Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I deal some time with cash some time with card but i keep all recipts i put my money on  20 october  
    • Thank you for that. Could you answer questions 3. and 4. as well please?   HB
    • Hello, I am just enquiring about an old (1994) Mint (RBS) credit card debt £12,000. I went into default due to health issues Oct 2011. Have been paying a token amount of £5 p.m. since then. As far as I am aware they have not sold this debt on. In 2014 they started asking for full payment and I went through the Financial Ombudsman Service (FoS) as they had not been responding to my requests for the agreement etc re 1974 Consumer Act. Instead they returned the P.O. for £1 back to me each time with no explanation as to why. The FoS at first thought I was trying to get them to adjudicate on the legal enforceability of what they had sent to me (blank generic application forms + random T&Cs). I asked the FoS to intercede on my behalf to get a reason for lack of response. Oli, from the FoS asked me what I wanted him to ask them 1. Do they have the originalagreement to hand and if not when could they realistically hope to produce it? 2. If they cannot find the original could they supply me with a truthful and honest reconstituted agreement that has the following items to comply with Sec 77/78/79 request under CCA 1974.   Eventually, after a few weeks and cajoling from the  FoS, they sent a letter to me stating ' that the Original Agreement was not kept and it would not be possible to reconstitute a copy to satisfy my CCA request and as such the debt was no longer legally enforceable but I still owed them the money, blah, blah.'   Mint sent me a statement every month until August 2016 and I have heard nothing from them since then. No letters, correspondence or statements. No one chasing me. So, have they forgotten about it or given up as it is not legally enforceable? Under the CCA 1974 they must send a statement of arrears, but nothing for the last 5 years. I know I could stop paying the £5 p.m. but I don't want to open a can of worms so to speak. If it is lost in the system somewhere, if I stop paying that might flag it up and start things up again. I have 2 other credit card debt, both from mid 1990's were sold to Cabot. They started their threatograms, but after my success with the FoS with Mint, I did they same thing with Halifax and Nat West. The letters I got from both of them through the FoS  were similar to Mint. They stated " that the originals had been misfiled and they could not provide me with a reconstituted agreement. Therefore whilst this remains the case the debt is unenforceable, but you still owe the money etc, etc." I suppose because they had already sold these debts they both had to frame their reply as though this could be rectified at anytime. The chap (Oli) at the FoS dealing with my case said he had worked in a bank for 12 years and they all threw the agreements into a box which was picked up by a company for storage. There was no proper filing system! He doubts that they could ever find the original agreements and being pre 2007 they would be unenforceable in court. I do get regular correspondence from Cabot as in a statement of account. Very occasionally, I get one saying that I am still paying the original creditor ( I am) and I should contact them to arrange affordable repayments. Years ago a sent off a copy of the banks letters to Cabot and I just ignore their offer to renegotiate the terms since then. So, would it be best to carry on the £15 p.m. If I stopped paying what would be the likely outcome? What should I do? Thanks for any help. sidley PS - I am retired now and the £15 p.m. just to keep them at arms length is worth it for me and my wife.
    • You haven't told us the name of this company – why not? Are you trying to protect them?
    • So it was going to be 4 hours of lorry driving training each day, with the 5th day being the test day.   He's saying that he's not refunding the fees because he couldn't find an other paying customer for those 5 days but then yesterday he's sent me a video (of a student doing his practical driving training) by mistake, then deleted the message. If I can prove that he's got another student in the same time as I was supposed to have my training, can I then take it further? Thank you.
  • Our picks

Try being a bit more responsible


Dan
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5668 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

Thanks for your post. Could you let us know a bit more about this. It seems outrageous.

 

Me? Which bit? The automated printing or the letter about the £2.50 standing order?

Abbey (Charges on 3 accounts and default on my credit record) - DPA letter sent 30/03/06 - 40 days limit is 9th May - Recieved DPA printouts 05/04/06 with microfiche "fob off" letter. <p>Barclaycard (Charges on 1 account and default on my credit record) - DPA letter sent 03/04/06 - 40 days limit is 13th May - Recieved some statements 08/04/06 along with DPA printout and a microfiche "fob off" letter. Claim for £340 sent 11/04/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

No. This bit:

 

It is computers that are spurting these letters out. The humans that "sign" these letters should be ashamed of themselves.

I got a letter the other day to say they had paid a standing order to my baby sons savings despite the lack of money in the account. The standing order is for £2.50. The letter says they "might" charge me.

 

Have they charged you?

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. This bit:

 

It is computers that are spurting these letters out. The humans that "sign" these letters should be ashamed of themselves.

I got a letter the other day to say they had paid a standing order to my baby sons savings despite the lack of money in the account. The standing order is for £2.50. The letter says they "might" charge me.

 

Have they charged you?

 

They haven't charged me yet. I will only know when my statement comes.

It normally goes out on a Wednesday but my pension went out that same day (£120) leaving only £30. A paypal DD went out that I wasn't expecting which took me to -£9.something. They let the pension and paypal DD's go out then delayed the standing order until the Thursday when my wages went in.

 

I have been with the abbey for 17 years and I haven't been the perfect customer, living close to the limit. In this sort of case they used to stop the DD (leaving you to sort it out) and not charge.

Now they seem to let the payments go through but charge.

 

I am strongly considering claiming back charges but due to my credit rating I would struggle to get another current account and I have heard the abbey are a bit triggerhappy when it comes to booting people off.

Abbey (Charges on 3 accounts and default on my credit record) - DPA letter sent 30/03/06 - 40 days limit is 9th May - Recieved DPA printouts 05/04/06 with microfiche "fob off" letter. <p>Barclaycard (Charges on 1 account and default on my credit record) - DPA letter sent 03/04/06 - 40 days limit is 13th May - Recieved some statements 08/04/06 along with DPA printout and a microfiche "fob off" letter. Claim for £340 sent 11/04/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok i'm lost as alot of you seems to know about a letter?

everytime i have been charged £30 for a bounced dd i got no letter

 

We have never had any letters from Nationwide! We complain about it regularly but it has not made any difference. We have just stored it up for information in case we get to court (what are these charges for exactly given that no letter is issued etc?). We also asked in our DPA request to let us have details of what letters were issued and the dates. The reply, if we get one, will be interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think i know the answer to this, but Dan were you ever bullied at school??

Well like the rest of us i bet you wish you could have been treated fairer and i bet you wish if you had a chance you would have your day now...well thats what im doing.

I dont know wether your internet privileges have been withdrawn or my co BAG member GOMADNOMAD completely destroyed your argument but its the banks attitude and pure arrogance that fuels my passion to get all my money back.

 

ps

anyone know how many cases have been won so far?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan,

 

You say the excessive charges are meant as a deterrent (for which statement your employers will not thank you, by the way) and that, if they were not applied, then everyone would just go into more and more debt.

 

I have lived in the Netherlands, and worked for a bank there, where such charges are illegal (not just unlawful, as they are here), and I can therefore allay your fears: people there do NOT just go further and further overdrawn. It's very simple: the banks simply do not allow the payment to go through. The whole payment system is the other way around there anyway, but this aside. I had no problem with this as I had never had an overdraft before I moved there anyway.

 

They are expressly forbidden by law to charge for any statement, advice note or letter they may send you. At the same time, they are obliged by law to inform you in writing (in practice they send a statement) every single time any material transaction takes place on your account - last time I looked, 'material' meant around the £25 pound mark.

 

Banks may charge punitive levels of interest on unauthorised overdrafts, such as 20 to 25% apr, and they do. But figure out the charge on, say, £10 over the limit for a week:

£10 X 25% = £2.50 for a year / 52 = 4.8p for one week.

 

They don't hand out chequebooks, saying they're oldfashioned (they said that 25 years ago), but seperate cheques with a guarantee card: starting with 5, then 10 or maybe 25 at a time, if you've proven you use them responsibly. If you overdraw, they make you wait 'till you're in the black before you can have any more cheques.

If you keep doing it, they won't let you have cheques again for a long time. People don't use them much anyway; you'd never send them by post to pay a bill and most people have been paying by card and PIN in nearly all shops there, for the past 25 years.

 

When I went overdrawn there, (which was not often) I got stern letters informing me of the fact and warning that payments from my account would stop if I didn't clear the account - that was the extent of the punishment. When a standing order was blocked, there was no charge for this. Occasionally, I got invitations to arrange an agreed overdraft limit (for which the interest was not punitive) or a personal loan.

 

Contractual, compelling penalty charges ARE allowed under Dutch law in general, just not allowed for banks.

And oh yeah: the banks over there still manage to make obscene profits.

 

The ONLY reason for allowing unauthorised payments to go through, as all the banks do in England, is to lead customers into debt and make money out of doing so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you to a point, people should be more careful with money but you don't know people's circumstances so shouldn't generalise. Well done for keeping on top of things through your troubles but for some of us it's not so easy.

 

When I was pregnant, I was off work for a while. When my daughter was born, I stayed off work for a year because I couldn't afford to put her in daycare. I eventually went back to work 6 months ago but all that time I was off, my husbands salary wasn't enough to cover the bills so we had no choice but to live on credit. If we hadn't have done that we would have starved. The credit has now run out and my daughter is in daycare two days a week. We can barely afford to eat let alone pay off our debts. Is that our fault? It just seems to be the way it works when you have kids. If you or your partner don't have well paid jobs you're stuffed!

 

We never spent on anything that was unnecessary it was just a survival exercise. People might say I shouldn't have got pregnant but is there ever a right time for having a baby?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What bank don't or won't accept is that very few people, a 0.00...% something do not go overdrawn for the hell of it. The vast vast majority go overdrawn because the need to pay a bill on monday and pay day is Friday, or its a genuine mistake etc.

 

The bottom line is most people in this situation might not be in financial trouble be are cetainly low on funds and just need a bit of understanding.

 

and what do the banks do? Give them a good kick when there down! Why not give people 3 or 4 'grace' items. Accpet mistakes happen and allow for this, and then charge a GENUINE estimate of costs after that point.

 

I know I'm being naive, but thats why I could never work of a bank - to practical!

The law maybe reason without passion as Aristotle said, but hey, he said nothing about having fun when getting even!

 

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal expereince. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

 

 

Reputation Points Always Welcome

Link to post
Share on other sites

...

When I was pregnant, I was off work for a while. When my daughter was born, I stayed off work for a year because I couldn't afford to put her in daycare. I eventually went back to work 6 months ago but all that time I was off, my husbands salary wasn't enough to cover the bills so we had no choice but to live on credit. If we hadn't have done that we would have starved. The credit has now run out and my daughter is in daycare two days a week. We can barely afford to eat let alone pay off our debts. Is that our fault? It just seems to be the way it works when you have kids. If you or your partner don't have well paid jobs you're stuffed!

 

We never spent on anything that was unnecessary it was just a survival exercise. People might say I shouldn't have got pregnant but is there ever a right time for having a baby?

 

There is indeed no right or wrong time to have a baby - I know whereof I speak! But what has happened to our society? How would you have survived if you had not been allowed to just keep borrowing?

 

Is it the crazy house prices? And are they fuelled by pop stars and fat cats all wanting to live in London and hence affecting the rest of the market? House prices are kept too high by everyone just agreeing to them and taking on more debt than they can realistically afford. Dutch friends who have moved to England agree that the attitude to money here is vastly different: I don't mean to be judgemental but it seems the norm to live beyond one's means here.

 

In the supermarkets, there are only one or two aisles of fresh meat and poultry - the rest is all prepared and processed stuff. Two whole aisles of just crisps! And then the disposable products: wipes to take off your make-up, wipes to clean the toilet seat and kitchen surfaces, disposable duster 'systems' and disposable floor cloths - even disposable toilet brushes, for Pete's sake! If we're all struggling to get by then why oh why is anyone BUYING this stuff? Quite apart from the environmental burden, it's costing us a fortune. Well, not me because I don't buy any of them.

 

I think the banks throwing credit at everyone aggravates this problem.

 

Back in Amsterdam, when I left a job for one paying 30% more, I almost immediately went house hunting. I bought a flat and decided on a 15 year mortgage to keep my interest costs low: my friends said I was crazy to take on such a large monthly obligation (nearly half my salary) and in the end they were right: my job disappeared two years later after a takeover closed my office down. I was unemployed (more or less, a chapter of improbable accidents) for over a year after that and had to sell up. With a more normal mortgage, I would have been able to ride it out.

 

I read somewhere (someone might put the details straight here) that the percentage of all money earned in the UK has doubled in the past two decades for the top 2%. I.e., the fat cats took around 6% of everything 20 years ago and now they get 13%. This means that everyone else suffers.

 

Case in point:

20 - 25 years ago, I remember noticing (when I visited London) that a good typist could earn around £9 an hour as a temp. These days, as an eloquent, well-educated, highly intelligent, widely experienced and extremely fast audio/copy typist, I am hard pushed to get 8! And that's WHEN I can actually get any temp work. In real terms, that's a fraction of what they used to pay and you'd have to pay more than that for a cleaner or a gardener. I have discussed this with agencies, arguing that the 7.50 I was getting offered was more appropriate for an average school leaver with a few GCSEs and a couple of years' office experience, and was told that no, that would be 6.50!!

 

If you look on the 'net for jobs as a credit controller, phoning people like us to harrass them about their debts, the rate is.... 6.50 an hour! So don't expect any sense out of them.

 

My current partner (of two years) is very cautious with money and we have worked out that we simply cannot afford to buy my little 2 bed council house while my income is uncertain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

we simply cannot afford to buy my little 2 bed council house

 

Buying council houses is wrong on so many levels anyway.

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Buying council houses is wrong on so many levels anyway.

 

 

Now you could be getting into a very contentious debate!

The law maybe reason without passion as Aristotle said, but hey, he said nothing about having fun when getting even!

 

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal expereince. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

 

 

Reputation Points Always Welcome

Link to post
Share on other sites

Buying council houses is wrong on so many levels anyway.

Ooohhhh...

 

Is it more or less wrong than letting them go to a Housing Association for less than 10,000 each? This is what Crawley is trying to do. I can see why: they can offload their obligations and improve their cashflow problems but I've seen it in other areas: tenants' rights are eroded and rents shoot up.

I actually wrote an article published in the local paper last year, suggesting that if they do go ahead with these sales, they should be obliged to offer the same homes to qualifying tenants for, say, 30 thousand. That way, they still dump their responsibilities but get a lot more for it, and even someone on minimum legal wages could afford to buy their house.

 

The rent on my council flat started going up at an alarming rate every year after a HA bought it. When I did a mutual exchange, the HA put the rent for my old flat up again by around 15%, even though it was already about 20% higher than for three-bed houses in the same street, and the other party - the other exchanger moving into it - lost her right to buy.

 

Councils cannot afford and/or manage to maintain the homes they provide to a decent standard. If I want to buy my house as things stand, it will cost around 150K. That money would enable the council to build 2, or possibly 3 new, lower maintenance houses. Remember that they can purchase land, and build, at prices far, far lower than you or I can. How is that wrong?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an interesting point that has come up in this thread, so I thought I might return to it to see if anyone can offer any insights.

 

If I have no money in my account and try and take money out of an ATM or from a branch, I am not allowed to. Ditto with using a card to pay at point of sale. The only loophole in this that I can think of is when I use a credit card at weekends and not all transactions have hit the account; in these circumstances I could feasibly be using money I don't have access to since the computer didn't know I didn't have the money.

 

Now, this question has an obvious answer, but: why do the banks simply not pay Direct Debits and standing orders for which I do not have funds available? I have then broken a contract with whoever the money was meant to go to, and they can take it up with me. Of course, the banks do this so they can make money, but has anyone ever heard a bank giving an answer? I'm sure they wouldn't say "well, we just do it to add to our multi-billion pound profits, because we don't make enough money out of third-world debt, funding dictatorships and investing in arms trade and socially-crippling currency speculation".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the more creative ones are saying that it is to "save you the embarassment of having your transaction declined" (all together now: awwww, bless...), that they are "providing a service" (as in "this way, we can charge you what we want, buster")...

 

It is, of course, as we all know, total emb154_t.gif because of course, you are totally right: they do it to make money out of us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Councils cannot afford and/or manage to maintain the homes they provide to a decent standard. If I want to buy my house as things stand, it will cost around 150K. That money would enable the council to build 2, or possibly 3 new, lower maintenance houses. Remember that they can purchase land, and build, at prices far, far lower than you or I can. How is that wrong?

 

Quite right.

 

However, the money gained from selling council houses rarely (if ever) has gone to rebuilding more council accomodation.

 

That's why it's wrong. It's not about providing housing, it's about selling assets.

 

Also, why should some people be allowed to buy housing at a lower rate than someone else. We all live in the same market economy, so why should I not be given the oppertunity to buy a reduced price council house? (not that I would buy it on principle).

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been reading this debate with interest as I am new to these forums. My own experiences with Nationwide is they would pay a DD when I was over my overdraft limit, return the amount to my account as unpaid a couple of days later and then charge a penalty.

Getting into debt is one of the most depressing situations one can find oneself in and the banks do not help. They are not there to provide counselling and support but they actively exacebate the problem.

Thank goodness I have now sorted the finances(with help from Nationwide BTW) but I have still started the process to reclaim the money that was illegally taken.

Brian

Claim against Nationwide

6 years charges £1973

prelim letter 10 April

Charges refunded 15 April

Link to post
Share on other sites

My view is that the banks like to get people into a position where they are almost creditworthy but just under the cosh enough to be able to bounce one or two transactions a month. Hence all the tricks they deploy in the way in which they sequence transactions. As soon as they feel that they may be at risk of not being able to recover their money, they will pull the plug mercilessly. Abbey's tactic of pulling an overdraft and switching people into an unauthorised overdraft position is a prime example of this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The banks have spent years forcing themselves upon us. I really dont have any figures but I would guess that forty years ago most ordinary folks didn't have "chequing accounts", my parents certainly didn't, direct debits, ATM, debit/credit cards etc, didn't exhist.

 

I remember my business manager being very sheepish about charging £5.00 for returning an item in 1990 on my business account. I simply can't remember being charged on my personal account, they either paid the item or they didn't.

 

The banks sneak these charges in gradualy, they find that people accept them, so they expand the practice.

 

Remember a few years ago, when they began charging for ATM withdrawals, people voted with their feet, and stopped using them, they soon dropped the charges.

 

I think that due to the efforts of this, and other boards, the practice will soon stop, or at least become reasonable. I can see the adverts now "No charges...There is another way".

 

Ultimately, the lack of real competition in the banking industry is a problem.

 

*********************************************************

 

By the way, it might intrest readers to have a look at "fractional reserve banking" and "fiat currency".

 

Google them!!!!

 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/frb.html

 

http://www.answers.com/topic/fiat-money

Please note: I give advice, in good faith, based on my reading and experience. Please satisfy yourself, that any advice given is accurate in content before acting upon it.

A to Z index

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/site-questions-suggestions/53182-cant-find-what-youre.html

 

...........................................................................

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The old argument about unreasonable fees never washes with me. For a start, you could say that about all sorts of costs. Fries from McDonalds cost pence to make, how DARE they charge 2 quid for them etc etc Also, banks are a business, not a charity. You don't get charged for debit cards, printed statements etc. All of these cost money, running accounts costs money, that's life. Of course banks make loads of money, but that's capitalism for ya, get in the real world.

 

 

I would be interested in knowing your response to the way in which banks cascade these charges. I would agree with your point in principal, if this was used once each time the problem occurred - but it doesn't.

 

From talking to creditors, the banks tell creditors "We cannot pay this today. Re-submit it in 24 hours and we'll try again" and then use that as an excuse to charge a further fee, when in reality they know that it will bounce the second time too. They have consistently used this method even when it is clear that the account holder doesn't realise the escalating situation, such as when someone has paid in money the day the direct debit is set to go out instead of the previous day - because these charges show on the account immediately, the bank regards them as debited and can use this extra £30+ amount in calculating whether to pay the second submission. So if someone has a direct debit for £15, pays £20 in the day the direct debit is due, they won't just get a £30 charge, they'll get TWO £30 charges, because the day they paid in the £20 that had already been swallowed up in the first £30 charge, and in addition they'll end up STILL owing the original £15.

 

To me, this is deliberate profiteering. To me, this is fraud. This is a way a bank can make a swift £90 or £120 a week by cascading charges where in reality they should say the first time "Please contact the person who owes you the money."

 

What are your thoughts on this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

...They have consistently used this method even when it is clear that the account holder doesn't realise the escalating situation...

I think that hits the nail on the head. Their justification is that we should manage our accounts properly...and then keep us in the dark when the key decisions that we need to make are occurring...

 

If I was to have a cheque going out that would make me overdrawn, I would like to have the opportunity to 'bounce' it myself. That way I know it would only bounce once, I could let my creditor know the situation, and I would only need to pay the bank one (reasonable) charge...

 

Yes, escalate, I think that is a perfect word to describe what the banks do...

Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.

 

All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
They haven't charged me yet. I will only know when my statement comes.

It normally goes out on a Wednesday but my pension went out that same day (£120) leaving only £30. A paypal DD went out that I wasn't expecting which took me to -£9.something. They let the pension and paypal DD's go out then delayed the standing order until the Thursday when my wages went in.

 

I have been with the abbey for 17 years and I haven't been the perfect customer, living close to the limit. In this sort of case they used to stop the DD (leaving you to sort it out) and not charge.

Now they seem to let the payments go through but charge.

 

I am strongly considering claiming back charges but due to my credit rating I would struggle to get another current account and I have heard the abbey are a bit triggerhappy when it comes to booting people off.

 

I've just been sorting through some papers and found this letter. It really wound me up so I have written them a strongly worded letter:-

 

Dear Ms Robertson,

I refer to you letter dated 16th March 2006. I enclose a copy for your reference as although you have “signed” it, it is clearly automatically generated.

What can I say? I am sorry this standing order for £2.50 took my account into minus figures.

The £2.50 is a weekly standing order into an abbey savings account for my baby son William.

We are trying to bring William up with a healthy attitude to money and savings. It seems that abbey does not share this attitude by spitting out letters about transfers from one abbey account to the other.

To punish me for helping him to save is not the way I want William to learn about saving.

I am a loyal abbey customer. I have had accounts with Abbey for as long as I can remember. I have continued to bank with the abbey despite not living near an abbey branch for the last 8 years.

You reward this loyalty by levelling punitive charges against me for the most minor of account infringements. Your organisation regularly dips into my account and takes dis-proportionate sums of money in relation to minor transactions.

You say in your letter “Don’t forget that we’re here to help you manage your money”. Well I am sorry but I do not believe you. The abbey has changed and not for the better.

I am currently in the process of moving my finances away from the abbey. My loyalty to you is gone. No more blind faith that you have my best interests at heart.

I have closed Williams savings account as well as another family savings account. William will not follow me into being an Abbey customer. I will tell him the truth about your misdeeds with regards to charges. I am taking steps to close all my abbey accounts and end my lifelong association with the abbey. And if anyone in your organisation cares enough to ask, it was your enclosed letter that was the straw that broke the camels back.

Yours sincerely,

Abbey (Charges on 3 accounts and default on my credit record) - DPA letter sent 30/03/06 - 40 days limit is 9th May - Recieved DPA printouts 05/04/06 with microfiche "fob off" letter. <p>Barclaycard (Charges on 1 account and default on my credit record) - DPA letter sent 03/04/06 - 40 days limit is 13th May - Recieved some statements 08/04/06 along with DPA printout and a microfiche "fob off" letter. Claim for £340 sent 11/04/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, this question has an obvious answer, but: why do the banks simply not pay Direct Debits and standing orders for which I do not have funds available? .

 

The official line we i was given during my training at RBS is that we only do it (bounce DDs / SOs) as a last resort. Apparently if we refuse to pay a DD it is a technical breach of the Data Protection Act as we are effectively telling other companies about the customers accounts (ie they have no money) All righty then!

Shame I'm one of the few in the bank who's smart enough to see through their lies.

(Yes I work for a bank but am here to help! Please be nice to me! :))

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5668 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...