A New Low.... Please read

[steve5080]

Below is a letter I am about to send to the Chairman Of Nat West.

 

 

 

Dear Sir

 

On arriving home from work today, I was told by my daughter that the standing order for the rent on her student accommodation was not paid by you because of “insufficient funds”: this in spite of the fact that she had transferred the funds online from her Nat West E Saver account to her current account on Saturday 30 December 2006. The standing order would normally go through of the first of the month, however, with the bank holiday she was aware that it would go out on Tuesday 2 January 2007. Because debits are carried out in the morning and credits are processed in the afternoon, she was technically without funds at the moment your computer system processed the transfer. The transfer was denied and a charge of £38.00 has appeared on her account. The funds, of course, appeared in the account the same day.

Fortunately her current landlords agent has been understanding, and is prepared to wait for the cheque that she has posted today: although she is aware that others have levied a late payment charge of their own in such circumstances’.

I am incensed, livid and outraged at such a penalty being applied practically to a student on a tight budget, and when the funds were already in her Nat West accounts. I feel sure that you will tell me in your defence that this is an automated process, however I would like to know how you arrive at a charge of £38.00 for this action. I do not believe that this is a justifiable charge.

I now have nothing but contempt for your bank, you clearly have no regard whatsoever for your customers and are driven by greed for yourselves and your shareholders. I do not believe that you are a fit and proper organisation to have charge of peoples money.

I am passing the details of this matter to the Ombudsman’s Office, Trading Standards, my MP, BBC’s Watchdog and Radio 4 Money Box and the press in general.

This could be called legalised robbery, except that I do not believe that it is legal, it is "unlawfull", and if you think that statement is labile them I invite you to take me to court, I will look forward to the publicity.

 

 

Any comments or suggestions greatfully received

[alexifa]

All true but sadly I don't think they care.

[Guest NATTIE]

Sorry but the funds needed to be transferred on the previous working day before 3:30pm so Friday 29th. If this is the only charge then it will in all likelihood be refunded.

[nevos]

Sad fact but, in the Banks defence perhaps a phone call to them explaining the problem could have avoided all the unpleasantnes.

[PKea]

I'm with Natweststaff on this one. Ive been down this road with Barclays And the Financial Ombudsman, and the funds have to be in place the day before. Its the same for a direct debit.

 

Has your daughter actually spoken to the bank and requested the charge be refunded, before you go all guns blazing?

[steve5080]

No she didn't phone them, she went in person to the branch. They say they can do nothing in the branch. The E Saver account is an internet only account. She was transfering money from one Nat West account to another Nat West account. I bank with IF and when I transfer funds from one account to another it is instant. If they can do it, then why not Nat West.

That said why is anyone here defending Nat West charging £38.00 for this "service" in first place. If you think there is any justification for this, then why are you here

[kippy2]

plus i wouldnt put legalised robbery or theft. they are unlawful completely different. i think you need to tone the letter down a bit if i was sent that i would throw it in the bin. lots of peeps on here have had huge claims to deal with but havent gone down the road like you have.

 

follow the tried and trusted method on here and you will get it back.

[Guest NATTIE]

The branch are correct that the Esaver account is online no branch can do this, and so is IF as well as telephone. Her argument should have been that technically the funds had not left the account at the point that the funds were transferred online on the Saturday, therefore she should not have been charged. If it was a first charge then they could have taken cirumstances into consideration. As for the letting agency charging her, is that not a penalty charge?

[steve5080]

Hi Kimmy

What I said was "this could be called Legalised robbery , except that I do not believe that it is legal,, it is unlawfull"

[cheddar]

Steve the charge is unlawful not illegal and the best thing for her to do is ring them and ask for it back, if they don't agree then to follow the process detailed on the site.

 

Also please can you edit yours posts where you mention theft, we must avoid potentially libelous comments. Thanks and good luck to your daughter, if its her first charge chances are they'll just refund it anyway.

[steve5080]

The branch are correct that the Esaver account is online no branch can do this, and so is IF as well as telephone.

Can you reword this as it makes no sence

the reference to IF is how MY bank work and if they can transfer funds at the click of a mouse, then why can't Nat West. She was transfering money from her Nat West Esaver to Her Nat West Current accounts.

Her argument should have been that technically the funds had not left the account at the point that the funds were transferred online on the Saturday, therefore she should not have been charged.

The funds were already taking out of her Esaver account but not yet in her Current Account

If it was a first charge then they could have taken cirumstances into consideration. As for the letting agency charging her, is that not a penalty charge?

 

And again how do you justify £38.00 For not paying the standing order

[steve5080]

I understand that the word theft should not be used here so I have edited the above posts to read "unlawful" however if they wish to sue me personnelly I will welcome the publicity. If it looks like a dog, smells like a dog and barks like a dog..........

[kippy2]

nobody is justifying the charges just the wordings you use in your letter. theft, illegal they are not.....the correct word to use is unlawful.

[cheddar]

Thank you steve it is much appriciated, we need to avoid such comments as the site can be sued as well as the member, as for nwsm's comments he is merely saying what practises NatWest use, he isn't condoning them. He is trying to explain to you what the process is.

[Guest NATTIE]

IF= Intelligent Finance ie no branches. E Saver is designed as an online account and transfers are immediate although will show on the following working day as being made.

I was stating that her argument could have been. I work for the bank. I know the straight jacket that is put around us in relation to charges.

Just so you know, the bank as a general view will not refund a charge unless there has been a Bank Error which there has not been. It is a first charge so maybe a Gesture Of Goodwill Refund.

 

I am sure you realise, I have never justified the £38 charge on this site in the 2000 odd posts on this site, nor have I ever condoned the charge. The charge is a set charge regardless of amount of DD/SO or cheque.

[marmot]

If a husband and wife both have natwest accounts, and they transfer money between accounts, where does the money actually go? If you look on bankstatements, you will see it goes missing for three days or more. But where does it go?

 

We know there is no real money, just numbers, so where is the money acutally?

[cheddar]

Marmot please can you start this discussion in general banking, it may get more answers there and not clutter up steves thread. Cheers!

 

(ps when i xfer money from mine to hubbys account it happens that second...or so i thought).

[indebtstudent]

Well Re Ombudsmen whether they find for or against you really doesn't matter, if you're twisted like me you will take satisfaction from knowing that every complaint the obudsmen investigate costs the organisation money. I forget the exact amount but I think it's a good few hundred quid...

[Guest NATTIE]

I will answer that one marmot, it depends is the answer as to whether both accounts are at the same branch which is overnight, if they have different branches then it is treated as a BACS payment and takes 3 days or 4 if done after the cut off point for internet payments same day.

[Guest NATTIE]

steve- get your daughter to argue that the payment had not actually left the account and funds were transferred online on the Saturday. If they fail to refund in full then start the CAG way on a Prelim. Hope that helps

[steve5080]

Thanks nwsm, As I stated in my draft letter I am awear that debits are made in the morning and that the credit would not have been applied to the account untill the afternoon. It is the prosses that automatically renders a £38.00 charge, were others, as in the case of her house mates(A&L account), would have transfered outside of bank opening times: A&L did it on the 1st

[Guest NATTIE]

I know the transfer would have shown on the morning of the 2nd if not the saturday, because I know I have had a few occasions when doing other transfers where I have had to send a customer home to transfer funds from an e savings account. That was instantly available although it would not have changed the result of your daughter's payment, which would have shown as being returned on the Saturday morning.(Automated Process and all) Good Luck and as I said I am sure that if not at the branch then a Prelim Letter should see that charge being refunded.

[steve5080]

Thanks for your time guys

[steve5080]

I can't help wondering that if we were a little less nice & polite in asking "please sir can I have my money back, I'll be good from now on", might they get the message that they cannot get away with treating their customers this way. Of couse I realise that it not the fault of the staff on the front line, they have to work within the system, but there must be another way. Prehapes some of us should buy shares, then turn up at the AGM and ask some awkward questions.

[nevos]

Couldnt agree more, we always go to the Bank cap in hand.

 

Many years ago a bank manager who retired helped us in business quite a lot, the cost of the help was the manager wanted to become a none executive director of our business. We felt obliged to agree, the shock was this: The retired manager expected our customers to behave like they were wanting a large overdraft, eventually we had to end the arrangement.

 

I dont ever recall having to wait weeks and months for the charges to be applied however, the current regime of reclaiming with the help of all the good folk here at CAG works so, if it aint broke dont fix it.