Claiming on a Business account? Lets join forces?

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi,

 

Sorry cant get rid of that face with the sunglasses on, really don't know why!!!

 

TheyrCriminals

[Goldlady]

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Goldlady,

 

No I don't that's why we made the Subject Access Request. I have been down this road before and even though it is a business account we did rely on one part of the Data Protection Act (1998 ) to force Barclays to hand over the statements (I forget which part of the Act it was) even though it was for a company. This time it is not a company but a partnership business.

 

TheyrCriminals

[photoman]

Theyrcriminals

 

Okay.

 

A Subject Access Request is for information regards a "Subject".

 

If they hold information on a company, and you are the director of that company, then it could be argued that that is information that should be revealed under such a request.

 

However, how far reaching this is, and what information this encompasses is a a bit vague. Whether this would include statements I am unsure about?

 

It could be argued, that this stuff should be included (particularly if the statements were headed and sent directly to either of you.

 

The other issue is the joint partnership issue. If you were both down as recipients of statements, then this might raise some privacy issues, and you may ned to provide evidence of some joint consent.

 

This all sounds a bit tricky, and I'm unsure were you should go here really. Perhaps others may have a better idea?

 

Regards trying to force compliance through the courts.

 

I have been down this route, and actually had a court appearance regards it.

 

The outcome was, that in order for a judge to issue directions for ordering compliance, then he must be aware of a cause of action "that has some chance of success". Without a cause of action he unlikely to issue such. In my own case, he would not accept a simple plea of planning to take action over bank charges, as he believed that such a case was likely to be stayed, and possibly even fail anyhow.

 

One other possible route is the CPR route?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/173201-why-you-shouldnt-use.html

 

This might be possible to adapt for SAR purposes for info such as statements etc.

 

But again, you would ned to identify an ongoing action or a planned action, so might run into the same problems?

 

The other issue with both routes, is the costs implications.

 

If you fail to get directions or compliance, you could then end up facing the other sides costs in dealing with the action.

 

These could be substantial.

 

Have a look at the thread above, and perhaps others may comment too.

 

Regards

 

Photoman

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Photoman,

 

Thank you so much for your reply and thanks for understanding what help I was seeking!! Your post is very helpful and has given plenty to consider.

 

Thanks again.

 

TheyrCriminals

[MARTIN3030]

Hi Again,

 

Also heard that something might be happening about the test case on the 29th January, does anybody know anything?

 

TheyrCriminals

 

I havnt heard anything and there does not seem to be anything in the media or OFT press releases.

My guess is that this is reference to the Waiver,which is due to expire on this date.

I dont suppose for a minute that theres any question of it not being extended-but it would be great if the FOS did their job in opposing the renewal of those who had breached their obligations under the existing one.

In particular Lloyds TSB who have repeatedly refused to comply in hardship cases.Time to kick A **

[roscodog18]

I hope someone can offer advice.

 

I have a business claim currently stayed pending the test case.......should I apply to have the stay lifted? Or sit tight?

 

Thank you

 

Roscodog

[hsbcfiddled]

I hope someone can offer advice.

 

I have a business claim currently stayed pending the test case.......should I apply to have the stay lifted? Or sit tight?

 

Thank you

 

Roscodog

 

Test case is personal accounts only.

[MARTIN3030]

Will do no harm to try.I as well as others,have had the stay lifted.The problems are that the banks will contest it saying that there are still decisions awaited.

Rulings on unfair penalties at common law was ruled in favour of a number of banks,a decision was held over on others including RBS,pending them giving the court more detailed information.The results of that still remain to be announced.

My own claim relates to historical charges,and so terms and conditions.

My arguement when it comes to trial,will be that the Judges in the test case looked at recent terms and conditions of current accounts,which differ significantly to historical business accounts.

Its still new ground and so no one is clear.However there are reports of some business claims being settled out of court following stays being lifted and hearings given.

[steven4064]

Roscodog

 

How much is the claim for?

[roscodog18]

£3515 plus interest ......going back to 1994! At date of service including interest this took it to over £8500..........part of Eversheds defence stated that without admiting liability.....blah blah blah they had arange a refund of all charges within the 6 year period.....never arrived then the stay was imposed.

 

I have been looking at my stayed claims again..my marriage after 19 years has ended and the financial pressure applied by banks is a large contributory factor in this.

 

roscodog

[steven4064]

How much do the last 6 years' charges come to (with and w/o interest)?

[photoman]

Just wanted to say that I've just noticed the NEW homepage !!

 

Looks FAB.... well done guys !!

 

Thought, I'd just mention it here to bring more peoples attention to it.

 

There is a link in everyones ID, or just go here:

 

The Consumer Forums - Welcome to the The Consumer Forums

 

Remember, if you win something back, win a fight, or even just get some pressure and strain taken off you as a result of the help and advice here, DO try to give something as a donation.

 

CAG is unique, in that there is no set charge or even % should you win, it knows that everyone's means are different, and also money is tight for a lot of visitors.... but DO please try to give something, whatever you can reasonably afford, so that this site can carry on helping others like yourself.

 

Long live the CAG !!

 

Regards to all.

 

PM

[photoman]

..... However.... what's happened to the little bar that told you who else was on the same thread ?

 

....Was quite handy to know when posting, that you weren't just talking to the ether !!

 

PM

[Goldlady]

Have just had a look at the new homepage - it is rather splendid. I never go there as just look under user control panel and new posts.

 

And you are right - where has that little bar gone?

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Guys,

 

Can anyone who has managed to get more than 6 years worth of statements from Natwest Bank plc please tel me how they did it. I know that some people have managed to do this. I have received a letter from Natwest stating that they can only provide 6 years worth. I think this is unacceptable and I know other people have managed to go back further and therefore it appears that Natwest do keep record for more than 6 years. Can anyone help at all?

 

TheyrCriminals

[photoman]

You could try this approach ?

 

Issue a CPR for pre-action disclosure.

 

This applies equally so to all information, not just agreements as stated in thread.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/173201-why-you-shouldnt-use.html

 

Have a read of the thread, and pick some brains over there.

 

PM

[photoman]

Looks like some of NatWests' Terms and conditions cold mean that some (at least) of their charges could amount to penalties at common law.

 

The loss of the argument of penalties at common law has been a bit of a blow to business account claimants.

 

However, this ruling would include Business account charges too.

 

So anyone with a business account claim against NatWest from around the period in question should submit a claim.

 

See here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-charges-finance-industry/179659-new-natwest-bank-charges.html

[askl]

Photoman,

 

Hi, me again (£25,400 penalty charges claimed by NatWest).

I have a direction hearing on Wednesday. You may remember from my past postings that the Judge at Lambeth CC ordered NatWest provide a breakdown of their admin charges twice, following direction hearings in April and September. The wording was a bit loose before - and they just listed each charge.

Can we work out the best wording for me to present to the judge on Wednesday so that we can try to prize the actual admin cost of bouncing cheques and administering overdrawn accounts from what is afterall a bank 70% owned by the tax payer.

 

All thoughts welcome....

 

Chears, askl

[photoman]

I have just quickly copied and pasted some stuff I had from some other members posts here.

 

You should really ask around a few others or some advice on this too.

(especially as:

a/ I can't recall how NatWest present their charges in such circumstances.

b/ You must now be wary of using the "charges for breach of contract" angle that Business claimants have been able to use until lately.

 

I'm unfortunately going to be offline for a few days (House move), so you really should get as much advice from all quarters before Wednesday, and compose what you are requesting.

 

 

You should perhaps include something along the lines of:

 

You respectfully request that the court order the Defendant (NatWest) to provide evidence of the following:

 

a) the dates and amounts of all charges levied by the defendant;

 

b) the reason for the charges (eg unauthorised overdraft);

 

(and if NatWest presented the charges to you as being in regards to "costs" or "losses")

 

c) what the defendant's losses are alleged to be;

 

 

 

Then you could maybe also add your reasonings for not believing the Defendants assertions regards "costs":

 

eg:

I estimate the loss incurred by the defendant to be in the region of a minimum of £0.20 to a maximum of £1.75 per each single event.

 

I am unable to provide a more accurate figure at this time, due to the fact that the Defendant, and indeed all of the UK banks, remains highly secretive regarding the mechanisms of their systems and the costs associated in the charging process leading to a charge being made.

 

I am aware of in excess of 100 claims similar or identical in nature to the present case which have been brought against the Defendant bank in the last 18 months. In a significant number of these cases disclosure orders have been made obliging the defendant to substantiate its contentions.

 

It is submitted that the Defendant’s charges are applied by a completely automated and computer driven process. This process consists of a computer system;

 

a) sending a computer generated letter if a customer exceeds authorised overdraft limit (even if by only a few pence) to advise the customer of the charges, or

b)returning a dishonoured cheque plus notice to the customer, or

c) ‘bouncing’ a direct debit or standing order.

 

The costs of Data processing are nominal. Following some research into these processes and their costs I was able to obtain a list of prices from The Data Processing Company UK (Data Processing by The Data Processing Company), which confirm that such costs can be reasonably measured in pence rather than pounds. Please find this list attached in support of this statement as exhibit (insert exhibit number)

It is therefore impossible to envisage how the Defendant can incur costs of £35 by carrying out a completely automated process. Note that the letter received notifying of a charge is identical in every instance, and if multiple charges occurred on the same day, a separate letter will be sent in each instance, in separate envelopes. Two samples of these letters are attached to this statement as exhibit No: (insert exhibit number).

 

 

CYNthesys Disclosures

 

Disclosures were recently made to the BBC and subsequently to Andrew George MP and journalists at a meeting at the House Commons revealing that the Clydesdale, Yorkshire and Northern Banks operated a structured, detailed and auditable system for costing, tracking and refining their costs of conducting various operations within the bank including the processing of such events. The system, which was apparently introduced in 2002 was called CYNthesys- Clydesdale Yorkshire Northern the system.

 

A Yorkshire Bank informant who is a former high level employee at the bank stated on television and in an affidavit that even assuming the highest level of manual intervention any single such process would never cost more than £2.00 and that this cost is calculated and traceable using CYNthesys.

 

It is submitted that it is inconceivable that such a system with the same or similar mechanisms, characteristics and costs is not also employed by NatWest, the Defendant in the present case. Basic business principles and marketplace competition dictate that if such a system is in existence, available and operated by an organisation, that its competitors in the marketplace will also seek to employ a system which is equally efficient and cost effective or perhaps even more so.

 

Further, note the end charge to the customer of the CYNthesys banks (for example Yorkshire Bank) is almost identical to those of NatWest.

 

NatWest charges tariff

Unauthorised overdraft fee - £XX (Insert cost)

Bounced direct debit/cheque/standing order - £XX

Taken from “Tariff of charges” at NatWest

 

Yorkshire Bank charges tariff

Debit card abuse fee - £35

Bounced direct debit/cheque/standing order - £35

Taken from “Table of charges” at Welcome to Yorkshire Bank

 

 

The Competition Commission

 

Northern Ireland Competition Commission report from October 2006 revealed that figures contributed by eight banks, including the Defendant, NatWest, showed that around 12% of the banks annual revenue is generated by "overdraft charges". The report clearly demonstrates that the banks make significant profits from such charges and that they know about it, depend upon it and that they calculate for it.

It is submitted that this report is clear evidence that the Defendant is aware that the income derived from its such charges is calculated to generate material profits and is not merely a means of recouping losses incurred in relation to such specific events.

 

Some relevant parts of the report are reproduced as follows;

 

Appendix 4.6

Policies on setting unauthorised overdraft charges

 

8. We asked the banks to describe their policies for setting charging structures and charge levels; we also asked them what factors they take into account when setting unauthorized overdraft charges.

 

9. The answers were consistent across all the banks that responded, that unauthorized overdraft charges were set in the same way as other fees and charges. Thus banks tended to look across all their products and all their charges and sought to ensure their products were competitive with their rivals. This would be assessed through price comparisons, and also by monitoring account recruitment and retention. In the main, the clearers paid particular attention to the other clearers. The non-clearers set their pricing UK-wide and so particularly monitored the UK wide banks and the banks based in Great Britain. However, that said, there were clear examples of banks concluding that it would be profitable to raise charges above competitors (eg see paragraphs 20 and 22 in Annex 1).

 

12. Most of the banks made reference to monitoring of their costs, and sought to recover cost increases through their charges. However, as such costs tended to arise across a range of bank activities there was no direct feed through from particular cost increases to particular charges, but would be spread across the charging structure with regard to competition on these charges.

 

13. None of the banks told us that their charges were determined mainly by estimates of costs.

 

 

24. Some inference on unauthorized overdraft charges can be seen in the banks’ moves to fee-free accounts, as analysed in Appendix 4.8. As covered previously, Ulster’s proposals for fee-free banking rebalanced to an extent the loss of fee-income from transactions with an increase in unauthorized overdraft charges. BoI had developed proposals for a similar fee-free account where income loss would be approximately offset by increased unauthorized overdraft charges.

 

 

Appendix 4.6 of the report titled “Unauthorized Overdraft charges” is attached in full in support of this statement as exhibit (insert exhibit number)

 

Australian Default Fees report

 

In a study undertaken in Australia, (Nicole Rich, “Unfair fees: a report into penalty fees charged by Australian Banks”) it was estimated that the cost to an Australian Bank of a customers direct debit refusal was estimated to be in the region of 54 cents. By reviewing the charges to the customer against the actual cost to the bank, the study estimated that banks could be charging between 64 to 92 times what it costs them to process a direct debit refusal. The study’s key findings stated that the Australian Bank’s cheque and direct debit refusal fees were likely to be penalties at law. The reports summary is attached in support of this statement as exhibit (insert exhibit number)

The penalty charging regimes of the Australian banks as well as the automated systems employed to process default events are similar to those of the UK banks, and the laws relating to contractual penalty clauses are also similar to those in the UK.

 

 

BBC Commission Report

 

For the recent BBC2 documentary "The Money Programme", the BBC appointed a commission of former senior banking industry figures and business academics to attempt to ascertain the actual costs to the UK banks of processing such an event. They concluded that the absolute maximum conceivable cost that could be incurred by a direct debit refusal or overdraft excess is £2.50, and of a returned cheque £4.50. They did state however, that the actual cost is likely to be much less than this. The commission also estimated that the UK banks collectively derive as much as £4.5billion in profit a year from their charging regimes. The commissions conclusion is attached in support of this statement as exhibit (insert exhibit number)

[askl]

A big thanks as ever for your support Photoman.

Any other contributors to extracting from NatWest the actual cost of going overdrawn, are welcome...

 

 

askl

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Guys,

 

I understand that the reclaim process began by a university student back in 2005 or 2006 suing Abbey National plc and having his claimed settled. Can someone please tell me if this is true and where I could read up on his story?

 

Thanks.

 

TheyrCriminals

[TheyrCriminals]

You could try this approach ?

 

Issue a CPR for pre-action disclosure.

 

This applies equally so to all information, not just agreements as stated in thread.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/173201-why-you-shouldnt-use.html

 

Have a read of the thread, and pick some brains over there.

 

PM

 

Hi Photoman,

 

Thanks for this. The problem is that even if I use the Civil Procedure rules to request documents for a proposed action what Natwest are saying is that they simply do not hold records for longer than six years. So whether I am making the request under the Data Protection Acts8) or under Civil Procedure rules for an intended action Natwest will simply respond saying that it is physically impossible to supply the requested information because they don't hold the records.

 

TheyrCriminals

Edited January 25, 2009 by TheyrCriminals

[Goldlady]

I may have asked this before, but have you not got the original statements somewhere?

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi Goldlady,

 

No I haven't Goldlady hence the reason we are having to do this.

 

TheyrCriminals