Reclaim Your Bank And Card Charges

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Florence

yes sending over PM

Cheers. Right back at you.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Cheers. Right back at you.

Any update on this which you can share ( as a collegue was offered £950 based on a claim of £1031.0 0....first letter HSBC !)

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Mike

Any update on this which you can share ( as a collegue was offered £950 based on a claim of £1031.0 0....first letter HSBC !)

Hi Mike, I can't comment on Florence's case for obvious confidentiality reasons but I can tell you that there have been a swathe of settlement offers of late with "strange" figures being bandied about.

It appears that the majority of banks are simply giving refunds on the first letter as they know that there's no point in protracting what they are not confident they can defend.

One instance I am aware of with a value of £1132.6 4 was settled (minus £54.00) yesterday after the first letter which went as follows - I kid you not!!

"I value my credit card and the services which you / it afford me however I also suspect that the recent interest rates applied to same are to offset successful claims by customers in respect of charges levied. Whilst I am prepared to pay additional interest for the use / convenience which your card affords me I have to draw a line when it comes to unfair charges.
I can quite well do without the hassle of County Court proceedings to recover these charges and, to that end I am hopeful that you will afford my particular case you most careful consideration and respond to me at your earliest convenience †“ hopefully with a mutually agreeable outcome."

[Chrysalis]

Mr Angry the big question still for me is tho are the majority of people claiming still moving to different banks after or still able to use the banks facilities as normal?

[Florence]

maybe taking the first offer and thanking them like Mr Angry said to me would help, as you have still allowed them to have some money for the use of their money so to speak but have had the builk returned.


I am ok if need be as the family allowence into one bank and my wages another so I can just move my wages over if I need to.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Mr Angry the big question still for me is tho are the majority of people claiming still moving to different banks after or still able to use the banks facilities as normal?

The thing to bear in mind is that banks are banks, it's what they do. Each will have their own hangups from a customer perspective. As Florence says above - having two accounts is the best idea / practice.

Two years ago the banks would refund and then close the account out of spite. Today, however, if they were to do that they'd soon be in difficulties with the sheer number of people reclaiming charges so they have to be more pragmatic in their approach (hence the dramatic increase in very near complete offers of settlement after letter one).

[Flobajob]

Finally got all my statements through, claiming for just under £1000. It took 10 phonecalls, 3 letters, a complaint to the ICO and the chairman of RBS. They were kind enough to send me back my £10 SAR fee, they stapled a tenner to the one of the statements :S

[punky]

These disputes... They're only affecting the inital charge for going overdrawn, aren't they? Not the set interest rate for remaining overdrawn?

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by punky

These disputes... They're only affecting the inital charge for going overdrawn, aren't they? Not the set interest rate for remaining overdrawn?

Correct.

[Flobajob]

Originally Posted by punky

These disputes... They're only affecting the inital charge for going overdrawn, aren't they? Not the set interest rate for remaining overdrawn?

If you can show that the interest you're charged is due to a penalty fee taking you overdrawn then you can claim it back, sign up here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum there's loads of info on it, after registering read this thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...tructions.html

You can also claim 8% APR interest IF it goes to court, but not before.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

The thing to bear in mind is that banks are banks, it's what they do. Each will have their own hangups from a customer perspective. As Florence says above - having two accounts is the best idea / practice.

Two years ago the banks would refund and then close the account out of spite. Today, however, if they were to do that they'd soon be in difficulties with the sheer number of people reclaiming charges so they have to be more pragmatic in their approach (hence the dramatic increase in very near complete offers of settlement after letter one).

Thats why I have applied for a 2nd account but until I have gained trust with the 2nd bank it has no visa card and no overdraft limit meaning I cant just leave the 1st bank, the overdraft is a moot point since a payout would cover the amount but the visa card is a much needed thing for me.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Thats why I have applied for a 2nd account but until I have gained trust with the 2nd bank it has no visa card and no overdraft limit meaning I cant just leave the 1st bank, the overdraft is a moot point since a payout would cover the amount but the visa card is a much needed thing for me.

There must be about 14 billion credit cards that you could apply for & get, your bank's isn't the only one.

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by Neil

There must be about 14 billion credit cards that you could apply for & get, your bank's isn't the only one.

The problem there is the assumption that you will get one of the varied credit cards - it took me ages to get one and, even 3 years later, I'm still stuck with a lousy credit limit

[popper]

wow, iv just been hit by this charge so am finding this thread very useful, thanks to Mr.A, your a star.

the outline is
i opened an Alliance & Leicester account a while ago as was required by the gov to deposit the child benefit and i wanted a DD option that my PO account doesnt have.

long and short of it is that i didnt have any problems having the NTL DD setup in november and was running the account just fine until last month.

im still not sure who started this, but it was eather NTL asking for the DD a day early and also made a second failed request and so a double charge, or the bank messing up(intentionally?), but it turns out that last month i was tecnicly something like 50p overdrawn by the DD request and thats what has started this mess.

low and behold, NTL didnt get their allocated cash (apparently in law a DD is a cash payment?)

http://www.swarb.co.uk/lisc/Banki19971997.php

"Esso Petroleum Company Ltd -v- Milton [1997] EWCA Civ 9275 Feb 1997
Banking: A direct debit arrangement is tantamount to a payment by cash and so precludes the use of the defence of set-off for non-payment.Link[s] omitted
"

the result was that now NTL were also making that request for a late payment £10 charge , just great.....

perhaps Mr.A can advise how that unlawful charge might be set aside after/if i manage to recover every single penny of my money from the bank ?.

as yet iv not done anything as i intend looking into my quickest options on monday as it involves a state benefit that the banks messing with and apparently (depending were you are?) thats a no-no.

the right of appropriation
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...ighlight=anone


heres some info you readers might be able to use , apparently its all about your instuctions to the bank as regards your deposits (something i never realised you could do).

http://www.advicewirral.net/news_selected.php?Code=26
"Posted By: Kieran Littler
22nd October 2003



During the course of a normal bank/customer relationship, where an account is either operating within an agreed overdraft facility or is in credit, it is not usually necessary to consider how money paid into an account should be allocated. It is only when there is a dispute about an amount owed and/or where an account is operating outside of an agreed facility that the question arises.

As a general rule, if you pay money into an account you have a right to apply that payment as you wish and that, if you do not do so at the time of payment, the bank may decide how the money should be used.

This rule can operate to the detriment of the customer. Take the common example where you have a current account from which a monthly transfer is made to a loan account with the same bank. If you pay money into the account without giving any instructions, the bank can use some or all of the money towards the loan repayment. This could result in other payments not being made. However, if you specify exactly how you want the money to be used, the bank must follow those instructions.

Broadly speaking, the situations where appropriation might be helpful fall into two main categories:

• You have an unauthorised overdraft or have exceeded the agreed limit. You want to pay in money and draw it out for living expenditure. Banks have been known to ‘swipe’ such funds to clear or reduce an overdraft, which could leave you with no money for food and bills.
• You have a current account and loan account with same bank. There is insufficient balance to cover all outgoings. Banks often take the monthly transfer to the loan account at the expense of other essential outgoings. Either an overdraft is created, or an existing overdraft is increased by the amount of the transfer, fees and interest charged at the default rate.

Here, appropriation will ensure essential items get paid although it will not affect the bank’s ability to continue making the monthly transfer. Where the same instructions are likely to have to be repeated every month, it is advisable to make clear that your instructions are to be effected every month until further notice.

As long as a bank continues to offer you banking facilities it is obliged to abide by your instructions regardless of the state of the account. The bank can withdraw banking facilities at any time and end its duty to follow appropriation instruction. Although appropriation might be helpful where an internal transfer is being made from a current account to a loan this type of transfer is neither a standing order nor a direct debit, so you cannot simply cancel it. Appropriation cannot be used to stop an internal transfer to a loan account.

Whilst appropriation can be a useful tool to protect money paid into a bank account, it is not a situation that a bank will be prepared to put up with indefinitely. The bank is only likely to accept such instructions for a short time before withdrawing banking facilities altogether. It should, therefore, be seen as a very short-term strategy only and you should open another bank account elsewhere as soon as possible.

Whilst it is possible to give the bank appropriation instructions verbally, written instructions are preferable in case of any later dispute. You should keep a copy of the letter and request an acknowledgement from the bank.

If you are struggling with your debts and want to sort them out, you should contact an advice service with the CLS Quality Mark for advice and help. To find a Quality Marked advice service near you, go to www.advicewirral.net/providers.php"

[popper]

on initial reading of this thread,it appears it could just as well apply to the NTL:TW £10 late payment unlawful charge?.
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...=appropriation

just the first post:read the rest there perhaps.
"zootscoot vbmenu_register("postmenu_188086", true);
Classic Account Customer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 318



Take the campaign from unlawful to illegal?
Is it time to assert our rights a little more forcefully and attempt to show that what the banks are doing is illegal. This surely would give the banks more reasons to act and repay everybody with out them having to take them to court.

This could be done through writing to the Director of Public Prosecutions asking them to review the legality of the banks and whether it would be worth their while taking out a criminal prosecution against the banks or bringing a private prosecution.

I'm sure there is something about criminal convictions in their operating licences?

An outline of the relevant law of theft is below. Do people think it is worth a shot?

S1. Theft Act 1968 a person is guilty of theft if they dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive.

Dishonestly –

D is regarded as dishonest if their conduct is dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable honest people and D realised that their conduct was by those standards dishonest. R v Ghosh

This is a question for the jury to determine – Is it likely that reasonable honest people would regard the banks conduct of charging unlawful penalties and refusing to return them on initial request when knowing that the charges are unlawful as dishonest?"


Appropriates

Appropriation is assuming the rights of an owner (s.3 TA). By charging penalties they are assuming the rights of the owner by extracting money from their account.

S3 also includes where a defendant acquired the property innocently a later assumption can amount to theft. This would cover the situation if the banks did not know that the charges were unlawful at the time they took them, when they became aware of them being unlawful, their refusal to return them.

The fact that an owner consents to an appropriation does not prevent the action from amounting to an appropriation (R v Gomez) – Therefore the fact that customers agree to the terms and conditions will not stop the actions of the banks from amounting to an appropriation.

Property

The deducting a sum from a bank account may amount to a thing in action with in the meaning of s.4 TA.

Belonging to another

The banks may argue that the sums deducted lawfully belong to them. However, the legalities on penalty clauses indicate otherwise. Hence the charges have been paid by customers by mistake ie under the mistaken belief that they were lawfully due. Where a person receives property by mistake the property is still regarded as belonging to the giver (s.5(4).

With the intention to permanently deprive

The banks refusal to repay until being dragged through the courts is sufficient evidence in my view that they intended to permanently deprive