Unfair charges - Can I use BCOBS with this?

[avocados]

Hi

 

I am wondering if I can take on Co-op using BCOBs for some charges they hit me with.

 

I have wrote to them asking for the money back but I did not really quote any legislation, it was more a plea asking for help due to me struggling with finances. Co-op refused as from my experience bank employees are trained to have no compassion and to solely focus on profits. I bet they have not even read my letter properly and have just sent me a standard rejection letter.

 

 

There are 6x £15 =£90. Here are what the charges are for...

 

In December I was not paid enough to cover all my Standing orders. I have quite a few of varying amounts. Co-op could have refused to pay the highest one and therefore only inflict 1xcharge on me but instead they refused the 4 smallest ones so they could charge me 4 times. I think this is unfair and they are profiteering on my poor financial situation.

 

I also tried to cancel two direct debits later in the month. But because the co-op banking system is archaic (I remember more advanced systems in the 90's!) then the direct debit cancelation was not processed in time by them and so bounced and they charged me twice again.

 

This is £90 total in charges. I was going to just have my wages paid into my other account with another bank and tell them to get lost, but a friend sent me some money to pay for something for her. She sent it to co-op by mistake instead of my other account so £90 got swallowed up. I asked them to send it back to her as it is not my money but of course they were not interested and just blamed me for everything. I know I probably cant use the money not being mine as a reason but I just wanted to give some background on why I need to do this rather than just abandon the account like I had planned to.

 

Reading through info on BCOBS I think I have a good case especially where Co-op decided to reject 4 standing orders instead of one so they can charge more.

 

Opinions/advise welcome please? Thankyou

[avocados]

I have been reading through the rules and drafting a letter and I found this

 

Rule 5.1.2 G

In determining the order in which to process payment instructions in relation to the retail banking service a firm must have regard to its obligation to treat banking customers fairly.

 

 

The largest standing order due forpayment was for £630. They could have refused to pay this standing order (or oneof the other larger items) and then charge me one £15 charge for one unpaid item.Instead they chose to reject the four smallest standing orders of £5,£10, £10 and £10 and charge me £15 four times instead of only once.

 

Doing letter now

[avocados]

LETTER BEFORE ACTION

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Account Number: #####

 

Your Reference: #####

 

I am in receipt of your letter dated## February 2014 and I am very disappointed to read that you havedecided to ignore the circumstances that I had set out in my letter.

 

You are in breach of your obligationsto Treat Customers Fairly as required under the Banking Conduct Of Business(BCOBS) regulations 2009 which have been introduced by the FSA under theFinancial Service and Markets Act 2000.

 

Your letter states “As there wereinsufficient funds to cover four items due to be paid on ######, anitem on ##### and an item on ######, £90.00 of chargeswere incurred.”

 

On the ######a number of Standing orders and Direct Debits were due to leave my account. Ihad not been paid as much as I was expecting from my employer so there wereinsufficient funds in the account for all of these items to be paid.

 

The largest standing order due forpayment was for £630. You could have refused to pay this standing order (or oneof the other larger items) and then levy one £15 charge for one unpaid item.Instead you made the choice to reject the four smallest standing orders of £5,£10, £10 and £10 and charge me £15 four times instead of only once.

 

Regulation 5.1.2 G: In determining theorder in which to process payment instructions in relation to the retailbanking service, a firm must have regard to its obligation to treat bankingcustomers fairly.

 

I would point out to you that underBCOBS you have a statutory duty to treat me fairly and have regard to myinterests. It is clear that by deciding to pursue the course of action whichyou did then you acted completely against my interests and completely in yourown interests, in order to maximise your opportunity to apply the maximumcharges against me, in order to maximise your revenue stream.

 

This is an illegal act because it iscontrary to your statutory duty under the Financial Service and Markets Act2000.

 

Your letter also states “I am at aloss to understand why you did not take preventative action such as cancellingstanding orders”

 

I did take preventative action tocancel the items due to be paid on ###and #####. I cancelledboth of these items but because your system is outdated then my cancellationrequest was not processed in time by you. (From my experience all of the otherbanking providers would have processed my request instantly)

 

You then charged me two £15 chargesfor unpaid items which are as a result of you not updating your system withintime whichis a violation of BCOBS.

 

Regulation 5.1.11 R: (1) Where a banking customer denies havingauthorised a payment, it is for the firm to prove that the payment wasauthorised.

 

(2) Where a payment from a banking customer's account was not authorised bythe banking customer, a firm must, within a reasonable period, refund theamount of the unauthorised payment to the banking customer and, whereapplicable, restore the banking customer's account to the state it would havebeen in had the unauthorised payment not taken place.

 

 

You also state that you are under no obligation to consider my financial difficulties.,

your claims are inaccurate as theyare a breach of BCOBS.

 

Regulation 5.1.4 G: Principle 6 requires afirm to pay due regard to the interests of its customers and to treat themfairly. In particular, a firm should deal fairly with a banking customer whomit has reason to believe is in financial difficulty.

 

I am also bewildered that you shouldclaim that the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) have reviewed complaints ofthis nature and that this supports your position that the charges have beenapplied correctly and in line with the terms and conditions of the account.

 

You clearly have put your own interestsabove my own to maximise your profits, BCOBS require you to treat yourcustomers fairly and to have regard to their interests and therefore the FOSwould not support your wild claims.

 

When referring to the £110 paymentwhich was made in error to the account your letter states that “As there was noerror made by us in receiving the payment, we are in no way obliged to send itback”

 

Again this is non compliance of BCOBS;

 

Regulation 5.1.15 R (2): Where incorrect payment routing informationhas been provided to a firm in respect of a payment:

 

(a) BCOBS 5.1.16R and BCOBS 5.1.17R do not apply in relation to thatpayment; and

 

(b) the firm must make reasonable efforts to recover the funds involved inthe transaction.

 

I trust that you have read andunderstood all of my points within this letter. Therefore you should concurthat you are in breach of the Banking Conduct Of Business regulations 2009 andthat you must execute a full refund of the £90 charges which you have added tothe account.

 

In order to prevent further action thecharges must be refunded within 7 days of this letter, failure to do so mayinvolve me commencing legal action add costs incurred by you.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

 

Avocados

[avocados]

That did not copy and paste very well but I hope someone can understand it and give me any suggestions or point out any errors.

 

Thanks

[avocados]

I have had a reply from co op.

 

"unfortunately I have nothing further to add with regards to the charges applied to your account as my position has not changed. The charges were applied correctly and in line with the terms and conditions of your account, therefore they will not be refunded."

 

They say may next stage of escalation is the FOS.

 

What should I do? FOS or take them to court?

 

I am thinking court as it will be quicker and I don't see how they can defend what they have done if BCOBS are regarded as legislation.

With Rule 5.1.2 G

In determining the order in which to process payment instructions in relation to the retail banking service a firm must have regard to its obligation to treat banking customers fairly.

I dont see how they could possibly defend why they rejected 4 payments instead of 1. It is clearly to increase revenue rather than in my interests.

 

Can someone tell me if court action is going to likely lead to success?

 

Thankyou

[rebel11]

Hi avocados

 

So in total you are seeking £90, is that correct?

 

Write a letter to the Customer Service department, ask them to pass it on to the CEO or write a letter to the CEO. In the letter explain that you will take the matter to the FOS, but you must point out that it will cost the CO-OP a minimum of £500 if the FOS look into the complaint. Even on a financial basis it makes sense to resolve the matter without the FOS framework. They also retain your custom.

 

Mr Niall Booker

Chief Executive

[email protected]

[Klandestine]

I'm not sure how successful you are going to be with this.

 

With regards to determining the order in which to process payment instructions I don't think the banks can win.

Some people will find it fairer to have less charges accrued (like yourself), others will want their larger (and possibly more important) payment commitments to be paid.

 

The issue of cancelling your standing order is actually covered by the Payment Services Regulations (BCOBS even states this).

The cancelling of payment instructions is subject time limits and the end of business day rules.

 

You can refer to decisions made by the Financial Ombudsman Service in similar cases and see for yourself at: www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk.

 

How did your friend pay the £110 into your account? By a transfer from her own bank?

The rules about making reasonable efforts to recover the funds actually applies to her own bank. Your bank did nothing wrong here.

 

I understand that it wasn't your fault you were not paid enough by your employer but it isn't the Coops fault either. You need to have some kind of savings plan in place to cover any shortfall. Hopefully this was an important lesson for the future.

[avocados]

I was not going to bite but from posts here and previous ones you have made you appear to be a bank sympathiser

 

I'm not sure how successful you are going to be with this.

I came on here for advice to attempt to increase my chances of success

 

With regards to determining the order in which to process payment instructions I don't think the banks can win.

 

Sorry but they only had ££££££ in mind with the decision they made

 

Your bank did nothing wrong here.

 

They have taken decisions to maximise their profits by charging the most charges possible instead of taking decisions which would have hurt me the least

 

You need to have some kind of savings plan in place to cover any shortfall.

 

It is obvious from my post that my income and outgoings are so tight. Do you honestly think that I am in a position to save? Not everybody has excess income that we can put in an ISA every month. Maybe that's why you sympathise with banks so much - the more they can generate profits by whatever means necessary then the better your investments perform.

 

Hopefully this was an important lesson for the future.

 

Lesson learnt. Unprofitable riff raff like me should not be allowed a bank account and deserve to be shafted by every large billion pound plus institution there is

[avocados]

Anyway. Mini rant over, sorry but his/her post made me angry.

 

I have decided to go to the Ombudsman first as I can't afford to go to court. Letter has been sent

 

Thankyou

[psyduck]

Having read your letter I do also think you may be fighting a losing battle in some ways.

 

You said that they “chose” to charge you four times instead of once. They do have a right to make a charge per payment. Did you say they did not levy this charge for the largest standing order at all, or that they should have rejected the largest standing order, charged you, and ignored the others? As it’s in their terms they can charge per rejected transaction, this may well be pivotal.

 

How much notice did you give them to cancel the standing orders, and did you check that this tallies with the minimum amount of notice they require in their terms and conditions?

 

Where you referenced their statement that they are “under no obligation to consider your financial difficulties”, they will probably argue that unless you are in serious financial distress they don’t have to. My interpretation is that they will only do the minimum they have to and that involves situations where accounts are in serious arrears and so forth. I don’t think they have to do this over a few unpaid standing orders, especially given you had money coming into the account. They would argue this gave them no reason to believe you were in difficulty.

 

Given you threatened legal action in the last letter I think they will be expecting you to go to court. Banks welcome litigation like this and they have defences for each point you raised, they will successfully be able to defend each count.

 

So to sum up, them charging you four times isn’t acting in their interest, it is them acting under the Terms and Conditions of the account you signed up to. Standing Orders are different to Direct Debits as they act under your instruction. I would check the minimum time needed to cancel the orders as this may be a way of clawing back the charges they made on the SO’s you tried to recall, but apart from that they’ve gone by the book.

 

Rebel’s advice is what I would follow if you want another route, they have said the FOS agree with them so I don’t think you would be successful going to them. Sorry if that’s not what you want to hear, but that’s just how I see the situation.

 

Good luck

[Klandestine]

I was not going to bite but from posts here and previous ones you have made you appear to be a bank sympathiser

 

 

I came on here for advice to attempt to increase my chances of success

 

Not a sympathiser at all. I'm neutral - I've never had a problem with any of my banks.

 

Sorry but they only had ££££££ in mind with the decision they made

 

As I have said, whatever you deem fair/unfair another customer will think the opposite.

 

They have taken decisions to maximise their profits by charging the most charges possible instead of taking decisions which would have hurt me the least

 

When I said your bank hasn't done anything wrong I was referring to the £110 transfer your friend made.

Please don't take my words out of context and then try to use them against me.

 

It is obvious from my post that my income and outgoings are so tight. Do you honestly think that I am in a position to save? Not everybody has excess income that we can put in an ISA every month. Maybe that's why you sympathise with banks so much - the more they can generate profits by whatever means necessary then the better your investments perform.

 

You may not think you are in a position to save anything at all - but that is where the members of this forum can help you.

I bet there are multiple options that you haven't even considered yet that could reduce your monthly expenditure.

 

My own financial situation has nothing to do with this.

 

Lesson learnt. Unprofitable riff raff like me should not be allowed a bank account and deserve to be shafted by every large billion pound plus institution there is

 

Bank charges are optional - good financial management means you can totally avoid them.

 

Anyway. Mini rant over, sorry but his/her post made me angry.

 

I have decided to go to the Ombudsman first as I can't afford to go to court. Letter has been sent

 

Thankyou

 

What I said may not be what you want to hear but there is not need to get angry.