Jump to content


help - can they make me repay o/draft with refund


sjude
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5445 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

HI

 

I received a letter of offer yesterday for full amount. Today I sent off letter accepting offer. however when I came home tonight there was a letter from the branch saying I had to contact them regarding a service matter and the subject heading was my overdraft.

 

I am really worried now that the money is going to be paid into my bank account and they are immediately going to take my overdraft away leaving me with nothing!

 

A part of the letter states that" Any charges that properly accrue in the future will be applied to your account in line with our published tarrif and in accordance with your agreement with the bank. Should you be unwilling to accept such charges, then we may need to consider if we are prepared to continue to provide you with your existing banking facilities. Instead we may offer you a simple account that does not offer any borrowing facilites."

 

Now that to me implied that I would only lose overdraft if I refused to accept their conditions, not if I accepted offer.

 

Can they take O/d off me after offering me a refund.

 

Please advise , I was elated last night, now I am very depressed, feel like I have lost a lot of money!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Sjude, today I received a Full and Final settlement offer from RBS. They have until the 25th to lodge a defence to my claim. The settlement letter was accomanied by a cheque made out to my name + my account number:

 

Pay Rss1979 Into Acc 123456789

 

This set alarm bells ringing for the same reason you a worried. My account is overdrawn by by around £750 and the cheque would cover around half this amount.

 

I phoned my branch immediatley and asked how much notice they were oblidge to give me before withdrawing my OD. The member of staff was very suspicious and said that she would need to contact HQ to find out...which confused me! She promised to call me back but didn't bother.

 

I returned the cheque as I was not prepared to accept their settlement terms but still think this is something worth investigating.

"If you owe the bank 100 pounds, you're the one with the problem. But if you owe a million pounds, the bank's the one with the problem."

 

Lord John Maynard First Baron Keynes of Tilton.

 

"If you owe the bank $100, that's your problem; if you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem".

 

John Paul Getty

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

I have just spent time reading through terms and conditions and it says that they would give you WRITTEN notice if they were to demand full repayment immediately so don't know how long this would take. I would guess though that it would maybe give me enough time to get money transferred to other account that I have open. I think it is terrible though that they would make you repay this. It just means that they are in effect winning again!

Link to post
Share on other sites

They're not really winning again are they?, cos the money in your overdraft is money you have had, and if you have got all your charges back it is money you thought you'd lost, so if it pays off some if not all your overdraft at least you have cleared some of your debt. However I reckon you are right you will probably have time to transfer the money to your new account if you are swift enough.

:)RBS - Settled in full -3k
Link to post
Share on other sites

For me it is not so much about avoiding paying the OD as it is my resentment of the bank dictating what I should do with money they have stollen from me!

"If you owe the bank 100 pounds, you're the one with the problem. But if you owe a million pounds, the bank's the one with the problem."

 

Lord John Maynard First Baron Keynes of Tilton.

 

"If you owe the bank $100, that's your problem; if you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem".

 

John Paul Getty

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what you mean! I've just won and got my RBS cheque this morning, my overdraft isn't very large as I opened a new account with 0% overdraft for first year, so have been paying my RBS overdraft off with extra money I had left over each month. I will be writing a cheque though and put it into my new account, the same day I put my RBS cheque into my old account.

:)RBS - Settled in full -3k
Link to post
Share on other sites

but if you haven't paid the money then they haven't stolen it from you have they?

 

The point of claiming is either to get back money you have paid out, or to remove the liability for money they claim you owe ie your overdraft.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know paying off the o/draft would be good, but had money earmarked for other things! Oh well if they do take O/D away I suppose I should look on positive side, it is one less debt!

Link to post
Share on other sites

but if you haven't paid the money then they haven't stolen it from you have they?

 

The point of claiming is either to get back money you have paid out, or to remove the liability for money they claim you owe ie your overdraft.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

 

I think this is a very very naive point!

 

If you are within an agreed OD limit and you credit the account of a regular basis then it is certainly a breach of contract to apply excessive and unwarranted charges.

 

I think that you are over complicating this matter. It's quite simple really, the charges are at best unlawful. It is not for the bank to dictate where the refunded amount should be paid. Any debt you have with the bank (or other financial institution) is an entirely separate matter.

 

I have just had a conversation with a member of branch staff and RBS and she insisted that they would not seek to reduce the OD by the amount refunded as it would be considered "underhand".

"If you owe the bank 100 pounds, you're the one with the problem. But if you owe a million pounds, the bank's the one with the problem."

 

Lord John Maynard First Baron Keynes of Tilton.

 

"If you owe the bank $100, that's your problem; if you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem".

 

John Paul Getty

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone

 

I have just spoken to my branch and the reason they sent the letter was for an annual review of my account to see if they could offer me any other services. So I think I was panicking needlessly. My review of the account won't be until six months! There was no mention of refund on the conversation so I think my account will run as normal..although will be running it better with no charges!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a very very naive point!

 

If you are within an agreed OD limit and you credit the account of a regular basis then it is certainly a breach of contract to apply excessive and unwarranted charges. It matters not what state your account is in, if the bank apply charges that cost more than their losses they're unlawful irrespective of whether you are in unauthorised OD or not.

 

I think that you are over complicating this matter. It's quite simple really, the charges are at best unlawful. It is not for the bank to dictate where the refunded amount should be paid. Any debt you have with the bank (or other financial institution) is an entirely separate matter.Im afraid not, they can offset monies owed to you against debts you owe them by virtue of the contract i think you'll find.

 

I have just had a conversation with a member of branch staff and RBS and she insisted that they would not seek to reduce the OD by the amount refunded as it would be considered "underhand".

 

We will have to agree to differ then, I'm not sure its naive though.

 

Edit re the statement if they you haven't paid it they haven't stolen it comment, in the context of the original post i stand by that comment, however, if they failed to remove the debt or repay the charges then i agree this wouldnt be correct.

 

 

The purpose of the claim in law is to put you back where you were had the wrong not been committed, end of I'm afraid.

 

Unlawful the charges may be, but the civil action you take is primarily not about punishing the bank or compensating you, its about getting you back to where you began.

 

If you haven't actually paid money out and the debt is removed how is that underhand and more to the point why is it naive?

 

Thats the first time i have heard of any of the banks acting in anything like what could be called a civilised manner in respect of charges claims.

 

Incidentally the bank can according to the terms and conditions require the repayment of the OD, authorised or not, at any time, or at least most i have heard of can.

 

So irrespective of your views, the OP needs to realise that if they have an OD and the value of the claim is removed from that OD, authorised or not, then they have been put back to the position they were in if the charges had not been applied to the account.

 

if they can convince the bank to pay them by cheque instead then good for them, but if it went to court they may find themselves on a sticky wicket i believe.

 

Glenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with you Glenn! I was just so pleased to get back money I thought I'd lost forever.I think some people get a bit carried away with the whole concept......

:)RBS - Settled in full -3k
Link to post
Share on other sites

Me.X

 

I woiuldnt disagree that it would be good to get a cheque, but im certain that to try to insist on one is not actually legally supportable unless there are other good reasons why you want the cheque. Edit good reasons may be that you are in a DMP or IVa and so have to distribute 'windfalls' to all your creditors pro rata.

 

I could of course be wrong and its good for people to debate the issues as it helps us all move forward.

 

Glenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most definately. I'd much rather be putting my cheque in my new account, but at least it's making me pay off some of my debt. Like I said before,we are all on here for different reasons, and some will take things further than others. That's what this great site is all about.

:)RBS - Settled in full -3k
Link to post
Share on other sites

however, if they failed to remove the debt or repay the charges then i agree this wouldnt be correct.

 

I don't understand the point you are making.

 

The purpose of the claim in law is to put you back where you were had the wrong not been committed, end of I'm afraid.

 

I agree, but you are suggesting that the removal of an agreed overdraft limit to the value of the refund is acceptable. I would view this action as spite and cannot understand your reasoning.

 

Unlawful the charges may be, but the civil action you take is primarily not about punishing the bank or compensating you, its about getting you back to where you began.

 

Did I suggest that the action was "about punishing the bank or compensating you"?

 

If you haven't actually paid money out and the debt is removed how is that underhand

 

The point is, most charges are applied beyond the agreed OD limit (where an OD exists) and therefore when money is credited to the account a proportion is swallowed up by that charge. Money you will never see again unless you take action.

 

Incidentally the bank can according to the terms and conditions require the repayment of the OD, authorised or not, at any time, or at least most i have heard of can.

 

Really? Then I have been missinformed. What bank are you aware of that remove OD limits with NO notice.

 

So irrespective of your views, the OP needs to realise that if they have an OD and the value of the claim is removed from that OD, authorised or not, then they have been put back to the position they were in if the charges had not been applied to the account.

 

I can only agree with this in part. Of course, offsetting the refund against an existing debt still reduces the customers liability but I feel this is a decision the customer should make.

 

You seem to suggest that the charges we are claiming were only ever debited from an account that was within its agreed OD limit and those charges never tipped the account over that limit. Working with that scenario I would agree you are right.....but that is not the common scenario.

"If you owe the bank 100 pounds, you're the one with the problem. But if you owe a million pounds, the bank's the one with the problem."

 

Lord John Maynard First Baron Keynes of Tilton.

 

"If you owe the bank $100, that's your problem; if you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem".

 

John Paul Getty

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most definately. I'd much rather be putting my cheque in my new account, but at least it's making me pay off some of my debt.

 

I totally agree......I would not encourage anyone to avoid their debts but my point is about not allowing the banks to dictate where the money is put.

 

It seems to me that the banks write their own law on a daily basis. I am not going to allow them to dictate what i should do with money that have "TAKEN" from me. The great majority of my charges have been applied to my account and taken me over my agreed OD limit, these charges are paid as soon as money credits my account.......the OD amount was spent elsewhere and is rightfully owed back........the suggestion seems to be that the OD is made up almost entirely from charges, that simply isnt the case.

"If you owe the bank 100 pounds, you're the one with the problem. But if you owe a million pounds, the bank's the one with the problem."

 

Lord John Maynard First Baron Keynes of Tilton.

 

"If you owe the bank $100, that's your problem; if you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem".

 

John Paul Getty

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glenn UK

however, if they failed to remove the debt or repay the charges then i agree this wouldnt be correct.

 

I don't understand the point you are making.

I said originally that if you haven't paid any money out then they haven't in fact stolen anything, however, if you claimed and they refused to remove/refund the charges then they wold have effectively stolen something form you.

 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glenn UK

The purpose of the claim in law is to put you back where you were had the wrong not been committed, end of I'm afraid.

 

I agree, but you are suggesting that the removal of an agreed overdraft limit to the value of the refund is acceptable. I would view this action as spite and cannot understand your reasoning. The reasoning is simple, whatever you call the money you ow e the bank, its a debt, reducing your indebtedness to the bank by returning the charges and associated interest puts you back where you were. in other words if you had not had the charges in the first place your agreed OD would be smaller, or at least in theory.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glenn UK

Unlawful the charges may be, but the civil action you take is primarily not about punishing the bank or compensating you, its about getting you back to where you began.

 

Did I suggest that the action was "about punishing the bank or compensating you"? No you didn't, i was simply highlighting what the propose of the claim is.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glenn UK

If you haven't actually paid money out and the debt is removed how is that underhand

 

The point is, most charges are applied beyond the agreed OD limit (where an OD exists) and therefore when money is credited to the account a proportion is swallowed up by that charge. Money you will never see again unless you take action. Im sorry i dont get this point, if the bank applies a charge and then reverses the charge the account balance remians unchanged, however in our cases the bank doesnt reverse the charge until you make a claim against them. Are you saying that there is some fundemental difference between the two cricumstances?

It seems to me that what you are arguing for is that rather than reverse the charges the bank should in fact sned you a cheque to do with as you please and i dont think thats what you mean, but it is the effect.

 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glenn UK

Incidentally the bank can according to the terms and conditions require the repayment of the OD, authorised or not, at any time, or at least most i have heard of can.

 

Really? Then I have been missinformed. What bank are you aware of that remove OD limits with NO notice. Abbey can according to my T&C and i believe most can, incidentally another of their tactic is account closure, abbeys T&C say they Will try to give 30 days notice as i recall. Notice the effective word 'try'.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glenn UK

So irrespective of your views, the OP needs to realise that if they have an OD and the value of the claim is removed from that OD, authorised or not, then they have been put back to the position they were in if the charges had not been applied to the account.

 

I can only agree with this in part. Of course, offsetting the refund against an existing debt still reduces the customers liability but I feel this is a decision the customer should make. I don't agree, if the bank imposes a charge on an account and you ask them to remove it and they do, why should the customer get a cash benefit to spend elsewhere leaving the debt in place? You may argue of course that the OD is authorised and thats fine, but removing the charge still leaves the claimant in the same position as before ie they have agreed OD limit which now has the value of the charge left in it to spend if they so choose.

 

You seem to suggest that the charges we are claiming were only ever debited from an account that was within its agreed OD limit and those charges never tipped the account over that limit. Working with that scenario I would agree you are right.....but that is not the common scenario. No I'm not, I'm saying it doesn't matter whether the account was in auth or unath OD, if they refund the charges to the account it puts the claimant back where they were had the charges not been levied.

IMHO the only way the claimant can ask for cash/cheque from a lawful persepctive is if they have acutally paid the charges out.

this would obvioulsey arise if they had paid off any OD or the account was vclosed and any balance owing paid back.

Oh of cousre if the charges exceed the value of the od then they would be entitled to the difference by way of cheque whatever.

HTH

Glenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand where you are coming from! And I wish you luck, if people like your goodself didn't push for what they believe in then this site would not have grown into the success it has. New things are coming up all the time!

:)RBS - Settled in full -3k
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glenn UK

however, if they failed to remove the debt or repay the charges then i agree this wouldnt be correct.

 

I don't understand the point you are making.

 

I said originally that if you haven't paid any money out then they haven't in fact stolen anything, however, if you claimed and they refused to remove/refund the charges then they wold have effectively stolen something form you.

 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glenn UK

The purpose of the claim in law is to put you back where you were had the wrong not been committed, end of I'm afraid.

 

I agree, but you are suggesting that the removal of an agreed overdraft limit to the value of the refund is acceptable. I would view this action as spite and cannot understand your reasoning. The reasoning is simple, whatever you call the money you ow e the bank, its a debt, reducing your indebtedness to the bank by returning the charges and associated interest puts you back where you were. in other words if you had not had the charges in the first place your agreed OD would be smaller, or at least in theory.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glenn UK

Unlawful the charges may be, but the civil action you take is primarily not about punishing the bank or compensating you, its about getting you back to where you began.

 

Did I suggest that the action was "about punishing the bank or compensating you"? No you didn't, i was simply highlighting what the propose of the claim is.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glenn UK

If you haven't actually paid money out and the debt is removed how is that underhand

 

The point is, most charges are applied beyond the agreed OD limit (where an OD exists) and therefore when money is credited to the account a proportion is swallowed up by that charge. Money you will never see again unless you take action. Im sorry i dont get this point, if the bank applies a charge and then reverses the charge the account balance remians unchanged, however in our cases the bank doesnt reverse the charge until you make a claim against them. Are you saying that there is some fundemental difference between the two cricumstances?

 

It seems to me that what you are arguing for is that rather than reverse the charges the bank should in fact sned you a cheque to do with as you please and i dont think thats what you mean, but it is the effect.

 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glenn UK

Incidentally the bank can according to the terms and conditions require the repayment of the OD, authorised or not, at any time, or at least most i have heard of can.

 

Really? Then I have been missinformed. What bank are you aware of that remove OD limits with NO notice. Abbey can according to my T&C and i believe most can, incidentally another of their tactic is account closure, abbeys T&C say they Will try to give 30 days notice as i recall. Notice the effective word 'try'.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glenn UK

So irrespective of your views, the OP needs to realise that if they have an OD and the value of the claim is removed from that OD, authorised or not, then they have been put back to the position they were in if the charges had not been applied to the account.

 

I can only agree with this in part. Of course, offsetting the refund against an existing debt still reduces the customers liability but I feel this is a decision the customer should make. I don't agree, if the bank imposes a charge on an account and you ask them to remove it and they do, why should the customer get a cash benefit to spend elsewhere leaving the debt in place? You may argue of course that the OD is authorised and thats fine, but removing the charge still leaves the claimant in the same position as before ie they have agreed OD limit which now has the value of the charge left in it to spend if they so choose.

 

You seem to suggest that the charges we are claiming were only ever debited from an account that was within its agreed OD limit and those charges never tipped the account over that limit. Working with that scenario I would agree you are right.....but that is not the common scenario. No I'm not, I'm saying it doesn't matter whether the account was in auth or unath OD, if they refund the charges to the account it puts the claimant back where they were had the charges not been levied.

 

IMHO the only way the claimant can ask for cash/cheque from a lawful persepctive is if they have acutally paid the charges out.

 

this would obvioulsey arise if they had paid off any OD or the account was vclosed and any balance owing paid back.

 

Oh of cousre if the charges exceed the value of the od then they would be entitled to the difference by way of cheque whatever.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

 

In my case I had to take out a personal loan to pay off the unauthorised overdraft. They threatened with court action unless I did basically. So I have directly paid for the charges and incurred a high interest personal loan solely because of the unlawful charges.

 

This is why I want to control the settlement money

 

Baslow 138

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my case I had to take out a personal loan to pay off the unauthorised overdraft. They threatened with court action unless I did basically. So I have directly paid for the charges and incurred a high interest personal loan solely because of the unlawful charges.

 

This is why I want to control the settlement money

 

Baslow 138

 

No one is saying that you are wrong to want it its whether you are entitled to insist on it.

 

glenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

More often than not, your overdraft (rightly or wrongly) gets increased beyond what, in normal circumstances, you would be financially entitled to in order to turn your unagreed overdraft into an agreed overdraft. What happened to me was the overdraft was increased increased increased until I was way over what I should have so they force me to take out a loan.

 

But if you are grossly overdrawn, the crediting of the money to your bank account will then give them the opportunity to reduce your overdraft to it's rightful state (if it is still over what it should be). Whether it's sour grapes or not is neither here nor there - it is in all fairness an attempt at responsible lending.

 

Baslow, if you were forced to take out a loan, there is grounds for you to claim back the interest from this loan. The money that the debt was taken out for needs to be solely made up of charges however. Worth looking into? And secondly to answer your question, yes they can, it is possible however I have not seen THAT many threads in the RBS forums where this has happened. If you are currently grossly over what you normally would be entitled to they might have grounds to do it, just the same as they might have grounds to close your account but that is all part of the risk you take.

 

No offence guys, but is arguing the toss beneficial to the OP??

If my post has been useful, tip my scales and let me know

 

Always start with the User guide!

Stuck with RBS charges? Click here!!

 

RBS CA1 £2794 SETTLED!!! RBS CA2 £503 SETTLED!!! HBOS CC £498 SETTLED!!! Barclaycard £705 (with CCI) ONGOING!!! NATWEST CA ONGOING!!! LLOYDS CA x 2, CC, LOAN ONGOING!!! HFC LOAN ONGOING!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I've been editing that loads cos it was all to pot.....

If my post has been useful, tip my scales and let me know

 

Always start with the User guide!

Stuck with RBS charges? Click here!!

 

RBS CA1 £2794 SETTLED!!! RBS CA2 £503 SETTLED!!! HBOS CC £498 SETTLED!!! Barclaycard £705 (with CCI) ONGOING!!! NATWEST CA ONGOING!!! LLOYDS CA x 2, CC, LOAN ONGOING!!! HFC LOAN ONGOING!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The purpose of the claim in law is to put you back where you were had the wrong not been committed, end of I'm afraid[/Quote]

I agree, but you are suggesting that the removal of an agreed overdraft limit to the value of the refund is acceptable. I would view this action as spite and cannot understand your reasoning.

The reasoning is simple, whatever you call the money you owe the bank, it’s a debt, reducing your indebtedness to the bank by returning the charges and associated interest puts you back where you were. In other words if you had not had the charges in the first place your agreed OD would be smaller, or at least in theory.

If you haven't actually paid money out and the debt is removed how is that underhand

The point is, most charges are applied beyond the agreed OD limit (where an OD exists) and therefore when money is credited to the account a proportion is swallowed up by that charge. Money you will never see again unless you take action.

Im sorry i dont get this point, if the bank applies a charge and then reverses the charge the account balance remians unchanged, however in our cases the bank doesnt reverse the charge until you make a claim against them. Are you saying that there is some fundemental difference between the two cricumstances?

 

It seems to me that what you are arguing for is that rather than reverse the charges the bank should in fact sned you a cheque to do with as you please and i dont think thats what you mean, but it is the effect.

incidentally the bank can according to the terms and conditions require the repayment of the OD, authorised or not, at any time, or at least most i have heard of can.

Really? Then I have been missinformed. What bank are you aware of that remove OD limits with NO notice.

Abbey can according to my T&C and i believe most can, incidentally another of their tactic is account closure, abbeys T&C say they Will try to give 30 days notice as i recall. Notice the effective word 'try'.

 

So irrespective of your views, the OP needs to realise that if they have an OD and the value of the claim is removed from that OD, authorised or not, then they have been put back to the position they were in if the charges had not been applied to the account. [/Quote]

I can only agree with this in part. Of course, offsetting the refund against an existing debt still reduces the customers liability but I feel this is a decision the customer should make.

I don't agree, if the bank imposes a charge on an account and you ask them to remove it and they do, why should the customer get a cash benefit to spend elsewhere leaving the debt in place? You may argue of course that the OD is authorised and thats fine, but removing the charge still leaves the claimant in the same position as before ie they have agreed OD limit which now has the value of the charge left in it to spend if they so choose.

You seem to suggest that the charges we are claiming were only ever debited from an account that was within its agreed OD limit and those charges never tipped the account over that limit. Working with that scenario I would agree you are right.....but that is not the common scenario.

No I'm not, I'm saying it doesn't matter whether the account was in auth or unath OD, if they refund the charges to the account it puts the claimant back where they were had the charges not been levied.

IMHO the only way the claimant can ask for cash/cheque from a lawful persepctive is if they have acutally paid the charges out.

this would obvioulsey arise if they had paid off any OD or the account was vclosed and any balance owing paid back.

Oh of cousre if the charges exceed the value of the od then they would be entitled to the difference by way of cheque whatever.

 

You seem to insist over and over again that this overdraft has to be paid back immediately. I am sure that many of us live in out overdrafts, not ideal but thats how it is.......why should I be forced to pay back my overdraft with the charges refund? I do have an agreement with the bank which allows me to use that OD amount.

 

Really, that fact that these charges are applied when I am in my OD is irrelevant. It's simply a starting point, whether my account is £100 in credit or £100 in debt the fact is that when an unlawful charge is debited from the account the bank is denying me access to funds I am legally entitled to. END OF!

 

Take the example that was given to me.......If my account has an agreed OD limit of £100 and I start with a nil balance. I need to spend £100 on some new tyres for my car and cannot wait till payday so I use my OD.

 

Now my balance is -£100, still within my agreed OD limit.

 

I forget that I have paid for some milk with my debit card and when the payment clears it takes me over my OD limt, new balance is -£101.00.

 

Now, Mr. RBS rewards himself for lending me an extra £1 and charges me £29.00.

 

Balance is now -£130.00.

 

Payday comes round and I am paid £200.

 

Balance is now £70

 

but wait, I am down £30..........£29 of which is in Mr RBS's pocket......

 

Now you are suggesting that when Mr County Court Judge tells Mr RBS to give me my money back he should actually just reduce my OD by £29 making the facility £71.

 

I just don't understand................unless you are Mr RBS????

"If you owe the bank 100 pounds, you're the one with the problem. But if you owe a million pounds, the bank's the one with the problem."

 

Lord John Maynard First Baron Keynes of Tilton.

 

"If you owe the bank $100, that's your problem; if you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem".

 

John Paul Getty

Link to post
Share on other sites

.....No offence guys, but is arguing the toss beneficial to the OP??.........

 

Thats the way I have learnt what I know, from reading peoples debates....I don't think many of us are legally trained so it all comes down to constant examination and re-examination of what we think we know/understand....

 

I hope that i havent caused anyone any difficulties!!

"If you owe the bank 100 pounds, you're the one with the problem. But if you owe a million pounds, the bank's the one with the problem."

 

Lord John Maynard First Baron Keynes of Tilton.

 

"If you owe the bank $100, that's your problem; if you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem".

 

John Paul Getty

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...