Ladidi V Abbey

[Ladidi]

Hi all

 

Having found out that the chat room is no longer in use I would appreciate some help.

 

I am about to send a letter/email to Abbey and this is what I have said :

 

To whom it may concern

I am writing this email on 28th May 2007 in support of my claim for my bank charges to be returned to me for the last 6 years.

I have spoken on numerous occasions to members of Abbey staff on the customer services banking team who have escalated my claim along with the managers as my claim is past the 8 weeks set out by the FSA guidelines.

I feel that we have been more than fair by giving the Abbey plenty of opportunity to investigate our claim due the bank charges incurred over the last 6 years.

I have even given the abbey the opportunity to settle the claim by offering them a chance to pay me £4948.96 full and final settlement which consists of my total amount claimed £4442.47 total bank charges incurred. Total including interest £5328.96 less £2.50 per transaction totalling £380.00 for their costs incurred in dealing with our account which I believe is a fair and just amount considering the Abbey refuse to disclose their true costs of what it costs to deal their customers account when they go over drawn or have a missed Direct Debit and for them to issue a computer generated letter. I would also like to add that if the Abbey agree to this I will accept this without prejudice.

I would also like to draw the Abbeys attention to a recent summing by a judge in London who said that the Banks are abusing process by inflicting unnecessary work and inconvenience their customers.

“Judge Mackie was speaking at the London Mercantile Court, which has processed about 300 claims for refunds of allegedly unlawful charges this year.

He said: 'Looked at in the real world, where there will be no trial, these steps, which place completely pointless work and some anxiety on litigants in person, constitute unreasonable behaviour.

'From now on, we will generally treat such conduct as unreasonable behaviour, thus enabling any claimant who has been put to unnecessary work and inconvenience to be compensated for this.'

I would like to draw your attention to the 3rd paragraph. Should the Abbey not respond to our claim in a satisfactory manner by Friday 1st June 2007. We will have NO alternative but to instigate proceedings against the Abbey in order to get our money returned to us. I would also like to add that if this issue is forced on us we will also claim against the Abbey for courts costs to be added to the total of the claim as well as compensation for undue distress.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Ladidi

[Ladidi]

I have posted a message and I am hoping to get a reply and so far nothing

 

Does anyone have any ideas or offers of support or encouragement?

 

Ladidi

[charleyfarley]

good letter, but do you need to reinvent the wheel?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/671-2-letter-preliminary-approach.html

 

There's templates for all events on here

[Ladidi]

Thanks for the info Charleyfarley I had no idea that the letter you gave me existed. I spent an hour trying to fine tune mine and make sure I covered everything so should the Abbey force me into to court thent he judge would see I hade been more than fair and gave them opportunity to settle.

 

Do you feel I should just re word your letter - fill in the gaps of what is in mine and put into the template one and send the template letter you sent to me?

 

Ladidi

[Mad Nick]

Hi, I would stick to the templates. You throwing Judge Mackie at them will only give them an excuse to throw Kevin Berwick (failed Lloyds claim) back at you and it won't get you anywhere. Also, there's absolutely no need to "give" them £2.50 per transaction - you're basically flushing £380 of your money down the toilet. Finally, I don't understand your deadline - 1 June is only a few days away. Your Letter Before Action needs to give them 14 days. And if you've done everything by phone up until now, you first need to send them a written 1st chance (Prelim). It's safer in the long run - the Court expects a Claimant to have given a Defendant two chances - Abbey can always deny phone calls ! Regards, Mad Nick