale £34 CMF £35

7.3.06 Dr £1,000.69 £1200 £199.31 Cheaue £325 Unod £38

8.3.06 Dr £1185.78 £1200 £14.22 Referral charge for Feb PRF £30

(ore-advised)

10.3.06 Dr £1,232.84 £1200 Nil Point of sale £11.23 CMF £35

10.3.06 Dr £1,232.84 £1200 Nil Cheaue £325 Unpd £38

15.3.06 Dr £1,305.84 £1200 Nil Direct debit £66.99 Unoo £38

27.3.06 Dr £1,343.84 £1200 Nil Cheaue £20 Unoo £38

27.3.06 Dr £1,343.84 £1200 Nil Standina Order £350 Unod £38

28.3.06 Dr £1250.71 . £1200 Nil Cheaue £200 Unod £38

29.3.06 Dr £1,288.71 £1200 Nil Guaranteed Cheaue £24 CMF £35

31.3.06 Dr £226.91 £1200 £973.09 Unauthorised borrowing UBF £28

fee (excesses durina month)

10.4.06 Dr £1197.23 £1200 £2.37 Cheaue £13.31 CMF £35

 

. Key to charges

CMF = Card Misuse F",,; Unpd = Unpaid Item F",,; PRF = PakI Referral Fee; UBF = Unauthorlsed Bcrrowing f""

 

Again, I can see no occasion when the funds were not prope~ly due to the bank. It is your responsibility to ensure that there is an adequate balance In the account but this has not been the case over this period of time. Routinely statements had been sent to you over the course of the dates mentioned in the above table.

 

I feel that there is nothing that I can add constructively to my previous letter and the information provided above. The.Bank does not believe that these charges are unlawful yet I note your contention to the contrary.

 

I have absolutely no wish to be in dispute with you and I note your proposed course of action if I do not agree to a refund. In the sincere hope that I can reach an agreement with you, in the spirit of conciliation and as a gesture of goodwill, I am prepared to offer you a refund of half the amount you have requested, I.e. £162.50. If you are agreeable to this offer, please sign and return the copy of this letter and I will arrange an immediate payment to your account.

 

If you prefer not to accept, you may regard this letter as the Bank's final response and refer your case to the Financial Ombudsman Service should you wish.

 

The enclosed leaflet, which is produced by the Financial Ombudsman Service tells you more about the scheme and how to contact them. You can also visit the website www.financial*ombudsman.org.uk and if you do write to the Financial Ombudsman Service then you should provide them with a copy of this letter within six months. You should also send copies of any documentation that you feel supports your case.

 

Finally, I note that you have in mind a return to the BCSB and in the event that we are approached by them we will be pleased to co-operate fully with their enquiries. Insofar as the second series of points you have raised (a - g) they are all based on your contention that our charges are unlawful, which we dispute.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Stuart Higley Senior Manager

Any errors in this are probably introduced by my scanner's text conversion tool. Just after Stuart's signature, there's an additional bit involving accepting half in full & final settlement. I've trimmed this off, as it included my account details.

 

You'll note that he's ignored my earlier comments regarding the UTCC laws and requesting a break-down of costs to NatWest.

[Spiceskull]

I'd pull your address details out of the letter sharpish if I were you...

[fallen404]

****!!! Thanks for the heads up, Spice...it mangled the lines a bit, so I didn't see it at first...

[Spiceskull]

S'Cool - last thing you need when approaching claim state is people knowing who you reeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllllllllllllly are...

[fallen404]

Indeed.

 

Anyhow, I'm all set to send Stuart Higley another email (or maybe even a letter) today, and I'm planning to point out that he's still not really answered my initial query with regards to the relevant legislation, and not given me a breakdown of how the charges are reasonable. Having just looked over the UTC 1977 and UTCC 1999, I can't really see the relevant bits. Could someone be incredibly nice and give me the section, schedule, etc points, so I can just roll down to them and look them up myself? Or, better yet, simply quote them for me, so I can drop them in to my email? I'm probably being thick, but I couldn't sleep last night, thanks to this blasted cough, so I'm not on top form right now. I'm going to add that, whilst I now concede he did sign the first letter, it's still very definitely a form letter. Oh, and also that I'm rejecting the offer of half, and adding on the charges I've received up to the present date, since I wouldn't have incurred them, if not for their taking the £300. Does that sound sensible/reasonable?

 

As well as that, I'm planning to write another letter to Alex Lyons, pointing out that there's only 14 days left until the expiration of the DPA request for my charges prior to March.

[pyramidhair]

Good luck mate, many of your charges seem to be similarly brought about to mine. In that I went overdrawn when I was unauthorised due to a single DD for example. I received a similar letter but mine had no offer of half on it! I wish you luck, I hope this works out for you 404, go get em.

[fallen404]

Can someone quickly proof-read this for me? I'm all set to send it now.

 

To: [email protected]

Date: 09.05.2006 10:23 AM

Subject: RE: Charges 07/03/2006 onwards - Account No. XXXXXXXX

 

 

Dear Mr. Higley,

 

In reference to the opening paragraphs of your letter dated 04/05/2006, I now concede that you did indeed sign the original letter sent to me (dated 26/04/2006). I contest that it was not merely a standard letter. I am pleased, however, that your most recent correspondence to me was not similarly automated.

 

I note that you believe your legal and compliance teams have ensured all your company's terms and conditions are legal. I still dispute this: Under the The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, Schedule 2, Section 1, a term in a contract which has the effect of "(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation" is considered unfair, and therefore unenforcable. I asked for a breakdown of the costs of each charge to yourselves, in order to find out if the sum taken was disproportionate to the losses incurred to NatWest. As you have again failed to provide these, I can only assume that these costs are negligible, due to being administered almost entirely by computer.

 

I thank you for your offer of £162.50, which I am prepared to accept as an interim payment, whilst awaiting a full refund of the charges. Additionally, thanks to the paltry sum I was left with last month, I have recently been forced to incur further charges of £270.68, which I also want returned to me.

 

I will send you a signed copy of this letter within the next few days.

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

Fallen O'Four

[sweetcyanide]

Erm, you may want to accept the refund but state that it will not be in full and final settlement, and say that you will be claiming the rest of the charges back, rather than refusing it outright. Half is better than nothing to be gong on with! x

[mickpercy]

hiya fallen

Have read some of your posts and you seem a way down the path I'm about to take. We have been offerd a sum (£1,157) which we'll accept (as suggested by previous post), but in no way will we accept it as full settlement. Good luck and any time you want a chat about your stuff send us a note. I will be watching with fingers crossed that you succeed. Go for it buddy.

[fallen404]

I've just edited it with the relevant info and suggestions. Can someone quickly go over it and ensure there are no blatant errors, and that it's a decent letter? I'm worried lack of sleep may have turned my brain to mush.

[bram stoker]

Excellent letter, and much simpler than some others of yours I've read. I like clarity, and you got it there.

[fallen404]

Okay...email sent as posted here. Letter in pre-paid envelope ready to go tonight. Hopefully, I'll soon be receiving a nice juicy credit of £595.68, although it's a pretty slender hope.

[fallen404]

Found this letter awaiting me when I got in: Customer Relations

 

Ground Floor

National Westminster House 225 Shenley Road Borehamwood WD6 HE

 

Facsimile:

 

0208236 8010

 

Our ref: SJH Your ref:

 

 

Q NatWest

 

9 May 2006

 

Dear Mr O'Four

 

Thank you for your further e-mail of today's date.

 

I am sorry that you have chosen not to accept my offer on the basis that it was made. I shall not be arranging to credit your account with £162.50 as an interim payment.

 

The charges that were applied last month were again properly due to the bank and taken in accordance with our published tariff.

 

From our perspective, our internal complaints procedure is at an end. My letter of 4 May 2006 was the bank's 'final response and you may now refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service for independent assessment if you remain dissatisfied unless, of course, you turn to the other bodies you have mentioned previously.

 

I am sorry that we failed to reach an agreement over this issue.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Stuart Higley Senior Manager

 

National Westminster Bank Pic. Authorised and rvguIated by the Registered in England No 929027. Financial Services Authority Registered Office:

135 Bishopsgale.

London EC2M 3UR

 

You'll not that he utterly fails to refute my assertion that these bank charges are automated, and only by implication denies that they are unlawful. The only question now is do I

 

a) write him another letter pointing out how shabby their complaints procedures are and pointing out his abject failure to deny the automation and unlawfulness of the charges?

 

b) write and send the LBA, then send another letter requesting my charges back as and when I'm issued with my statements?

 

c) wait for my statements to come through, then send a letter requesting the whole lot back?

 

Any suggestions?

[thecornflake]

Send the LBA with an (over) estimate of charges - "Oh, I'm sorry - you haven't yet provided the information for me to accurately list the charges involved".

 

By the time the deadline for starting your claim arrives you should have your DPA info.

 

In a friendly way - STOP QUIBBLING and get on with it ;-)