Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • My WS as I intend to send it... any problems anyone can spot?         In the county court at Middlesbrough Claim No:  Between Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant) V   (Defendant) Witness Statement Introduction It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of XXnn XXX   Locus standi/bye-laws and Relevant land Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA) allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. However, the first paragraph 1 (1) (a) states that it only applies “in respect of parking of the vehicle on relevant land:”. The definition of “relevant land” is given in paragraph 3 (1) where subsection (c) excludes “any land ... on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”.  The bus stop is not on relevant land because the public road on which that stand is on is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  Notwithstanding that the claimant claims that " the claimant has given the Defendant its contractual licence to enter the site", the claimant has not given any contractual licence whatsoever. This is a road leading to/from the airport which is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  A list of highways on the Highways act 1980 does not even exist. The defendant brings the attention of the court that VCS is using this non existent document issue as a deliberate strategy to debunk the fact that this road is not relevant land. VCS are put to strict proof that it is relevant land not covered by the Road Traffic Act nor by Byelaws. While it is true that landowners can bring in their own terms, it is also true that whatever terms they bring  cannot overrule Byelaws and the Road Traffic Act. If Bye Laws are involved then the bus stop is not relevant land and neither is the specious argument about First Great Western Ltd. Is the claimant ignorant of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012? The road outside of Doncaster Sheffield Airport is not relevant land and is not covered by the Protection of Freedoms Act. That makes the charge against the claimant tantamount to fraud or extortion. The claimant mentions a couple occasions where they have won such cases. It is brought to the attention of the court that none of those cited cases were on airport land. VCS actually has also lost a lot more cases than they have won using their prohibitive signs.  Airport land is covered by Bye Laws and hence the claim by VCS is not applicable in this instance. The remit of VCS ends in the car park and does not extend to the bus stops on public roads or land which they have no jurisdiction over. All classes of people go to the airport. This includes travellers, taxis, fuel bowsers, airport staff, companies delivering food and drink for each aircraft, air traffic controllers and buses with passengers. It is therefore absolutely ridiculous to attribute VCS with any sort of permissions. The defendant submits that VCS should not confuse a major thoroughfare with a car park and presume to act as land owners and usurp the control of any land which is not relevant to them.   Protection of Freedoms Act The clearest point on section 4.1 of the Protection of Freedoms act is that “The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only on private land in England and Wales. Public highways are excluded as well as any parking places on public land which are either provided or controlled by a local authority (or other government body). Any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (such as byelaws applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is also excluded.” Therefore, as this case pertains to an airport, the claimant unlawfully obtained the registered keeper’s details against the defendant’s vehicle. Thus, on this basis alone, the defendant implores the court to throw out this case. Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, the claimant is put to strict proof that they complied with the requirements of section 7 stating, “(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. The notice must — (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” Without such proof the court must of necessity throw out this case forthwith.   Deceit, Intimidation and Extortion The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim include £50 legal costs, yet in the letter dated  03/06/2021, the Claimant stated that they were no longer represented by Elms Legal and all further correspondence should be sent to the VCS in-house litigation department. Why should the Claimant be asking the Defendant to contribute to their employee’s salary?  Furthermore, as per another letter dated 30th July 2021, the Claimant wrote, ‘Should you fail to accept our offer of settlement then we will proceed to Trial and bring this letter to the Court’s attention upon question of costs in order seek further costs of £220 incurred in having to instruct a local Solicitor to attend the hearing in conjunction with the amount claimed on the Claim Form.’ I find this an extraordinary statement given the Claimant knows legal costs are capped at £50 in Small Claims Court. I cannot think of any reason why the Claimant would write this letter other than to intimidate the opposing party with the threat of an extortionate sum of money, hoping they would be able to take advantage of someone not knowing the Small Claims Court rules. Given that this letter came from the Claimant’s in-house litigation department, clearly well-versed in the law, this cannot be anything but deceitful and disingenuous behaviour which the court should never tolerate.    Contractual costs / debt recovery charge  In addition to the £50 legal costs, the Claimant is seeking recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 which is described as ‘debt collection costs’. In the Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 18 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated, ‘Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates […] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law. It is hereby declared […] the claim be struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’  In Claim number F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia v Crosby went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of White & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed the earlier General Judgement or Orders of District Judge Grand stating, ‘It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedom Acts 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998…’ Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 19 51. Moreover, the addition of costs not specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.  It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).  The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known, that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the Civil Procedure Rules, the Beavis Case, the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 and Consumer Rights Act 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.   Alleged contract The court should consider if there is any contract to start with and if the alleged offence is on relevant land. The consideration will inevitably lead the court to conclude that there is no contract.  Also the court should note that there is no valid contract that exists between VCS and Peel. Under the Companies Act, a contract should be signed by the directors of both companies and witnessed by two independent individuals. This alleged contract, which makes no mention of pursuing registered keepers of vehicles to court, makes its first appearance as a Witness Statement. Thus the alleged contract is null and void.  The Beavis case referred to by the claimant is about parking in a car park. The claimant is here attempting to equate that case to stopping, not parking, in a bus stop and on a road that is covered by the Road Traffic Act. The defendant submits that there can be no contract as there is no offer but there is only a prohibition. Again, it is not relevant land and VCS has absolutely no rights over it. Further, the defendant would like to point out that motorists NEVER accept any contract just by entering the land. First they must read it and understand it and then, and only then can they realise that "No stopping" is prohibitive and cannot offer a contract.   Bus stop signage The signs around the bus stop do not mention who issued the “No Stopping” signs so it could not have been issued by VCS since the IPC CoP states that their signs should include the IPC logo and that the creditor should be identified. Nothing on the signs around the bus stop that says “NO Stopping” mentions VCS or Peel Investments who are now purporting to be the land owners of a public road. As the signage should identify the creditor, since it does not, this is a breach of the CoP.   The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 does not prohibit stopping in a restricted bus stop or stand, it prohibits stopping in a clearway. The defendant would like to ask the court to consider if any clause of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 that the claimant alleges has been violated by the defendant. There is no mention of permits on the signage. If there were, would it mean that Permit holders were allowed to stop on “No Stopping” roads? Notwithstanding what the claimant calls it, the mentioned signage is NOT a contractual clause. A “No stopping” sign is not an offer of parking terms.  Since the signage around the bus stop is prohibitive, it is as such is incapable of forming a contract. Further, the defendant would like to point out that the prohibitive sign is not actually at the bus stop but a few metres before the stand itself. There is no mention of a £100 charge for breaching the “No stopping” request, or if there is one then it is far too small to read, even for a pedestrian. As already stated, a Witness Statement between VCS and Peel Investments is not a valid document. It will need more than the Claimants feather to outweigh the case against the Defendant regardless of who was driving. There is no law of agency involved. This is not a case of employer/employee relationship. VCS cannot transfer the driver's liability to the registered keeper. There can be no comparison between a railway station and an airport. This is a totally fatuous analogy which cannot be applied to this case.  As stated in the defence, it is denied the Claimant is entitled to the recovery or any recovery at all. The nefarious parking charge notice given for a vehicle on a public road bus stop was ill advised to start with.   Conclusions:   VCS has failed to present ANY reasonable and valid cause to apply to the DVLA for the Defendants details. VCS has failed to provide ANY valid  contract with the landowners. “No stopping” is prohibitive therefore cannot form a contract the event happened on a bus stop over which VCS has no jurisdiction the signage either does not show that there was a charge of £100 for stopping, or the font size was too small for any motorist to be able to read it  the signage does not show the Creditor which fails the IPC CoP and hence the signage is not valid the WS contract does not authorise VCS to pursue motorists to Court Given all these factors it seems that VCS have breached the GDPR of the Defendant quite substantially and it would appear right that an exemplary award is made against VCS in the hope that they will drop all further cases at Doncaster airport where they are pursuing motorists on non relevant land. The Defendant wishes to bring to the attention of the court that the Claimant cites an irrelevant case of a car park and tries to apply its merits to a bus stop. That in itself invalidates the entire fallacious claim. Accordingly, this case is totally without merit. Some statements are pretty close to perjury and others are designed to mislead or misdirect. None of the analogies seem appropriate or relevant. All the false information presented as a statement of truth could have been stated using half the words and without all the repetition which appears to be trying to build a strong case where there is none at all. One particularly bad example of misdirection is in the photographs. The Clearway sign shown near the bus stop is very unclear unlike the Clearway sign two photos before it which may well include terms and conditions. The one by the bus stop is totally different.   47. Lastly I wish to bring to the attention of the court, a systematic pattern of the Claimant’s court action behaviour in several of their cases. They tend to have a VCS paralegal writing a Witness Statement, then mentioning in the last paragraph of the Witness Statement that they may be unable to attend court and subsequently the paralegals never turn up to be cross examined. In the event that Mohammed Wali is unable to attend court to be asked about his claims, then I would like to know why he is not able to attend when the hearing has been scheduled months in advance, is during working hours and as a result of covid, is online, meaning there is no travel involved. Ambreen Arshad, the other paralegal employed by VCS, does exactly the same. 
    • Hang on. don't panic!   You sent the snotty letter which has told the fleecers to put up or shut up.  So far they've haven't taken you to court.  This might change, but so far you're in the driving seat.  You don't have to deal with them any more.  It's up to them if they have the gonads to start court action or not.   Regarding DCBL, they are not representing their client in the normal way that a solicitor represents a client, because the sums of money involved are too low for that.  They are just chucked a few quid to send a couple of "threatening" letters.  There is no point in dealing with them.   If you want the original PCN send a SAR to UKPCM only.  For the SAR letter simply click on "SAR".   However, the SAR has nothing to do with the 30 days, you've already dealt with that with the snotty letter.  You need to read lots of similar threads and familiarise yourself with the legal process.  CAG is a superb free library.    
    • Hi again, so I will send a SAR to UKPC because I don't remember seeing the  NTK.  Then should I let DCBL know otherwise they will probably issue the court papers but they might hold off if i tell them about the SAR?   what do you think?  I need to do it this weekend or it will be beyond the 30 days.  Otherwise to let it run will definitely lead to a court case perhaps??   Can I get a copy of a SAR letter on here? thanks
    • 👍   One thing, write "unlawful", not "illegal".   Sorry to be pernickety, but "illegal" = "a crime".   "unlawful" = "not in accordance with the law".    They've lied to the DVLA but that's not actually a crime, it's misuse of your personal data which is a civil matter, and you can sue the idiots once your case is over for breach of GDPR, but it's not a criminal offence.
    • Just added also paragraph 11 stating " Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, VCS should prove that they complied with the requirements of section 7 stating, “(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. The notice must — (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” Without such proof the court must of necessity throw out this case forthwith."
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Alliance and leicester fined by FOS for retaliatory account closure


BankFodder
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5018 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

The Ombudsman has just adudicated in a complaint against the A&L on a complaint that they closed a customer account in response to a claim for bank charges.

 

The FOS decided that the closure was indeed unfair as it was punitve and retaliatory.

The awarded £125 against the bank.

 

this is a derisory figure of course but the ruling is highly significant.

 

If you have had your accont closed by any bank because you have cliamed bank charges - or if you have been threatened with account closure then we suggest that you begin an immeiate complaint to the Ombudsman.

 

You will have to get a final decision from your bank first.

 

The more complaints which are made, the more likely the banks are to stop this vindictive and churlish treatment of their customers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

bankfodder

 

thanks for the info

 

can you provide a link to the info with regards to the ruling, so we can have a looksee?

post office WON 12/11/06

 

abbey.LBA sent 30/10/06.MCOL claim submitted 8/11/06.allocation questionnaire sent 16/12/06.schedule of charges sent 16/12/06.WON

 

2nd abbey claim SAR sent 3/1/07.WON.complaint letter sent 18/1/08

 

alliance and Leicester.WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't see anything on the FOS website, itsa, they seem not to publish individual rulings. Maybe BF got it from the complainant.

 

However, there is an interesting letter from the FOS's Jane Hingston to the Independent(?) Banking Codes Review. Draw your own conclusions!

 

news and information

 

Elsinore

BANK CHARGES CAMPAIGN CONTINUES - PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION

 

Aktiv Kapital £300.00 SETTLED IN FULL

Capital One £741.47 SETTLED IN FULL

Citi Cards £1221.00 SETTLED IN FULL

LTSB(personal) £3854.28 SETTLED IN FULL

LTSB(business) £7487.97 SETTLED IN FULL

 

What poor education I have received has been gained in the University of Life

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a copy of the decision. The complainant will himself be putting up a thread in the next few days and the press have just been informed.

 

I suggest that anyone wishing to complain do so immediately - even if one threats have been made.

 

Once people get to know about this there may be a bit of a rush and a backlog may develop.

 

Unfortunately you will have to exhaust the bank's procedures first so it is all timeconsuming.

Still, make the complaint anyway. It creates additioanl pressure and additional awareness - and of course if there is £125 going then it is better in your pockets than in theirs - but you know that, don't you!! :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am so glad that the FOS are finally coming under pressure to pull banks up on this matter.

Clearly in breach of FSA regulations regarding "treating customers fairly".

I think I will be including the ruling in all futute correspondence with the banks that I am dealing with!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have had your accont closed by any bank because you have cliamed bank charges - or if you have been threatened with account closure then we suggest that you begin an immeiate complaint to the Ombudsman.

 

You will have to get a final decision from your bank first.

.

 

Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

 

Regardless, and even though they haven't closed the account so far, I have plenty of evidence against Halifax that they use the threat to try and dissuade people, so that's going to get done ASAP.

 

Thanks for that information, BF. ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Tracey284

Great to see this and am anxious to learn more. HSBC have threatened to close my husband's account and asked for all cheque books, etc. back by mid Feb. This was in answer to us claiming back bank charges. Any direction would be greatly appreciated in complaining to the ombudsman.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great to see this and am anxious to learn more. HSBC have threatened to close my husband's account and asked for all cheque books, etc. back by mid Feb. This was in answer to us claiming back bank charges. Any direction would be greatly appreciated in complaining to the ombudsman.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/43287-financial-ombudsman-recommendation.html?highlight=ombudsman

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Forum,

 

The Financial Ombudsman has awarded me £125 compensation as a result of the treatment I received from Alliance & Leicester when they forcibly closed my account after I sued them.

 

It was not the Adjudicators place to comment on the merits of the original action but nevertheless I was entitled to bring as is my legal right under consumer protection legislation and common law. Consequently Alliance & Leicester are not treating their customers fairly by deliberately deterring such actions with the threat of account closure.

 

I quote verbatim,

 

"He should not be prevented from bringing a legitimate complaint by the threat of having his account closed; nor do I consider it fair or reasonable of Alliance & Leicester to respond to his complaint about charges by closing the account. Alliance & Leicester appears to me to have used the closure of the account as a retaliatory or punitive measure".

 

Suffice to say that this decision was far more satisfying than the £200 I claimed back for bank charges back in June 2006.

 

The key thing to remember is that you have to exhaust the complaints procedure with the firm first of all before you refer to the FOS. You must obtain a 'Final Decision Letter' from the firm that states they cannot do anymore with the complaint and that if you remain disatisfied you can refer the matter to the Financial Ombudsman within 6 months - this is crucial.

 

The FSA rulebook defines what a 'FDL' is and so it must contain these magic words in order for your complaint to be heard by the FOS.

 

Good Luck and all the best

 

Wez1211.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there,

just stumbled across this thread.I recently asked First direct to refund charges, which they, after a lot of secure messaging back and forth, at last have done.ut their last message to me was following:

Message From Bank

-----------------------------------------------

Operator ID : xxxxxx

Date : 04/01/2007

Subject : Account Management (debt Management)

 

Dear jellybabe

 

I'm sorry you've felt the need to write to smile about the charges applied to your account and about the time it's taken to reply to you.

 

After reviewing your complaint a refund of the charges applied to your account has been agreed. As such, a total of £140.00 has now been returned as a gesture of goodwill.

 

I have also adjusted the charges that you will receive notification of on 05/01/07. Please ignore this notification as the charges will not debit your account. Could I please bring to your attention that we will not refund any further charges unless there has been a bank error. Any further requests for a refund (unless bank error) may result in us giving you 30 days notification to close your account.

 

At this stage we are required to let you know that smile will regard the complaint as closed if we do not receive a reply within 8 weeks of this response.

 

If you remain unhappy you may ask for your complaint to be referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Full details are on our website, Redirecting to Smile Production Site / talk to us / complaints.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Jane Cliff

smile Customer Services Manager

well, now i just been informed that they try to charge me another £30 in unauthorised O/D charges, because it took them a week to put the money back into my account, and by then ,of course, the new statement date has passed.

Any advice on what i could do? I don't want them to close my account as i have £500 O/D and won't be able to pay it all back in one go.

Thanks in advance for any advice given.

Link to post
Share on other sites

just subscribing.

 

 

 

 

 

I am not a legal expert my advice is given without prejudice and is purely my opinion only. If you are in doubt please seek professional advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Much thanks for posting this excellent news. This is a great victory, and I am quite surprised that the ombudsman actaully made a decent decision.

If you found this post useful please click on the scales above.

 

Egg - £400 - Prelim sent. On hold.

Mint - On the list Est £800

GE Capital - On the list (3 accounts!) Est £4000

 

MBNA - £545 Prelim sent 13/11/2006

LBA sent 1/12/2006

£350 partial payment received 18/12/2006.

Full settlement received 20/1/07

 

NatWest - Est £4000 not incl interest

Data Protection Act Sent 10/1/07

Statements received 24/1/07

Prelim sent 3/2/07

Full Settlement received 22/2/07

 

The contents of this post are the sole opinions of The Cornflake and not necessarily the opinions of any other members of this group. They do not constitute sound legal or financial advice and if in doubt you are advised to seek advice from a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi can we do the same to egg, they have settled bank charges full refund but have closed , credit account... now paying back balance monthly?????

Only direct action by the masses will work....

 

Look at all successes they have never come from negotiation!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gobsmacked - what a ruling.

 

Excellent victory - time I complained about them closing my account too then :D

 

Cheers

 

Michael

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by BankFodder viewpost.gif

If you have had your accont closed by any bank because you have cliamed bank charges - or if you have been threatened with account closure then we suggest that you begin an immeiate complaint to the Ombudsman.

 

You will have to get a final decision from your bank first.

.

Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

 

Regardless, and even though they haven't closed the account so far, I have plenty of evidence against Halifax that they use the threat to try and dissuade people, so that's going to get done ASAP.

 

Thanks for that information, BF. ;-)

That's the 8 week thing, (put the complaint in writing blah blah, wait for 8 weeks to hear nothing or be fobbed off) the ombudsman are very meticulous about this as i found out recently. I was even asked by the ombudsman to send a letter telling them the 8 weeks had expired.

HSBC closed my account.

This is truly great news. :-D

 

 

HSBC WON three times!!!!! Read about my continuing battle (claim FOUR!) Link HERE

Capital One WON Link

HERE

GE capital (5 accounts) WON link HERE

Lloyds bank account WON second claim starting! link HERE

Budget insurance cough up WON link HERE

Principles WON link HERE

A&L (Mrs Crusher's account) claim link HERE

Barclays claim link HERE

 

Any advice given is on an informal basis only and without prejudice or liability. In in any doubt, consult a qualified lawyer.

IF YOU HAVE GOT YOUR MONEY BACK, PUT SOME BACK INTO THE SITE TO HELP KEEP IT OPEN!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that's fantastic.

 

If anyone fancies a laugh, they could read this:

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Bank bars overdraft charge rebels

 

Well, that backfired a little, didn't it? ;-)

  • Haha 1

If you feel that we have helped you, or you would like to help keep this web site running so that others can continue to get their money back, please click the donate button at the top of the forum.

Advice & opinions of Dave, The Bank Action Group and The Consumer Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

 

------------

 

 

Add me as your friend on FaceBook - I need all the friends I can get :-(

 

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=577405151

 

------------

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lloyds has sent me a closure letter in July, then changed their mind after I spoke with my account manager. Then, in December, after settling my second claim, they have cloed my account, with balance transfered towards my personal loan, without notification, without my agreement or even a courtesy note. I am furious and wrote:

I find it exceptionally disappointing. It is an implied term of the contract between the firm and its customer that the firm will not normally close the customer’s account without giving reasonable notice. The Banking Code says that, in normal circumstances, firms should give customers at least 30 calendar days’ notice before closing their accounts.

 

You have not given me such notice and a previous notice has been rescinded by the Bank.

 

Your decision has caused me great anxiety and inconvenience. The FOS is likely to require the firm to pay compensation .(FSO News, issue 48, August 2005 “banking: when a firm decides to close a customer's account”).

Additionally, around the times of the above mentioned correspondence, the account was in dispute and I have issued a legal action, twice, against your Bank with regards to unlawful penalty charges. The Bank has settled on both occasions. After the first settlement you have threatened with me an account closure but after I spoke to one of your regional managers, we agreed to keep the account open in order to service the personal loan account. After the second settlement you have not even informed me that you have decided to settle my claim in full and you have closed my account. I have checked my account by complete coincidence and realised that you have refunded the money. I was lucky to check as the very next day (or even on the same day; I cannot check anymore because you have not even send me the final statement)- you have closed my account.

 

I could therefore argue that you have closed my account as a malicious, disproportionate reaction to my “penalty charges” complaint.

You have acted against an advice of your own professional body;

The Banking Code Standards Board .

You may want to note that the Ombudsman has just adjudicated in a complaint against the Alliance & Leicester on a complaint that the A&L closed a customer’s account in response to a claim for bank charges.

The FOS decided that the closure was indeed unfair as it was punitive and retaliatory. The FOS awarded £125 against the bank.

 

I am confident I would be able to convince the Ombudsman that I have been affected in a similar way by your decision.

I now request that you issue me with a 'Final Decision Letter' as I intend to take me complaint to the Financial Ombudsman.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I also asked for some clarification on this and got this reply from Emma Parker of the FOS.;

 

"We can and do look at complaints about difficulties in opening bank

accounts - just as we look at complaints about banks closing accounts.

Often these complaints involve other aspects and issues too - for

example, where the consumer has financial difficulties, and problems

have arisen in the relationship between the bank and the customer over

a

period of time. This is why we have to look at each case on an

individual basis, to see whether and how we can help given the

particular circumstances.

 

In the first instance we tell consumers to give the bank or building

society an opportunity to investigate the complaint and sort out the

problem. If this doesn't work - or you're not sure who to get in touch

with at the bank - you can contact us free for help on what to do next."

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantastic News - this is a great step forward and should be quoted / complained about at every opportunity. It is truly wrong that banks can use account closure as a threat and I am grateful to the FOS for taking such positive action. The more official complaints about bank account closures the banks receive and, in turn, are forwarded to the FOS once FDL's are received, the more pressured the regulators will be to make precedent setting decisions and rulings. Don't let up the pressure!

Link to post
Share on other sites

wez1211 - i wanted to let you know that you are a legend as far as i am concerned - congratulations on the ruling!

post office WON 12/11/06

 

abbey.LBA sent 30/10/06.MCOL claim submitted 8/11/06.allocation questionnaire sent 16/12/06.schedule of charges sent 16/12/06.WON

 

2nd abbey claim SAR sent 3/1/07.WON.complaint letter sent 18/1/08

 

alliance and Leicester.WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well thats very encouraging I was wondering what I would do without any credit cards or bank accounts as I have just started this process. I will try to start a thread (if someone explains what to do ) to monitor my progress.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, My OH had an account with A&L, and paypal took money out of her account by direct debit instead of her credit card, she was charged a huge sum of money and was on benefits at the time, she lost £80 that was paid into the account from the jobcentre.

 

She argued for 1 month and they closed her account and cleared the balance, her credit file shows a zero balance with no default.

 

Is it still worth complaining and do you think she will get the £80 back and would the account be re-opened?

 

Thanks

 

Kev

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...