Jamesrap v Hsbc ***WON***

[JOSH_IOU]

Why are you lot using the court system?

 

The ombudsman is free and they do the chaseing for you.

[e28bigalbexley]

Hi James

 

Great idea how much did you win:confused:

[katstel14]

Hi yeh have just decided thats what we are going to do especially as we live in scotland and would have to do several claims instead of just one.

This way definately sounds the best and the easiest.

Can you tell me if you claimed through these chanels and if so how did you go about it.

Thank you

[JOSH_IOU]

you must first write to the company and allow 40 days for them to reply.

 

You must ask for the charges back and you can claim the 8% interest you would ask for in court.

 

Depending if the company responds or not will dictate how to fill in the ombudsman's complaint form.

 

Remember the complaint is they did not refund the requested money.

and when filling in the form you say (all charges + %8 Interest)

 

Download the complaint form on the Financial Ombudsman's website.

 

For the record I won 2.5 Grand

[e28bigalbexley]

Well done james,

but the 8% is Stautory Interest under the County Courts Act Sec 69, and should not be filed until you actually go to court.

And perhaps if you could post in the relevant banks?credit card forum it may help.

 

AL

[JOSH_IOU]

well I did and i won it.

without going to court

[e28bigalbexley]

AS i said well done.

But i dont think it is the correct way to go about it.

What bank was it?

[JOSH_IOU]

well if you can get an increase in posts this way so can I.

 

HSBC

[diane11]

Hi jamesrap. How long did your claim take to be resolved through the ombudsman service.

[JOSH_IOU]

24 days.

 

But that was because HSBC were fast to respond to the claim.

 

The ombudsman gives them 8 weeks.

[mazza1970]

In 2000 I successfully got £2000 back of the Abbey by complaining about them to the ombudsman

[Deller]

Really

[JOSH_IOU]

Congratulations Mazza

 

The ombudsman is one of our many tools in our arsenal

[diane11]

The FSA also give the banks 8 weeks to give a final response but as they have proved in my case the banks dont have to follow this if they choose not to. They then just refer you to the Ombudsman who has quoted "months" to resolve my complaint. Maybe they just give you the worst senario first. Hope mine is resolved as quickly as yours.

[Trish76]

MORE LIKE NOT

[mazza1970]

I had an old account with them, I owed them money for an overdraft with them, I was paying it off at £20 per month, had everything to prove that I had been paying, then out of the blue I get a letter from a DCA saying I hadn't been paying anything! I got in touch with Abbey and they said they hadn't received any payments and they had sent me letters to tell me so, which was a lie as I hadn't received anything of them. Anyway, to cut a long story short, I took my complaint to the ombudsman, showed them proof I had been paying, copies of the threatening letters of the DCA -which was Wescot, and also told the ombudsman I hadn't received any correspondence of the Abbey. It took about 4 months to sort out, but I got the overdraft that I owed the Abbey written off and £2000 compensation

[jonni2bad]

Hi Jamesrap

 

Many thanks for highlighting some issues here.

 

The FOS is, in case anyone did not know, the governing body of the banking sector (among others). It deals with complaints that have not been settled between customers and their banks - bank charges is a case in point but they do much more also.

 

I think, however, that it might be misleading to suggest that simply because you were awarded the interest you claimed (and of course, we take you at your word) that this would mean it is standard practice.

 

To the best of my knowledge, it is not. I sincerely hope it might become so, but I have to say I believe it is unlikely.

 

As e28bigalbexley has mentioned above, the 8% interest issue is not a 'right' but merely a request of the claimant at court stage that a Court might award - I see no real reason why it should not, but it is actually a decision for them to make.

 

We also recommend court action since, in our experience, the FOS is not willing to take any direct action against their members, despite the fact that 1000's are complaining. There is far greater impact for the 'cause' of reclaimers if the banks are seen to be defeated in the court process and this also helps other claimants as it can be used to show the operating nature of banks in defending.

 

The FOS complaints are effectively behind closed doors, and publicity of any 'wins' through that system is limited, to say the very least.

 

Remember too that court costs are recoverable so in the end there is no difference to the claimant. Certainly it could be argued that the initial outlay might seem to be a problem for some, but it is also true that those who have financial hardship can have their court costs waived.

 

There is also no data to suggest that all claims through the FOS have been successful, or that claims are paid in their entirety. This may be true, but without knowing it, we could hardly be doing our members any justice in promoting it as the way forward.

 

Hopefully that explains why we do not do so.

[JOSH_IOU]

Thank you for your lengthly response.

I understand you want to give your clients/members the most succesful way of claiming and the most common way.

 

And i obviously agree that the %8 should be awarded as part of the ombudsman's claim.

 

As they will un doubtly need to pay this when the claim gets to court.

 

I understand and support your freedom of information policy.

[diane11]

hi jonni2bad, I understand what you are saying that there is a proven method to get your cash and that it is documented. However, how many people are going to have to go through the court system to get their own cash? Surely the courts will end up clogged up like the Ombudsman service. Why are folk having to fight for THEIR money either through the court or Ombudsman service if the OFT have already ruled the charges as unlawful? Surely one win is as good as 1000 or 10000. How many people will it take before there is and end to the whole fiasco? If a government body has made this rule that the charges are unlawful then surely there is someone above the OFT and the FOS who could make sure that companies comply to the government rulings. Maybe someone should start a petition at number 10! Lets face it the whole issue has been well documented in the media and I for one would be surprised if there was anyone left out there who didn't know about it. My point is that it shouldn't take the whole country to sort this out one by one. The government should step in and do it for everyone. After all they started it!

[diane11]

Hi all, didn't notice jonni2bad had gone offline. Does anyone else agree with my comments?

[JOSH_IOU]

Hi dianne there are already petition's at no 10

[jonni2bad]

...However, how many people are going to have to go through the court system to get their own cash? Surely the courts will end up clogged up like the Ombudsman service...

 

It is not currently showing signs of being clogged, but it would only serve in our own interest if it did so! Judges would have no option but to see that the banks' defence policy is flawed and this would, I believe. help to push the issue of strike-outs or Orders that would rule in our favour and bring each case to an end more speedily.

 

Going through the courts in much greater numbers would also serve 2 other purposes...

 

1. To show to many more people that the court process is nothing to be afraid of - that it serves us 'everyday folk' and helps us to right a wrong

 

2. The costs to banks would increase substantially. Not only would they have to pay interest, but also the court fees and the associated costs of administering the claims.

 

 

...Why are folk having to fight for THEIR money either through the court or Ombudsman service if the OFT have already ruled the charges as unlawful?...

 

Because your MPs are not prepared to stand up for you in any significant manner, and your Government does not take the issue seriously enough, or is simply afraid to act because of any number of issues.

 

Also, the OFT have not actually stated that the charges are unlawful. They did suggest a cross reference to banking charges, but their statement on these in detail is not due for release until next month. Don't hold your breath for any teeth in that response though...

 

Charges, in themselves, are not unlawful - only the level of charges because it is a penalty and more than the actual costs that they have suffered.

 

...Maybe someone should start a petition at number 10!

 

I think we have seen how little respect the Government pays to its own petition website.

1.8million motorists have just been ignored. They would not take it seriously as per above reply.

 

...I for one would be surprised if there was anyone left out there who didn't know about it...

 

Sadly this is not the case, and even some of those who do know a little about the issues still do not feel compelled to act.

 

We fight on, however

[JOSH_IOU]

The response from the ombudsman to recent media coverage

see below...

[JOSH_IOU]

20 February 2007

 

The banks are announcing record profits, yet they're still stinging us with big charges.

But there's a way you can ask for some of your money back. It all comes down to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. These regulations mean the banks can't make a profit from their charges. They can only cover their costs, which experts reckon should be a maximum of £4.50. So why do some banks claim up to £35 for a single charge? If they can't explain it, those charges could be unlawful - which is why thousands of people have claimed back their money.

Watchdog has found, however, that some banks are finding their own ways to fight back.

When Chris Harbottle requested from Abbey a list of charges for six years, it only issued 14 months' worth. So he estimated the charges, and when it wouldn't refund them he took Abbey to court. The company didn't turn up and the judge awarded Harbottle the full amount of his claim - over £4,500. But when the deadline to pay came and went and Harbottle still hadn't got his money he issued a warrant of execution to send the bailiffs in. Abbey finally paid.

Karen Wakefield took Lloyds TSB to court to reclaim her credit card charges, after the bank refused to either justify or refund them. The bank waited until the last minute to try to settle with Wakefield, but she said no. The judge said Lloyds TSB had a history of settling claims like these at the 11th hour. He ruled in Wakefield's favour. The bank was to pay her the full amount plus costs - nearly £250. It didn't, so Wakefield filed a warrant of execution to get the bailiffs in. Only then did Lloyds TSB pay up.

After starting court proceedings, Adrian Roberts won back £1,057 from Nationwide before the case went to court. Two days later Nationwide gave him a month's notice that it was closing his account - and it even threatened him with legal action if he didn't comply.

All the banks have told us they’re very clear about their charges, and when you might get them. Some point out that it's the customer's responsibility to stay in credit. If you do, you won't get charges. They deal with complaints about charges on a case-by-case basis.

As for closing down Roberts' account, Nationwide says it's regrettable that it feels it necessary to close an account if a customer takes legal action against it. It only does that because the relationship has broken down. It always gives customers time to make alternative banking arrangements.

[diane11]

Should have checked first!! There is already a petition at 10 Downing street to force the banks to repay unlawful bank charges. Maybe the reason there has been no action is the fact that the petition has only gathered 554 signatures and expires in May! I have signed. Get signing and e-mailing!