Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi all, We bought a part to fix our washing machine approx 13 months ago direct from the manufacturer of the washing machine via phone. This part then failed 13 months later, as confirmed by their own engineer, who was sent by the manufacturer (who is also the retailer for the part) FoC. The engineer actually installed a replacement part, the machine came back to life, but they then removed the part used for testing (and ours reinstalled) as "we would be charged for it". The retailer are refusing to replace the part, stating that they only warranty parts for 90 days. When I stated that I believed the Consumer Rights Act gives me longer than that, they insinuated that it did not, and this was repeated by many representatives. AIUI for goods bought more than 6 months ago, I need to get an engineers report to confirm the part has failed? Or that it has failed due to manufacturing issues? Or would the companies own engineers report suffice? Also, does anyone have any other decent contact details for Hotpoint (or the Whirlpool group)? Thanks, GH
    • Thank you for that "read me", It's a lot to digest, lots of legal procedure. There was one thing that I was going to mention to you,  but in one of the conversations in that thread it was mentioned that there may be spies on the Forum,  this is something that I've read quite some time ago in a previous thread. What I had in mind was to wait for the thirty days after their reply to my CCA request and then send the unenforceable letter. I was hoping that an absence of signature could be the Silver Bullet but it seems that there are lot of layers to peel on this Onion.  
    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Claiming on a Business account? Lets join forces?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3969 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

  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Photoman thats like saying half of a joke without the punch line or half an exciting story without the ending or the dance of the 7 veils without taking the last veil off Im intrigued and dont know whether to put new claim in or wait any idea how long ? Regards Gaz

 

Damn.... You've sussed the plan !!

 

We were planning on telling claimants to go see their bank managers, and threaten to do a dance of the 7 veils in front of them unless they coughed up !!:eek:

 

... ah well, back to the drawing board !!

 

PM

All opinions and advice I offer are purely my own, and are offered without any liability. If unsure seek the help of a licensed professional

...just because something's in print doesn't mean its true.... just look at you Banks T&C's for example !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

 

I think it's important to stress that with the Royal Bank of Scotland Group, owners of NatWest, the judge would not extend his decision that these charges do not amount to penalties. In actual fact it isn't looking great at the moment for RBS in relation to the penalty issue. The judge, however, is prepared to accept further submissions from RBS and the Office of Fair Trading on this matter. It is almost the same position for Lloyds TSB although admittedly not as bad as the RBS position. But nonetheless the judge was not prepared to state that Lloyds TSB's charges could not be penalties and is prepared to hear further submissions.

 

TheyrCriminals

Edited by TheyrCriminals
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some advice please. I made claims in September 2007 for 2 different business bank accounts with Nat West. The accounts are closed and I am now with another bank. The accounts were for 2 different businesses. Both claims were stayed by Judge Willis at Bishop Auckland Court until 31 October 2008. The claims add up to around £20,000 including interest on bank charges for returned cheques, etc. over a 10 year period from 1994.

 

I have already paid £600 in fees to bring these 2 claims and would appreciate advice on whether to let the claims be dismissed and claim again later when the new strategy that is being discussed is developed, or request that the stay is lifted now. If requesting that the stay be lifted what is considered the best grounds for business accounts held with Nat West.

 

I have already benefitted from reclaiming fees from a private account with Nat West in early 2007 and am happy taking the whole case forward, but would appreciate some guidance.

 

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

We got our business charges back from the NatWest without having to go to court, but that was about a year ago. Not sure if they are still as obliging. I presume you wrote to them before you issued your claims anyway. Perhaps if you are no longer using the accounts they treat it differently anyway?

 

Presumably the cases will not be dismissed at present, so maybe you should just sit tight.

BANK CHARGES

Nat West Bus Acct £1750 reclaim - WON

 

LTSB Bus Acct £1650 charges w/o against o/s balance - WON

 

Halifax Pers Acct £1650 charges taken from benefits - WON

 

Others

 

GE Money sec loan - £1900 in charges - settlement agreed

GE Money sec loan - ERC of £2.5K valid for 15 years - on standby

FirstPlus - missold PPI of £20K for friends - WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

I rang the court last week and was told that if I do nothing the cases will be dismissed on 31/10/08.

 

I have written to Nat West and all the other pre-court procedures and then submitted claims to the court in September 2007 which were stayed until the end of this month.

 

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

I rang the court last week and was told that if I do nothing the cases will be dismissed on 31/10/08.

 

Well, I wouldn’t want to let £600 slip away, Adam, that’s a lot of moolah.

 

Why not apply to the Court for the stays to be extended pending final determination of the Test Case?

 

GaryH has posted a letter on this thread

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/164391-order-staying-prceedings-what.html

which you could send to Natwest’s solicitors, suitably amended. I believe the thread concerns a personal account claim but the principle is the same.

 

Time is short though, so I would email the request and follow it up with a hard copy. Send a copy to the Court so they are aware of your intentions. If Natwest’s sols don’t play ball, ask the Court manager if it will accept a letter from you requesting the extensions or if an N244 (with fee) is necessary.

 

Els

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some advice please. I made claims in September 2007 for 2 different business bank accounts with Nat West. The accounts are closed and I am now with another bank. The accounts were for 2 different businesses. Both claims were stayed by Judge Willis at Bishop Auckland Court until 31 October 2008. The claims add up to around £20,000 including interest on bank charges for returned cheques, etc. over a 10 year period from 1994.

 

I have already paid £600 in fees to bring these 2 claims and would appreciate advice on whether to let the claims be dismissed and claim again later when the new strategy that is being discussed is developed, or request that the stay is lifted now. If requesting that the stay be lifted what is considered the best grounds for business accounts held with Nat West.

 

I have already benefitted from reclaiming fees from a private account with Nat West in early 2007 and am happy taking the whole case forward, but would appreciate some guidance.

 

Adam

 

Adam,many had early claims settled before the commencement of the test case.Banks defending business claims have repeatedly argued for maintaining the stay on the basis that the test case IS dealing with the common law elements and historical charges.

I wondered IF the defence in your case has not questioned limitation and if not why ?

Have a look in their defence to see if they referred to it.

One way to get around the stay would be to ask the Court to lift the stay,so that the limitation arguements can be addressed separately to the interim decision of Smith.We know that the banks appear to have no answer to section 32 c "Mistake"

I went for this in my own case and am currently awaiting a hearing.Your arguement in your application is that should the limitation arguement go in favour of the defendant,then the case will be decided and there will be no need to continue.But that the issue is likely to be raised later anyway so there is no valid reason why it cannot be listed and decided on before the conclusion of the test case.

We know of 3 instances where the banks have paid up following such orders being granted.

 

 

Whilst I cannot say anything about the new strategy for obvious reasons,I can say that its a start from scratch procedure that will not be suitable for all business claims and still in its infancy.

If you go for a lift,then it will need to be done on notice N244 for service to the other side as well as the Court.There are drafts available.

Obviously you can include Smiths observations into NW terms as being inconclusive.

If you want help regarding reference to limitation feel free to ask-but as I say check their defence submissions and see if they have challenged it in there-would be a help if they have.

Edited by MARTIN3030

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

Hi, I would appreciate any advice from those in the know - I'm just about to send LBA to natwest for business account (sole trader).

Is it still ok to use the template from "A Guide to Business Claims" by jonni2bad (even though it mentions common law)?

Or if not, what would your advice be? I don't want it to look like I am backing out, but obviously want to have the best chance of winning my claim.

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

 

My friend put in a business claim at the County Court last year and it then got stayed pending the final determination in the OFT test case. His claim is for £10,000. This claim however is for charges applied from 2001 onwards. There is a very good chance that he may well have paid charges before this time. Is it worth putting in a separate claim for those charges or somehow adding to the current claim, and if so where is the legal argument found for being able to go back after 6 years?

 

Thank you.

 

TheyrCriminals

Edited by TheyrCriminals
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Something I noticed on one of my clients' copy bank statements the other day - they had been downloaded from online banking. Across the bottom of each sheet it says 'alert - this account is consumer credit act regulated'. She is a sole trader. And she has been crucified with charges over the past two years. Is this of significance? Bank of Scotland btw.

BANK CHARGES

Nat West Bus Acct £1750 reclaim - WON

 

LTSB Bus Acct £1650 charges w/o against o/s balance - WON

 

Halifax Pers Acct £1650 charges taken from benefits - WON

 

Others

 

GE Money sec loan - £1900 in charges - settlement agreed

GE Money sec loan - ERC of £2.5K valid for 15 years - on standby

FirstPlus - missold PPI of £20K for friends - WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something I noticed on one of my clients' copy bank statements the other day - they had been downloaded from online banking. Across the bottom of each sheet it says 'alert - this account is consumer credit act regulated'. She is a sole trader. And she has been crucified with charges over the past two years. Is this of significance? Bank of Scotland btw.

 

Sounds like that particular account in question is probably a loan account.

These are indeed regulated by the CCA74.

Perhaps you could ask them?

 

I don't believe normal accounts are normally covered by the CCA. Though, if in an overdraft situation, and on a fixed repayment plan this may be a different case?

 

In either case, I'm not actually sure if there is anything in the CCA that could be of use regards charges anyhow?

 

Maybe someone who knows a bit more about the CCA would like to comment?

All opinions and advice I offer are purely my own, and are offered without any liability. If unsure seek the help of a licensed professional

...just because something's in print doesn't mean its true.... just look at you Banks T&C's for example !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi photoman, no it is a current account with a small overdraft. Just wondered about the relevance of them actually stating this.

BANK CHARGES

Nat West Bus Acct £1750 reclaim - WON

 

LTSB Bus Acct £1650 charges w/o against o/s balance - WON

 

Halifax Pers Acct £1650 charges taken from benefits - WON

 

Others

 

GE Money sec loan - £1900 in charges - settlement agreed

GE Money sec loan - ERC of £2.5K valid for 15 years - on standby

FirstPlus - missold PPI of £20K for friends - WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Photoman,

 

You've helped me before with NatWest's £28,551 Claim against me for disputed Bank Charges and Interest...

 

I have now finally been asked to submit a defence next week. Could you take a look at it and comment please.

www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/business-claims-bank-charges/145837-25-400-penalty-charges.html#post1865418

 

Thanks once again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a sole trader and was going to start a reclaim on charges. However having read this;

 

Unfortunately, following the decision in OFT v Abbey and others 2008, it is no longer advisable to reclaim charges from business accounts

 

am I better waiting for the outcome of the test case?

Odio los bancos con una venganza

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi

 

I am in a bit of trouble with my bank lloyds tsb they are chasing me for £10,000.00 for loans that they forced me to take out to clear my overdratf etc. i have £4,000.00 currently stayed untill after the oft test case also i have £7,000.00 on my business account for various charges. can i refuse to pay their money to them on the grounds of them owing me money untill the outcome of the oft test case is resolved if so what is the process and how do i go about implementing it. actually play them at their game wouldnt that be fair please help this would help me and my business a lot in current climates or perhaps i should ask for a bailout

 

smudgerer

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a sole trader and was going to start a reclaim on charges. However having read this;

 

Unfortunately, following the decision in OFT v Abbey and others 2008, it is no longer advisable to reclaim charges from business accounts

 

am I better waiting for the outcome of the test case?

 

 

This was my earlier views on the matter.

 

Okay,

 

I thought I would just make a post here regards the current situation for Business claimants.

 

Last week the judge (Justice Andrew Smith) made another announcement as part and parcel of the next round of the OFT case.

 

As you may all recall, the first round of the case involved the judge making a decision upon whether or not there are grounds for claimants to claim; under either the UTCCR99, or using the contention that the charges amounted to penalties under common law.

 

This first round was focused and concerned only with the Banks current T&C's that were submitted with regards the current OFT case (after all having been rather hastily changed) for the judges consideration.

 

The Judge ruled that the charges were actually subject to the jurisdiction of the UTCCR99. Good news for those using this, (although in typical stubborn manner the banks shall be appealing this) !

 

(Remember, this was only a judgement upon whether the terms were subject to such law, not actually whether they break such laws, as that matter will be determined later).

That was the good news. It could later give those claiming under UTCCR99 grounds for a claim, if the OFT go on to win the contention that the charges do and/or did break such laws.

 

The bad news was that the judge also ruled that considering the banks current T&C's, the charges did not constitute penalties at common law.

This was (potentially) bad news for Business claimants, as this is the basis of their claims, as their contracts were not and still are not covered by UTCCR99.

 

However, the last judgement was only focused upon the current T&C's, and a further analysis of historic T&C's then still needed to be done.

 

So, last week, this next judgement regards historic T&Cs was (sort of, and subject to a few T&C's still to be considered further) completed.

 

Again the judge has disappointingly declared that the historic T&C's did not make the charges amount to penalties at common law.

 

See here:

BBC NEWS | Business | Early overdraft victory for banks

 

So where does this leave Business claimants ??

 

Well, there are still a few contentious issues issues with regards this case, and how it all sits with business claims.

 

Firstly in the broadest sense:

Business claimants have always contended that the OFT case has no bearing upon Business claims. The grounds for the case are all based upon personal accounts.

Indeed, throughout the course of this case, many business claimants have used this argument to get stays successfully lifted, and have also then gone on to receive full offers and refunds.

 

So, this is an ongoing fact; that throughout this whole case, NOT A SINGLE Business account T&C has ever been looked at and considered, and we all know that Business T&C's, and the manner, name and method of application of charges are slightly different to personal accounts.

 

So those still with Business claims in progress could still apply to have this consideration applied to their own case.

 

BUT; Even though this is strictly speaking the case, many judges may now just take a laissez faire attitude, and apply the rulings made for personal account T&C's under common law to Business accounts too. They may then simply refuse to hear such claims.

Even if they don't refuse, and do agree that Business account T&C's should be considered separately. Even though when faced with such a prospect in the recent past this has been enough to frighten banks into trying to avoid such an analysis, and just settle, they may just now have a little more confidence to actually see a business claim case through to court ?

 

 

So, all in, this amounts to unsure times for Business claimants.

 

My advice is this.

Anyone with a Business claim in the pipeline that has been subjected to a stay should perhaps just leave things as is. Don't presently apply to have your stay lifted. Then as the OFT case progresses, and we have also had time to consider and compare personal account T&C's compared to Business account T&C's more, things may become clearer. After which time you may then be able to apply to have the stay lifted, or perhaps submit an amendment to your claim.

 

Other than that, there is actually some work going on behind the scenes by some very knowledgeable, legally experienced bods with regards some new approaches to business claims.

There is one particular completely new approach being considered which is looking highly promising and would be totally bulletproof (it'll also scare the pants off 'em).

 

That is all I am prepared to say on the final matter for the time being, and no amount of pleas, PM's, emails, prompting or threats of assassination will get me to reveal any more....... so don't even try !!8)

All opinions and advice I offer are purely my own, and are offered without any liability. If unsure seek the help of a licensed professional

...just because something's in print doesn't mean its true.... just look at you Banks T&C's for example !

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi

 

I am in a bit of trouble with my bank lloyds tsb they are chasing me for £10,000.00 for loans that they forced me to take out to clear my overdratf etc. i have £4,000.00 currently stayed untill after the oft test case also i have £7,000.00 on my business account for various charges. can i refuse to pay their money to them on the grounds of them owing me money untill the outcome of the oft test case is resolved if so what is the process and how do i go about implementing it. actually play them at their game wouldnt that be fair please help this would help me and my business a lot in current climates or perhaps i should ask for a bailout

 

smudgerer

 

Firstly we need to seperate personal from business accounts

 

Then when were the loans taken out?

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi

 

I am in a bit of trouble with my bank lloyds tsb they are chasing me for £10,000.00 for loans that they forced me to take out to clear my overdratf etc. i have £4,000.00 currently stayed untill after the oft test case also i have £7,000.00 on my business account for various charges. can i refuse to pay their money to them on the grounds of them owing me money untill the outcome of the oft test case is resolved if so what is the process and how do i go about implementing it. actually play them at their game wouldnt that be fair please help this would help me and my business a lot in current climates or perhaps i should ask for a bailout

 

smudgerer

 

I suppose you could play them at their own game?

 

You could contact them, and inform them that the sums you supposedly owe them are in presently the subject of a legal dispute, and so they should not be trying to enforce a supposed debt that is the cause of such dispute and action.

 

1/ If they persist in trying to enforce the debt, tell them that any actions will be the subject of a counterclaim based upon your own earlier actions, and the whole case will then likely just be stayed, awaiting the outcome of the OFT case. Thus fair grounds to refuse to pay them any sums in the meantime, with regards any sums legally in dispute.

 

2/ If on the other hand, they respond by saying that the OFT case has no relevance to your own particular claim, then respond by asking them WHY in that case did they apply for a stay, if by their own admission they consider the OFT case to have no relevance to your own ?

 

They will then themselves have to decide to either:

 

a/ Apply to have the stay lifted, allow your particular case to trial, lose the luxury of not having to presently pay out or defend regards your claim, and also take the risk of a judge agreeing with your case (and perhaps setting a precedent).

 

b/Keep the stay in place, but lose the right to try to enforce a debt that is in dispute due to it being the subject of a legal action.

 

If on the other hand, they didn't themselves apply for the stay, and it was actually imposed by the courts own motion. Then, you can still use the first argument.

 

Let me know how things go here.

I have lots of T&C's, letters and contradictory claims by Lloyds that I can provide you as evidence if need be.

 

PM

All opinions and advice I offer are purely my own, and are offered without any liability. If unsure seek the help of a licensed professional

...just because something's in print doesn't mean its true.... just look at you Banks T&C's for example !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Smudgerer!

 

I am in a bit of trouble with my bank lloyds tsb they are chasing me for £10,000.00 for loans that they forced me to take out to clear my overdraft etc

 

Business Overdraft or Private Overdraft, the one thing we must all realise is most of the banks have been in a headlong rush to push people from Overdrafts to Loans.

 

Why?

 

Because an Overdraft pops up as a Liability on their Balance Sheet, whereas a Loan pops up as an Asset.

 

When they go out onto the World Markets to beg/borrow/steal their way to being able to take on huge gambles, they need to show their banking mates that they are worth a large pile of number money.

 

A 10k Overdraft is a 10k dent in their plans.

 

If they can push the punter into a 10k Loan instead (and cancel the Overdraft), their plans are boosted by 20k.

 

That's because the 10k of Liability drops off, taking them to a zero, and then they add the 10k Loan as an Asset, taking them from zero to +10k.

 

If they do the same to many punters, they don't actually do any more lending, it's just a fiddle on the Keyboard and they end up significantly more valuable on their Balance Sheet.

 

That impresses their friends, and impresses the Shareholders.

 

It's sadly ironic that the Loan also earns them far more too! Not that they had that in mind either.

 

Meanwhile, for us punters, we get a perfectly usable Overdraft turned into a Ball and Chain Dead Weight Loan around our ankle that we have to drag around until it is paid off.

 

Hands up all those who have had Loans forced onto them when they would prefer to have kept their Overdraft?

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

BRW That was a brilliant summary of why banks want us off overdrafts on onto loans:D.

 

I would really love it if everyone in the UK contested their loan agreements regardless of whether they can afford them or not.

 

I have a friend whose father has a Road surfacing company and they recently moved to Lloyds with the promise of an overdraft and 'we will look after you' if you bring your account over from HSBC.

 

Once they moved over 'no overdraft' and Lloyds told them to use 'factoring' which isnt working and now Lloyds are bouncing their cheques etc.

I told them to try their local MP.

 

Fiddled

Edited by hsbcfiddled
add text
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello hsbcfiddled!

 

I think this Overdraft-to-Loan issue is quite possibly at the very heart of many Business bank Charges issues.

 

I know it's at the very heart of our problems with our soon to be ex-bank.

 

Looking back, I can now see that it has been a steady plan to get rid of all Overdrafts above 5k, and replace them with Loans instead.

 

The added benefit for the banks has been that they also get lots of bank charges too, because as they force the Customer from one to the other, they constrain Cash Flow so badly that bank Charges are almost inevitable, especially once a tiny Overdraft has been imposed once the Loan has been created and the numbers simply swapped around on the bank's Hard Drive.

 

Where it has all come unstuck, was they had not bargained on the banking mess that caused this Recession. Which is surprising, as they caused the mess in the first place! But then the banks never could see further into the future than anyone else can.

 

The banks just think they can see into the future. Indeed, they honestly believe they can, which is why they keep on gambling our money on what is going to happen in the future.

 

The £500 Billion bale out is all the evidence anyone needs to prove the banks have never had any idea what the future had in store.

 

In the build up to this Global Banking Mess, they've pushed their Customers around to big up their gambles on the World markets, and yet all of their gambles have failed.

 

Now they want money from the Government on the one hand, and from their Customers on the other. Although the Government can issue IOUs to cover anything it likes, us Customers are all now struggling with zero Cash Flow flexibility because we are all dragging around Ball and Chain Loans while at the same time being lumbered with a multitude of bank Charges because of the constrained Cash Flow. The double whammy is the Recession will constrain Cash Flow still further, but that will be our fault of course, not the banks.

 

Stepping back in time maybe 10 Years, had the bankers allowed us all to keep our Overdrafts, and had they not gambled all of our money away on their hair-brained schemes on the World Markets, I think we would all be in a much better position right now, them and us.

 

In a Debt Based Economy, money is scarce. That is a fact, and there is no getting away from the fact that almost all Businesses are short of cash. It's how the system works.

 

Virtually every established Business therefore needs finance, and the most obvious, simple and flexible form of finance has always been via Overdraft.

 

Only new Businesses need Loans. Once established, they'll need Overdrafts just like the rest of us.

 

Looking back through all of my Letters as I fight my ex-bank, I can see they have gone out of their way to Sell Loans. The excuses for doing so have all been aimed at some failing or other on our part, never theirs.

 

But, from hindsight, I can see we'd have been fine had they left us alone to work with the Overdrafts we were used to. Indeed, in our case, instead of fighting them now over alleged Debts of maybe 40k, I think instead we'd be sitting here Today with a Cash Surplus of maybe 28k.

 

That is the damage these idiot bankers have caused to my business, and I expect the same level of damage has been caused to many others.

 

Where has the money gone?

 

I'll tell you...what they haven't spent on themselves via absurd Salaries and Bonuses, they've simply lost on the World Markets.

 

Never forget that the banks don't create money, but they do create money as Debt...our Debt. The Billions they have accumulated, and lost, was created by our Debts. Debts they have manipulated into existence, just so they can spend this on themselves and gamble the rest away.

 

Now they want the Government to IOU them back into the black again, after which they'll soon turn on us to claw back the real money they feel we owe them. Once the Government has saved them, the banks will then turn on their Customers.

 

I think right now is likely to be the best time to pick a fight with your bank, because right now the banks are on the defensive with no friends anywhere. Their usual hidden support from Government pressure on the Judiciary is pretty absent at the moment but, in time, once they have got all warm and cosy with their politician friends again, they'll be asking for lots of favours again...and Judicial pressure will be top of their Wish List, closely followed by further watering down of the Consumer Credit Act and other Legislation that gets in their way.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had exactly that over 12 years with 3 different banks - Limited company bank accounts, high cash flow exposure through growth squeezed by the bank which caused charges, bounced cheques when you least expect or want them, forced into a spiral of charges no different from personal accounts then forced into transferring them into loans. If it wasn't for the fact I liquidated in the last recession I would have them for breakfast now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...