Reclaim Your Bank And Card Charges

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Shaun

Pia, that's complete bull****. My other half used to run the Microfiche department when Barclays (Bank, Current/Savings/Loans) had them stored in Leicester.

They are now with an external company in Glasgow (at last checking with is former colleagues). The normal accounts are stored in sort code order and then account number and are printed to MF every three months.

For current accounts and savings the account number given to the customer is even given to them in an order so that when the fiche are ordered properly in the cabinet according to a/c number they are also (roughly) alphabetical in respect to name too.

Looks like Abbey tried this "MF are not a proper filing system" crap too.

Abbey Bank microfiche is relevant - IT'S OFFICIAL!!
The Information Commissioner has responded to a flood of complaints from CAG Users by conducting an investigation of Abbeys claim that their microfiche was not subject to the Data Protection Act. Their conclusion: That Abbey have been breaching their statutory obligations. Have you been refused a statutory disclosure by the Abbey? Now is the time to make a claim.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...s-against.html

I'm guessing Barclays will be found out too soon.

Scamming buggers.

[SMHarman]

Looks to me like the microfiche departments are getting overloaded with requests and this is the lazy way to address it. I would imagine the banks consider the microfiche filing a cheap way to store for business record purposes and can be trawled through for internal purposes, now the masses are requiring this information the system cannot cope and I would also hazzard a guess that all this access to them is starting to get the fiches mixed up making info harder to find.

Does not make it right though.

[lostandconfused]

hi,
not sure if anyone can help with this, ive just got in touch with the halifax about bank charges, they told me that as the OFT ruling only came in in april they would only backdate the charges until then? is this correct?

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by lostandconfused

hi,
not sure if anyone can help with this, ive just got in touch with the halifax about bank charges, they told me that as the OFT ruling only came in in april they would only backdate the charges until then? is this correct?

Absolute poppycock. They've just refunded my charges for the past six years. Carry on as usual. If you want help with letters templates etc etc, drop me a pm!

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by lostandconfused

hi,
not sure if anyone can help with this, ive just got in touch with the halifax about bank charges, they told me that as the OFT ruling only came in in april they would only backdate the charges until then? is this correct?

They could have an argument that they would not refund any charges since April as they are in line with OFT guidance, but anything before then is fair game.
Anyway, see the post above.

[Mr Angry]

It's complete rubbish.

[Shaun]

It's a down right lie.

Send it to the OFT. I bet they'd love the hear about banks using their name to get out of paying the fees back!

[lostandconfused]

well a recorded delivery letter is on its way to them hopefully it will go well

[Mr Angry]

I've developed a slight variation on the initial formal approach letter which is proving very effective and resulting in "Hands up, we're rumbled" refunds without the usual "We believe, they said, you said, she said that... aye, your ma" nonsense.

I'll post it later.

[Alien]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

One such example of a penalty charge is the recently introduced "£10.00 late payment fee" (by its very own title a penalty) from a certain company.

I recently had 1 of those, as they don't do that payment arrangement thing anymore. A good & wise friend suggested I speak to their "please don't leave us" department [my term, not his - I forget what he said they're called], but for the most part I'm relatively happy with NTL [aside from their not allowing the use of 3rd-party decoders, even though I wouldn't be getting any channels I shouldn't be ], so don't want to risk them calling my bluff.

As for my bank [LTSB] & CC [Capital One], mostly I manage the accounts fairly well, though maybe a couple of times [for each] I've gone over my limit & incurred a charge, but I've always paid enough in within a few days to get back within my limit, so I don't think it'd be worth the hassle. If I stood to gain more back, then I'd probably go for it. I should also point out that this is a personal choice & don't want to discourage those who are owed way more. The only thing I wish was less is the interest on the CC, but that gets less [in amount, not %] if I pay it off, which I'm trying to do, though when I do have enough paid off there are things I need to buy again, thus back to square 1. Oh well.

[edit]
p.s. great thread guys, keep up the great work.
[/edit]

[lostandconfused]

update on the bank charge saga, think im going to give up now, it seems like they want a fight and am not sure i can be bothered. am quite impressed with how quick they got back to me, not so impressed with the content though.
this is the reply i got.

"To summarise, you are requesting the refund of any default charges applied to your account in view of the recent rulling by the office of fair trading.

Following publication of the OFT's report on industry-wide credit card charges, i can confirm that HBOS is reducing its card default fees - although it does not support all the OFT's findings.

HBOS disagrees with the legal analysis of default fees outlined in the OFT statement, published in April. however the group confirmed 2nd June 2006 that it will be reducing default fees across its credit card product range to £12 with effect from 1 august 2006, and until that date all existing terms and conditions will apply. this charge will not be apploed retrospectively, so unfortunatly, no refund of charges is due to you.

I trust this response has clarified our position and resolves this matter for you.

Yours sincerely

xxxx"

[Alien]

lostandconfused: it's just more bull to put you off, if you stand to get back more than I would, e.g. an amount well into 3 or 4 figures, then I'd say keep going. They're still banging on about their terms & conditions, but the fact is that no terms & conditions can override UK law, & as has been said numerous times the charges are illegal under UK law.

[I'm not a lawyer/solicitor/etc, just repeating what's been said on here & on the community action site.]

[lostandconfused]

thanks for your reply i think i will send them another letter in the morning,
its not a huge amount of money, total of £210, its more the case of if they are wrong then i shouldnt have been charged.

does anyone know if the OFT rulling is actually a law? im just trying to think if things like mentioned in the above post so i can get my facts straight before i send them another letter

[Mr Angry]

Include this in your next letter (apologies for the delay).

"....I did not enquire as to why these charges are added. I know why they have been added and, in light of the information as provided in my original correspondence, reiterated above, I am disputing the legitimacy of same.

Nowhere did I suggest that the OFT were challenging the right of banks to add default charges. I stated that the OFT viewed charges in excess of £12.00 (yours being £**.**) as excessive / unfair. You quite rightly pointed out that the OFT believes default charges of £12.00 as likely to be fair. You then go on to assert, as is your right, that you disagree with the OFT analysis. It is clear that we are of differing opinions on the matter but, for my part, I have yet to see evidence of any financial institution successfully defending an action reclaiming default charges where the plaintiff has cited the views / opinion of the OFT on the matter.

Additionally I would draw your attention to what Mr Fingleton states in paragraph IV of his press release (68/06) 6th April 2006:

“Where credit card default charges are set at more than £12, the OFT will presume that they are unfair, and is likely to challenge the charge unless there are limited, exceptional business factors in play. A default charge is not fair simply because it is below £12.â€ÆšÃ‚Â�

And further, from NOTES 4. thereof:

“The OFT is not proposing that default fees should be equivalent to the threshold, and a court will certainly not consider that a default fee is fair just because it is below the threshold.�

Notwithstanding your right to disagree with the OFT’s analysis, as I have said, I find it interesting that of the many dozens of documented cases of County Court action having been instigated against banks to recover charges not one successful defence of said charges has reached court - all have been settled out of court.

On that basis I think it is fair to assume that HBOS, along with many other financial institutions, is uneasy with the prospect of having to explain the breakdown of their charges in open court. It was for that reason that I requested a refund of these charges without the “hassleâà ƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ã‚ÂÂ� of issuing proceedings. I would much rather resolve this situation at this stage than draw further on County Court resources by encouraging defence motions which, ultimately, never see court. I would also like to think that HBOS would be minded to consider the fact that there are more important, though no less principled, matters which County Courts could be dealing with...."



cc the letter to Mr Fingleton at the OFT and also advise them that you will be including copies with your N1 form in the event that they insist on going to court.

[Alien]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Include this in your next letter (apologies for the delay).
<snipped rest of excellent post>

Dude, if you're not a lawyer/solicitor/whetever, you should consider it. That was the finest example of a polite, yet unmistakeable I think I've ever seen!