Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • this is my draft   In reply to your email on Friday the 18th of June.                Firstly today I have received a letter from Barclays informing me that my monthly mortgage payments have gone up by £143 per month that when you calculate over the remaining term of the mortgage it equates to approximately 24k which is very near to the figure which was assumed by the bank to be my arrears. There was no explanation or calculation attached which I find hard to believe. So after contacting the bank and asking the adviser he confirmed that the bank had added on the amount to cover the arrears ( that don’t exist) so in reality I am going to pay the arrears twice. This below is what the ombudsman told your clients to do but unfortunately they obviously cannot read  I quote From the ombudsman to Barclays   My final decision is that Barclays Bank UK Plc should: · Restructure Mr A’s mortgage as if any arrears balance was added to the main balance of the mortgage and the arrears extinguished upon the inception of the mortgage set out in the mortgage offer dated 29 June 2019. · Amend Mr A’s credit file and any internal records in line with the above – so that any arrears were cleared upon inception of the new mortgage   I have asked the bank on numerous occasions for statements in relation to the so called arrears and  my overpayments  Which add up to a few thousand pounds so I can calculate what is also owed to me. They are refusing to give the statements to me stating that because I have missed payments they do not have to supply them , I don’t believe this is right and is not in line with the banking code of conduct.   The fact that your clients have only just woken up and instructed you is no concern of mine. It is simply a further demonstration of their poor attitude to the interests of their customers and also their disregard for decisions made by the financial ombudsman service.   You refer to a "short delay" but I notice that you are unwilling to give any kind of commitment. Your letter is littered with "as soon as possible" and "in due course". But the ombudsman's instructions are clear.  So are the courts powers under the FMSA 2000. There is nothing to consider no negotiation to be had and no compromises to be made - so why the delay?   Because you have made me feel sorry for you I'll give you an extra week. If it was simply a question of money that hadn't been paid, I would agree. There would be no question of prejudice. However, we are talking here about damage to my credit file which has gone on now for well over a year and a half. Your clients may not care about their own you you are you are you are so so you will you are a you you are a reputation but I certainly care about mine.   The damage to my credit reputation is totally without justification. It is unfair treatment not to mentioninaccurate data processing. It is continuing and your clients are wilfully exacerbating the problem. It's not clear to me whether they are doing this deliberately or simply because of their ineptitude. Do you know? I'm quite happy that you share these documents with the court. Especially your admission that your clients have only just now instructed you despite the fact that this matter has been ongoing for a considerable time. Frankly I would have thought that it would be in your client's interest not to reveal how slack their attitude and procedures are – but that's a matter for you. And incidentally, there will be no question of costs if you simply don't try to put any response or defence. The ombudsman's decision is binding and there'sactually no reason for you to get involved except to hold a dialogue with your client and tell them to get a move on. If your clients instruct you to get involved, then it will be completely unnecessary. This is not a contentious matter. There will be no need for an injunction if your client simply did what they were told by the ombudsman – which they will eventually have to do anyway. I'm preparing the form N322 to apply for an ex parte injunction as we speak. Legal proceedings for statutory breaches of FCA regulations and also the Data Protection Act will follow once your clients have complied with the FCA direction – whether they do it voluntarily or they are forced to by the court. So don't come back and say you didn't know about that either.   Regards,
    • By the way, could you give us the actual email address of the motor complaints thing? You seem to have misspelt it twice so far. Can you doublecheck please
    • Incidentally, at the point of sale or on a website or anything, do they make any claims in respect of the so-called arbitration service run by Alex?
    • Well you save it down by printing it to PDF rather than to your printer. Then you attach the PDF file. I suggest that you send a message to Alex telling him that you know damn well that he is linked with the dealers. Warn him now that when it goes to court (when, not – if) that you will also be exposing their fake little independent arbitration scheme to the judge. Telling also that you will be exposing their fake arbitration scheme to the finance company as well. Telling that as far as he's concerned, he should consider that the game is up on this one   In fact you could tell Blue Motor Finance right now that the motor complaints thing is actually a fake arbitration scheme that is run by associates of the dealers. Explain this to the finance company and tell them that this shows what a crowd they have got caught up with – and the quicker they organise your refund the better because of it goes to court, then you will expose their relationship with this operation
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

NatWest Advantage Gold Package Account Fees - rejected as SB'd Help please **WON**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2176 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

no its from when you realise you can reclaim things .

regardless to whatever reason the OP wanted to close the account in 2009 plays no part.

 

 

I was simply pointing out that any 3yrs rule, if it did apply,

is only effective if the bank actually wrote to the OP regarding the said subject.

 

 

the bottom line here is the time limit runs from when the OP realised, through media publicity

that the packaged account fees 'could' be reclaimed.

 

 

well the earliest media evidence and that same information on many CMC sites

is what I posted above

and that's not outside of 6yrs.

 

 

you need to be careful upon how you interpret time limts

 

 

noticed that on several of your other posts too.

like chargeback, its when the OP became aware they 'could' do something.

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
no its from when you realise you can reclaim things .

 

I'm not disputing this. What do you mean no? I don't think you're reading my posts properly.

 

regardless to whatever reason the OP wanted to close the account in 2009 plays no part.

 

Well it does play a part if it means that chesterpug realised he/she would have grounds to complain.

 

The exact wording in FCA DISP (as I have already posted for you multiple times) is "three years from the date on which the complainant became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) that he had cause for complaint".

And Natwest's argument is that chesterpug did become aware during this meeting in March 2009 that there was cause for complaint. And even if chesterpug didn't realise at this time he/she reasonably ought to have been aware that he/she could complain.

 

 

I was simply pointing out that any 3yrs rule, if it did apply,

is only effective if the bank actually wrote to the OP regarding the said subject.

 

This is simply untrue and doesn't make any logical sense.

 

the bottom line here is the time limit runs from when the OP realised, through media publicity

that the packaged account fees 'could' be reclaimed.

 

well the earliest media evidence and that same information on many CMC sites

is what I posted above

 

Quite obviously chesterpug already realised back in March 2009.

 

In fact the FCA (as per Consultation Paper 10/6) take the opposite view on media publicity and becoming aware that you have grounds to complain. Look at this quote using PPI as an example:

"However, in our view, general media coverage of the PPI issue, including comments or publications by the FSA, would not be enough to have given a consumer the kind of specific ‘constructive knowledge’ (of a potential problem with, and potential financial loss from, the PPI policy sold to them) which is required to trigger the start of the three-year time limit within the DISP rules."

 

and that's not outside of 6yrs.

 

you need to be careful upon how you interpret time limts

 

Surely you mean 3 years. I think YOU need to be careful how you interpret the rules on time-barring.

 

noticed that on several of your other posts too.

like chargeback, its when the OP became aware they 'could' do something.

 

That's because you are mis-informed.

 

A chargeback has nothing to do with becoming aware they 'could' do something. Chargebacks are not complaints-related and they are covered by completely different rules to FCA DISP.

The different card associations have quite clear time limits which they publish in their relevant operating guides.

Link to post
Share on other sites

pray tell me

 

how can the OP reclaim these package account fees

 

 

the FOS didn't even publish they were reclaimable until jan 2014....

 

 

so the OP in the room in 2009 could see into the future.....???

 

 

dx

 

 

the

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
the FOS didn't even publish they were reclaimable until jan 2014....

 

That's an outright lie.

 

so the OP in the room in 2009 could see into the future.....???

 

You wouldn't need to see an article published by the FOS in order to realise that you had cause for complaint.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree, the OP wasnt made aware at this point that they had grounds to complain about a mis-sell.

 

They then realised that they could have been mis-sold the account and decided to raise the complaint.

 

They realised recently and they have 3 years from that point that they could now complain.

 

Its clear... There is no confusion here. Its clear as day to me. I had cause to complain to Lloyds recently about something from 7 years ago about the opening of my Lloyds Account. I had only realised 6 months ago and they upheld my complaint about the account I was "Forced" to have to bank with them.

 

The OP now needs to consider his next steps.

 

Ksmith82; I would suggest for now we stop all this and help the OP and not argue between each other.

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree, the OP wasnt made aware at this point that they had grounds to complain about a mis-sell.

 

I must admit I still disagree with you. He was made aware he had cause for a complaint because he now realised the account was unsuitable.

 

They then realised that they could have been mis-sold the account and decided to raise the complaint.

 

They realised recently and they have 3 years from that point that they could now complain.

 

Its clear... There is no confusion here. Its clear as day to me. I had cause to complain to Lloyds recently about something from 7 years ago about the opening of my Lloyds Account. I had only realised 6 months ago and they upheld my complaint about the account I was "Forced" to have to bank with them.

 

The OP now needs to consider his next steps.

 

Ksmith82; I would suggest for now we stop all this and help the OP and not argue between each other.

 

I definitely agree with you on the last sentence though!

 

It sounds like Natwest may have issued their final response for the complaint, in which case the next step would be the FOS. And the OP would have to counter Natwest's assertion that they should have been aware they had cause for complaint at this meeting in March 2009. So it would be good to explain exactly why you didn't think/know to make a complaint within 3 years of this meeting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I must admit I still disagree with you. He was made aware he had cause for a complaint because he now realised the account was unsuitable.

 

Can see what your getting at, however the point at the meeting was financial hardship, not about whether he was mis-sold the account.

 

If it has only tallied up for him now, the he has ground to complain.

 

Id take it to the FOS and potentially look at the courts.

Could be interesting.

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

your klandestine activities have been rumbled.

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear All thank you for your input.

 

 

Special thanks to dx and fkofilee for your advice. your understanding and interpretation of my case is spot on. To update you, I received an email on Wednesday afternoon from the executive response team which is as follows:

Thank you for your e-mail of 9 June 2015, in which you detail that you remain unhappy with the outcome of your complaint. in light of your comments I will revisit your complaint and I hope to be in a position to respond within the next five business days.

Yours sincerely

Executive Office

Would you respond with any further comments or wait to see what they say?

Much appreciated

Link to post
Share on other sites

Going through a similar situation helping someone with a Adv Gold account that goes back several years.

 

 

Have just received their get lost letter stating that we're out of time (6 years from account open or, if later,

3 years from when we should have realised we had cause to complain).

 

 

In our case they are stating the 3 years commenced from when the bank sent a "review letter" in July 2009

and therefore should have had sufficient knowledge to raise concerns about the account back then, or by July 2012 at the latest.

 

Struggling to locate this so called "review letter" but is it just the standard bumf they send out whenever there is any changes to the benefits

and/or payment increases?

 

 

If so I don't see how they can hide behind the time clock as this account was forced on the condition it had to be taken in order to obtain the overdraft facility

- the benefits of the account all totally useless but needed to be taken to secure the o/d.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the 3yrs ONLY runs from if they send a letter complaint with the CCL stuff I posted earlier.

 

 

and for a date of 2009

 

 

it cant be a CCL letter as that did not come in until after that date.

 

 

its a common dodge many creditors are now using to 'buff off' PPI reclaimants.

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Panther... Wheres my hammer!?!? Its time to go Skullcracking!!!

 

Well, I disagree with their letter, I think that it is still a valid complaint you have, you might need to push toward the FOS>

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In our case they are stating the 3 years commenced from when the bank sent a "review letter" in July 2009 and therefore should have had sufficient knowledge to raise concerns about the account back then, or by July 2012 at the latest.

 

And they can prove it was sent and that you received it ?

 

What a load of cods...get claiming....

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
:lol:

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh don't you worry, this isn't over by a long shot. Thanks for posting about the CCL letters, I'll look into that. Have also come across this which contains some good info which will come in handy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update for you:

 

I received a letter from NatWest today and they have overturned their initial rejection of my complaint and are now upholding it.

 

I have received a full refund of all charges + interest (£1497.03) so a great result!

 

Thank you for your help and advice (especially Dx and Fkofilee)

 

Best wishes

Link to post
Share on other sites

hey great result!!

 

dx

 

 

 

The Consumer Action Group needs help to cover its expenses.

You could help by making a money contribution to http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/paypal.php?go=donate

or by downloading our toolbar and using it to search the web instead of your normal search engine:- http://consumeractiongroup.co.uk/cag_plugin.php

Please help.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...