Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The reason that I have indicated that it is the seller who should bring an action against Hermes is not because they are the seller – but because they are the person who suffered the loss. If you haven't suffered a loss then you probably don't have the status – locus standi – to bring a court action. Of course there is a slight problem that you didn't enter into the contract with Hermes – the purchaser did. Until 1999 this would have been a problem and would have prevented you from bringing any kind of action at all – at least on the basis of contract. However, since 1999, the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act gives the beneficiary of any contract full third party rights as if they were a contracting party. The only exception to this is that if the contract specifically excluded non-contracting parties – and I'm not aware that Hermes has yet amended their contract to try and prevent this. Of course as usual, Hermes will make a big point about the fact that no insurance was purchased. Hopefully you have been reading around the threads on this sub- forum and you have seen that our view is that it is completely unfair and in fact it is absurd to require a customer to pay money to protect Hermes or any other service provider from the consequences of their own negligence or the criminality of their own employees. Every time this point has been raised with Hermes in mediation, Hermes have settled and we consider that it is because they want to avoid going to court to get a definitive judgement that their insurance scam – is precisely that – a scam. On the basis of what I understand here, this is more than just negligence there is criminality and your bike has been stolen. You've already begun a complaint and you have been knocked back and so I think there's no point in mucking around and I think that you should simply issue a letter of claim to Hermes giving them 14 days to settle in full or else you will begin a court action. Make sure that you have read around the forum about taking a small claim in the County Court. It's very easy but you need to be aware of the steps. If you send the letter of claim, then don't expect that they are suddenly going to refund you your money. They won't. They will force you to issue the court papers and who will then force you to pay the hearing fee. At this point, they will opt for mediation and they will try to knock you down and get your compromise in your claim. You should stand your ground and refused to compromise even a single penny. We will help you all the way. You seem to be a seller and a purchaser here who are getting on very well together and so as you are motivated by a common purpose, you may want to get an agreement where you decide to share the fees of court action – which won't be very much. I haven't checked the court fees for this value claim – but I expect that the whole thing will be only about £120. Of course you will get that back when you win – but bear in mind there is a is a slight risk factor and that means that £120 would be the extent of your risk and would be the maximum that you would lose. It is inconceivable that you would lose. You should be claiming the cost of the bike, the cost of delivery, plus interest which is presently 8% – a very good rate in today's economic climate. Of course you will also claim back your court fees. If you want to proceed then please let us know and let us know also that you have read around the stories and also the steps involved taking a small claim in the County Court and that you understand what you are doing. If you do your basic reading over the next couple of days then we can help you draft a letter of claim on Sunday and you can send it off on Monday. I would recommend that you post your draft letter of claim on this forum so we can check it. Keep it short and to the point.
    • That's what keeps divorce lawyers and mediators in work, I suppose. You think he's being unreasonable and he thinks you are.   My gut feeling is that it would be better to have this agreed in writing so it can't be challenged later, but that's just my opinion. Here's more information from the CAB in case it covers something you haven't already considered.   HB
    • Biden doesn't seem bothered about negotiating a trade treaty to suit the UK government's timetable. I don't suppose they saw this coming, not that the amount of trade involved makes up for what's being lost with Europe anyway.   https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-boris-johnson-usa-trade-deal-b1807616.html
    • No we haven’t mentioned divorce yet The fair split is I give him half the equity and anything he wants to take from the house  I just feel he is now being unreasonable because I won’t change my mind and take him back 
    • Hi.   Have you spoken to a divorce lawyer or has your husband? Trying to look at this from the outside, it sounds as if it would be better to agree a fair split according to divorce law rather than deciding between you.   Sadly, once money becomes involved things can become more complicated, but I'd have thought a divorce lawyer would be able to advise.   ETA: Here's some advice from the government.   HB
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

abroadgirl v Abbey


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4069 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi Abg

 

I tried to pm you to explain what happened with ICY, it says you don't accept pm's. If you want to accept them you can change the setting in your user cp.

 

Regarding your case, I would carry on with your action, you have got nothing to lose in persuing a settlement. You have got a reply already even though not a settlement option. I would keep hassling Inga and marking everything you send "without predjudice" they can't use it in court then.

 

I am no fountain of knowledge about this, probably quite the reverse. Something I am quite good at though is composing letters or e-mails. If you want any help on that score then I will gladly give it to you:eek: , I've just read that back..............oops...............I meant writing something for you!!!!!

 

I hope my offer doesn't sound condesending to you, I am just trying to be of some use and help if you want me to be.

 

Take care, my little gem and thanks for all your support and help with my case.

 

Si:) xxx

  • Haha 1

:)IF YOU ARE BORED WITH LITTLE TO DO:)

My Story - Simon -V- The (SH)Abbey - :!:WON / 19 November 2007:!:

 

SKY TV and the penalty charge - how far will it go?

 

Me V Its4me and Close Premium Finance:!:WON / 28 November 2007:!:

 

IF I CAN HELP, I WILL, IF I DO, THEN PLEASE CLICK ON THE SCALES ON THE LEFT

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 467
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

sorry for the neglect here i have been busy in another thread sorry everyone ok i will give you all my update

as follows.....

i am at the stage now where didtrict judge law has given abbey and myself till the 17th aug to settle i have email ronan.coyle in which i got a reply the day after saying i will hear in due course which i am very lucky that i got a reply as i knowsome of u have said that u are still waiting lol

i am not sure what to do when the 17th comes but i will check and i promise to come in more in my thread sorry peeps i hope and wish you all well and stick with whatever you are doing its a long haul and its painful upsetting confusing etc but i am sure it will all be worth it in the end.

do stick with it as i have, with the help of everyone here i was going to give up but they all kept me going it took me over three weeks to do my court bundle and i know i proberly did to much but hey they got the lot so anyway i will keep u all informed if i can help in anyway please dont hesitate to drop me a line i will help in any way i can take care good luck

hugs abg

Link to post
Share on other sites
HI ALL

JUST TO LET YOU KNOW I EMAILeD INGA SHE IS ON HOLIDAYS UNTILL TODAY, SO I THEN SENT THE SAME EMAIL TO RONAN.COYLE FOR A SETTLEMENT HERE IS MY REPLY i got from him today

 

 

Dear Madam

 

Your email has been noted and we will get back to you in due course.

 

Kind regards

 

Ronan

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

has anyone else had this from him and if so did he make a settlement offer?

hope you are all alright

hope i have put this in the right thread

abroadgirl

 

UPDATE

I emailed ronan but is away till the 15th aug so i then emailed inga & clare

heres my reply ghee i only sent it this morning and a reply already what do u think of that then comments on there reply is welcomed

although we know about the test case etc dont we

"Without prejudice"

 

Thank you for your email. Whilst Abbey National Plc appreciates your offer, we are instructed to reject the same.

 

You may not be aware however, Abbey National Plc is now a party to a test case being litigated in the High Court. We will write to you in relation to the future conduct of your claim shortly.

 

Kind regards,

 

Inga Kirkman

Senior Associate

Solicitor, NSW

******************************************again any advice to what this means conduct of my claim shortly ty i know iom a bit thick hugs abroadgirl

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi i have been intouch with debt management as abbey grabby shabbey has refered me to them for ongoing charges since 9th jan for a returned cheque which they took out there charge but it has been ongoing since this date also a payment from paypal which has been refunded i am now mad as shabbey has untill the 17th aug to settle district judge law is aware of this but have been told by the dm that i must pay £1 to have this extened to the end of the month how dare they want all these charges £322 was the last it is more now but are shabbey right to keep these charges ongoing they closed my account without telling me which i have just recently found out i just feel like emailing or faxing them about this do u think i should fax or emailthem about this ty for any help and advice

abroadgirl

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you talking about Abbeys IN HOUSE debt managament?

If yes, then of course thaey are going to tell you to pay.

Also you refer to settleing a case? waht is this about

 

If you could break this down a little it would help others to understand and help you.

Also its a lot easier for other people to read your post if you can use punctuation, as it makes it a bit clearer.

I know a lot of people do this, you type as you would speak.

 

PKea

Link to post
Share on other sites

ghee punctuation this is new to me lol i have other threads but never been asked this before

okay i dont know about puntuation but will break it down for you

debt management in edinborugh want a payment .

i have taken all the steps reguarding abbey.

they have been ordered by district judge xxxx to make a settlement by 17th aug 07, for the sun of over seven thousand.

 

debt managers edinborough wnat payment for the ongoing charges since 9th jan 07 for a returned cheque which i say they shouldnt charge me every month for this.

they closed my account with them 26 th july without telling me.

abg.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hello is it worth me emailing inga again as i am not sure as to what to do with this going on they are saying all claims are on hold? so if that is they case what is going to happen as district judge xxxx has given them to a week on friday to settle i dont know what to do or what to say i have put in here a copy of there replys to me any help or advise much appreciated thankyou

good luck to everyone with there claims

hugs

abg

Link to post
Share on other sites

keep going ABG,

your almost there and so long as the case is heard, you have more chance of coming away with it all.:D

The worst that could happen is the judge allows them the stay they are all going for, as I have found and I have not even submitted my issue yet.:mad: Each court is different.

good luck, and don't panic.

regards

chris

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

hi chris thankyou so much for replying how far and at what stage are you at, i dont really understand all of this and can honestly say gets confusing at times up to nopw i havent had a court date all i have is that district judge xxxx has said that abour a settlement between us both by 17th aug so this is why with reading the threads ithought i would send them en email which u can see here what i did and there replies so now i am at the stage i dont know what to say or put or do, reguarding the settlement, and if i dont hear anything is this when iget a court date? i am sorry for all the questions thanku so much if i can be of any help for u let me know tyvm chris

abg

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh my look what i have found i will post part 2 as well

The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) should investigate the level of charges for

failed direct debits on basic bank accounts to ensure that charges are not

disproportionate but reflect the costs incurred by the banks.

26. The national rollout of HB reform should not start until difficulties with opening

and using bank accounts for payment of local housing allowance have been

resolved. DWP should work with HM Treasury and the Financial Inc lusion

Task Force to achieve this, and to consider the funding of support services for

people opening basic bank accounts more generally.

27. To make a real and lasting difference, efforts to extend access to bank

accounts need to become an integral part of banks’ core business. We

therefore recommend that the Financial Inclusion Task Force should

commission a report to outline the business case for banks to actively offer

bank accounts to people on low incomes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

CAB clients are likely to be on low incomes. Recent research for Citizens

Advice by MORI shows that CAB clients are predominantly in social groups

DE and more likely to be tenants of social housing than the population as a

whole.

45 They are therefore more vulnerable to very small income shocks,

and are at risk of falling into unmanageable debt. Whilst these debts may

seem small, they can have a great and detrimental impact on people’s lives.

Banks’ right of set-off

3.4 CAB evidence shows that banks can take money out of a customer’s basic or

current account to pay other debts to the bank without checking the

customer’s circumstances first. Nearly 40 per cent of the evidence forms

submitted by bureaux and analysed for this report concerned this issue.

3.5 Under accepted banking practice, banks have a general right to evaluate a

customer’s financial situation and, if necessary, to ‘combine’ the accounts

held by that customer. In reality, this means that a bank can transfer money

from an account that is in credit in order to make payments that are due on

another account. This principle is known as the right of ‘set-off’. According to

the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), this right does not have to be

mentioned in the Terms and Conditions which apply when opening any bank

account including savings accounts. The only onus on the bank is that they

should give the client a ‘reasonable’ amount of time to pay the debt; although

44

Beyond Bank Accounts: full financial inclusion, Sue Regan and Will Paxton, ippr and Citizens

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Banking Code is silent about the right of set-off, though it does commit

subscribers to treat customers in financial difficulty positively and

sympathetically. This responsibility is defined in the Banking Code Guidance

for Subscribers which states “the subscriber should take into account any

other accounts that the customer may have with the subscriber if these have a

credit balance…the subscriber should leave the customer with sufficient

money for reasonable day-to-day expenses, taking into account individual

circumstances”.

47

3.8 Evidence from bureaux shows banks are not adhering to this guidance, and

as a result, CAB clients are suffering excessively. Cases reveal that banks

are removing income - and for the majority of our clients this is benefit income

required for essential needs - to satisfy outstanding debts. Some clients are

even finding that banks are removing all their income leaving them with

nothing to live on.

A Buckinghamshire CAB reported that they saw a client who has her

son’s disability living allowance (DLA) and child benefit (CB) paid into

her current account. The account was overdrawn and she also had two

consolidation loans so owed £27,000. The bank removed the client’s

DLA and CB payments for two months, resulting in severe hardship with

the loss of some £500 a month benefit income. This left the client short

of money for food for her children.

A South West Wales CAB saw a client who was experiencing financial

hardship and was in debt. The client had two young children and was in

receipt of income support. Her bank had been accessing the client’s

account to meet some debt repayments, leaving the client with no

money to live on. The client was left in a situation where she could not

cover her rent and risked eviction.

A Lincolnshire CAB reported that they saw a client who has been

overdrawn twice in one month. The bank used the client’s child tax

credit and child benefit to pay off the overdraft and the overdraft

charges. This has left the client with no money for her children or to pay

for her living costs.

46

Banking: firms' right of 'set off', Financial Ombudsman Service, Ombudsman News Issue 40

Link to post
Share on other sites

A rural CAB in the Midlands saw a client who had been unable to open

a basic bank account. As a result her DLA was paid into a current

account. The account has an overdraft and the whole amount of her

recent DLA payment of £65 was used to ‘service’ her overdraft. This is

despite repeated requests to not use this income.

A Humberside CAB reported that a lone parent with four children, and

who was expecting a baby, was shocked to discover that £400 of her

social fund maternity grant had been transferred out of her bank

account to pay other debts leaving her with about £30 to live on. The

client told the bureau that the bank had taken £200 out of her account a

few weeks before. On contacting the local branch she was asked to

speak to a helpdesk who informed her that even though an offer of

repayments for the amount she owed the bank had been accepted, they

would check her account regularly and take any money found to be in it.

3.9 Such practices obviously have major implications for the planned rollout of

LHA payments to bank accounts. As discussed earlier, reform of HB entails

payment being made direct from the local authority to the claimant’s bank

account for te nants in private rented accommodation. So if a client is in debt

on another account, their LHA payment might be appropriated to pay it,

leaving the client unable to pay their landlord, and facing rent arrears and

even eviction. In comparison there are no t such drastic consequences for

non-payment of an unsecured credit debt.

3.10 This practice does nothing to help people with multiple debt problems, and

can reinforce poverty and social exclusion. If the bank chooses to enact its

right of set-off and wholly removes the balance in a client’s account for money

owed on a non-priority debt - a credit card for example - it may prevent the

client from honouring other, perhaps more critical, debt repayments. And as

banks are not duty bound to inform the client that they are going to use their

right of set-off, the client is not given the opportunity to manage their other

financial commitments.

Direct debits and administration charges

3.1

1 It is not just the banks’ right to set-off which is undermining the financial

welfare and stability of CAB clients. Charges levied by banks for items such

as failed direct debits, standing orders, unauthorised overdrafts and bounced

cheques can also cause considerable hardship. This is a growing problem:

research by Egg highlights the substantial 71 per cent increase over the last

five years in the use of direct debits as a means of paying household bills and

nearly a third of all UK current account holders claim to have been hit by a

charge for going over their agreed overdraft limit.

48

3.1

2 Although basic bank accounts have a direct debit facility, the majority do not

allow for an overdraft facility. Therefore if one or more direct debits fail

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok looking up on diffrent web sites for abbey i came across this and read the 56 pages in which i am now printing it all out what i found interesting i have put in here for u all

abroadgirl

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) should investigate the level of charges for

failed direct debits on basic bank accounts to ensure that charges are not

disproportionate but reflect the costs incurred by the banks.

2

6. The national rollout of HB reform should not start until difficulties with opening

and using bank accounts for payment of local housing allowance have been

resolved. DWP should work with HM Treasury and the Financial Inc lusion

Task Force to achieve this, and to consider the funding of support services for

people opening basic bank accounts more generally.

27. To make a real and lasting difference, efforts to extend access to bank

accounts need to become an integral part of banks’ core business. We

therefore recommend that the Financial Inclusion Task Force should

commission a report to outline the business case for banks to actively offer

bank accounts to people on low incomes. part 2 to continue

Link to post
Share on other sites

CAB clients are likely to be on low incomes. Recent research for Citizens

Advice by MORI shows that CAB clients are predominantly in social groups

DE and more likely to be tenants of social housing than the population as a

whole.

45 They are therefore more vulnerable to very small income shocks,

and are at risk of falling into unmanageable debt. Whilst these debts may

seem small, they can have a great and detrimental impact on people’s lives.

Banks’ right of set-off

3.4 CAB evidence shows that banks can take money out of a customer’s basic or

current account to pay other debts to the bank without checking the

customer’s circumstances first. Nearly 40 per cent of the evidence forms

submitted by bureaux and analysed for this report concerned this issue.

3.5 Under accepted banking practice, banks have a general right to evaluate a

customer’s financial situation and, if necessary, to ‘combine’ the accounts

held by that customer. In reality, this means that a bank can transfer money

from an account that is in credit in order to make payments that are due on

another account. This principle is known as the right of ‘set-off’. According to

the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), this right does not have to be

mentioned in the Terms and Conditions which apply when opening any bank

account including savings accounts. The only onus on the bank is that they

should give the client a ‘reasonable’ amount of time to pay the debt; although

44

Beyond Bank Accounts: full financial inclusion, Sue Regan and Will Paxton, ippr and Citizens

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Banking Code is silent about the right of set-off, though it does commit

subscribers to treat customers in financial difficulty positively and

sympathetically. This responsibility is defined in the Banking Code Guidance

for Subscribers which states “the subscriber should take into account any

other accounts that the customer may have with the subscriber if these have a

credit balance…the subscriber should leave the customer with sufficient

money for reasonable day-to-day expenses, taking into account individual

circumstances”.

47

3.8 Evidence from bureaux shows banks are not adhering to this guidance, and

as a result, CAB clients are suffering excessively. Cases reveal that banks

are removing income - and for the majority of our clients this is benefit income

required for essential needs - to satisfy outstanding debts. Some clients are

even finding that banks are removing all their income leaving them with

nothing to live on.

A Buckinghamshire CAB reported that they saw a client who has her

son’s disability living allowance (DLA) and child benefit (CB) paid into

her current account. The account was overdrawn and she also had two

consolidation loans so owed £27,000. The bank removed the client’s

DLA and CB payments for two months, resulting in severe hardship with

the loss of some £500 a month benefit income. This left the client short

of money for food for her children.

A South West Wales CAB saw a client who was experiencing financial

hardship and was in debt. The client had two young children and was in

receipt of income support. Her bank had been accessing the client’s

account to meet some debt repayments, leaving the client with no

money to live on. The client was left in a situation where she could not

cover her rent and risked eviction.

A Lincolnshire CAB reported that they saw a client who has been

overdrawn twice in one month. The bank used the client’s child tax

credit and child benefit to pay off the overdraft and the overdraft

charges. This has left the client with no money for her children or to pay

for her living costs.

46

Banking: firms' right of 'set off', Financial Ombudsman Service, Ombudsman News Issue 40

Link to post
Share on other sites

A rural CAB in the Midlands saw a client who had been unable to open

a basic bank account. As a result her DLA was paid into a current

account. The account has an overdraft and the whole amount of her

recent DLA payment of £65 was used to ‘service’ her overdraft. This is

despite repeated requests to not use this income.

A Humberside CAB reported that a lone parent with four children, and

who was expecting a baby, was shocked to discover that £400 of her

social fund maternity grant had been transferred out of her bank

account to pay other debts leaving her with about £30 to live on. The

client told the bureau that the bank had taken £200 out of her account a

few weeks before. On contacting the local branch she was asked to

speak to a helpdesk who informed her that even though an offer of

repayments for the amount she owed the bank had been accepted, they

would check her account regularly and take any money found to be in it.

3.9 Such practices obviously have major implications for the planned rollout of

LHA payments to bank accounts. As discussed earlier, reform of HB entails

payment being made direct from the local authority to the claimant’s bank

account for te nants in private rented accommodation. So if a client is in debt

on another account, their LHA payment might be appropriated to pay it,

leaving the client unable to pay their landlord, and facing rent arrears and

even eviction. In comparison there are no t such drastic consequences for

non-payment of an unsecured credit debt.

3.10 This practice does nothing to help people with multiple debt problems, and

can reinforce poverty and social exclusion. If the bank chooses to enact its

right of set-off and wholly removes the balance in a client’s account for money

owed on a non-priority debt - a credit card for example - it may prevent the

client from honouring other, perhaps more critical, debt repayments. And as

banks are not duty bound to inform the client that they are going to use their

right of set-off, the client is not given the opportunity to manage their other

financial commitments.

Direct debits and administration charges

3.1

1 It is not just the banks’ right to set-off which is undermining the financial

welfare and stability of CAB clients. Charges levied by banks for items such

as failed direct debits, standing orders, unauthorised overdrafts and bounced

cheques can also cause considerable hardship. This is a growing problem:

research by Egg highlights the substantial 71 per cent increase over the last

five years in the use of direct debits as a means of paying household bills and

nearly a third of all UK current account holders claim to have been hit by a

charge for going over their agreed overdraft limit.

48

3.1

2 Although basic bank accounts have a direct debit facility, the majority do not

allow for an overdraft facility. Therefore if one or more direct debits fail

Link to post
Share on other sites

because there are insufficient funds the consumer will be penalised for failing

to honour a direct debit and may then be charged for having an unauthorised

overdraft.

3.1

3 The Banking Code stipulates that banks should exercise consideration when

applying charges, especially if a client is in financial difficulty. The code states

that ‘subscribers may consider agreeing with such customers appropriate

concessions relating to charges and interest payable by the customer. This

may mean suspending or reducing interest, default charges and annual fees

where agreed repayments do not cover them’.49

3.1

4 The table b elow shows the charges levied by banks for missed direct debits

on their basic bank accounts, and also shows whether the account offers a

free buffer zone. There is an extraordinary 160 per cent difference between

the lowest and highest charges.

Table 3.1 Basic Bank Accounts – Summary of charges

50

Bank Free Buffer Zone Charge for unpaid

Direct Debit

Abbey No £35

Alliance & Leicester No £34

Bank of Ireland No £38

Bank of Scotland No £39

Barclays No £15

Clydesdale No £35

Cooperative Bank No £19.50

First Trust Bank £10 Under £35 = £22.50

Over £35 = £37.50

Halifax No £39

HSBC £10 No

Lloyds TSB £10 No

Nationwide Building Society No £30

NatWest No £38

Northern Bank No £37.50

The Royal Bank of Scotland No £38

Ulster Bank No Under £20 = £35

Over £20 = £37.50

Yorkshire Bank No £35

3.15 Table 3.2 shows charges for unpaid direct debit for some current accounts.

Viewed together, both tables highlight the comparable level of charging for

both basic and current accounts. For example, Halifax charges exactly the

same amount for both its current and basic accounts.

49

The Banking Code, Section 14.3, March 2005

Link to post
Share on other sites

To improve promotion of basic bank accounts,

the Banking Code

should mandate banks to display information about basic bank

accounts in bank branches. Specifically, the Banking Code Guidance

(Paragraph 3.2) should be strengthened to state "Where we offer basic

bank accounts, literature relating to the account will be clearly

displayed in our banking halls and on our website."

·

The Banking Code rules and Guidance (Paragraph 3.1) should be

changed to mandate that where applications for a basic bank

account are turned down, banks must provide a proforma letter

explaining clearly the reasons for the refusal, and detailing

exactly what applicants need to do to remedy the situation.

·

The Banking Code guidance should require firms to include the

need to combat financial exclusion in their money laundering

training. An integral part of this should be a focus on why people may

be on benefits or unbanked, as this would help to improve awareness

among bank branch staff of the difficulties that these people may face,

and help to foster a more understanding approach.

·

The Banking Code and Guidance should be amended so that

banks provide a commitment that it will take no more than 10

working days to open a basic bank account where acceptable ID

is provided. Where delays are experienced, banks should keep

clients informed, and should seek to proactively assist applicants

where problems are encountered.

·

The Banking Code should include Guidance on how basic bank

accounts should be upgraded, and detail the safeguards that

should be put in place.

·

The Banking Code should prohibit banks from exercising their

right of set-off from basic bank accounts. This is because the

customer may have to make repayments to other creditors which are of

greater priority such as paying for rent, mortgage, council tax or fuel.

In relation to the right of set-off from current accounts, the

Banking Code and Guidance should be amended to require banks

to refund any money they have appropriated through the right of

set-off to a customer who can demonstrate that these actions

have left them in financial difficulty.

Recommendations to the JMLSG

4.

22 The Joint Money Laundering Steering Group (JMLSG) is made up of the

leading UK trade associations in the financial services industry. Its aim is to

promulgate good practice in countering money laundering and to give

practical assistance in interpreting the UK Money Laundering Regulations.

4.23 Citizens Advice recognises that positive steps have been taken by the JMLSG

to address the problems experienced by people who do not possess the

Link to post
Share on other sites

this is so true ,, i once went into halifax as i was on income support ,, and they took whole of benefit off me ,, i asked them to refund me they sed no os i asked them if i could at least have some refunded still no i explained i had 2 kids what was i supposed to live on , they basically sed tough s**t :( had to borrow off my mum in end and this went on for 2 weeks as i had 2 bounced cheques then went overdrawn by not having money into cover charges also :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

wow ABG,

youve been busy,

to try and get back to your question (I think it was about 16 pages ago!lol:D )

I got to the stage where I was to put my request for judgement in (thought I'd try my luck from the tel conv monday with the court clerk;) ) but was given it back with a sad look on the lady's face:o .

I was then informed an order of stay was already winging it's way to my home as we spoke.( I had to hold onto the counter because the ground nearly swallowed me up:eek:

Then when I rquested trying to counter the stay order, the lovely lady (bless her) said if you want to it will cost you £65 (fee) and the chances of it being succesful were very slim, and advised me (not in a legal authorative way like)to hold on until the outcome of the test case at the end of Feb 2008.:( What if the banks appeal when they lose (a little chuckle from the clerk cos I think she must have a claim in as well) the test case I say's, doesnt matter they can appeal but the stay should be lifted then, regardless of the outcome, because an appeal can take up to a year to go back to court, and this is only a temporary stay during the test case, so some good news there!

 

ps youve confused me on your further 84 posts :D regarding the CAB thingy.

 

will keep you informed

 

stay fresh everyone!!! (getting catchy that now) sounds like an advert for soap!!

 

regards

chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi chris *S* (smiles) i know i get carried away i have now been looking for statement of evidence and carnt find it anywhere:confused:

the cab thingy grins its called banking benefits and what the bank can and carnt do which i found interesting as they took my benefits and left me with nothing and there is a benefits acts where they carnt take your benefits.......... i will have to read ur thread again reguarding this oft and feb 2008 its a pain isnt it gheepers my eyes are closing here i think iwill leave it for now and come back tomorrow to see if i can find the statement of evidence thigy

take care and ty for all ur replies hugs

abg

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi deadlykiss, what stage are you at? did you knowthey are not allowed to take your benefits in charges? there is a thread on hear where you can get the acts stating that thy cannot take your money? let me know abg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...