**Well the high street thieves are at it again, our beloved banks who of course have our best financial interests at heart(sic) are finding new low tactics to threaten and intimidate customers out of claiming back charges that they have illegally put onto customers accounts.
Below is an extract from the BBC website, that details the disgusting tactics used by these corporate thieves. The full article is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6683363.stmBanks are being accused of seizing on a recent court victory in Birmingham to persuade customers to drop their claims for repayment of overdraft charges.
A district judge in Birmingham county court unexpectedly found in favour of Lloyds TSB earlier in May when it defended a claim for a £2,545 refund.
--This is a one off judgement and doesn't affect any other case. The banks will have to fight each and every case and the whole issue of banking charges is being looked at by the banking ombudsman at the moment. Now other institutions are reported to be citing the case when fending off claims from their own customers.
But many of the banks implicated by customers have denied the claims.
- That would be the same way that Barclays denied many of their dubious tactics until a BBC reporter exposed them.
Consumer lobby group Which? advised people not to be put off, arguing that the Lloyds TSB case had no value as a precedent.
"This tactic may put the fear of God into people," said Which? lawyer Ingrid Gubbay. "It is treating them unfairly, and is a very aggressive attitude."
--Of course they know that after treating customers like rubbish, sticking charges on them that they have no legal right to do, they now try the heavy treatment. If they thought for one second they could get away with it they would send the boys around to "have a chat" with their customers.One bank which appears to be capitalising on the Birmingham judgement is Abbey, several of whose customers have complained to the BBC News website.
Fiona Alton from Darlington has started a claim for nearly £10,000 against the bank, whose overdraft charges - she says - have crippled her and her husband's finances in the past three years.
--I know that feeling well, in several complaints against Barclays I was awarded a few "one off payments" for damage to feelings etc etc, and at one point had five seperate complaints against them for various errors on their part(Yes they really are that inept). Oh and I got my charges back a total of £900, so it can be done.The day after the Birmingham case, she says she received a letter from the Abbey which argued that the judgement meant there were "no grounds in law for recovering from the bank the amount of any charges he had paid to it".
--In short rubbish and nothing else but, they like all banks are out to get the most profit from the cash cows called customers. Maybe it might be worth questioning Abbey about exactly how much it costs them to send out an automated letter telling you that you have gone 1p overdrawn and will now be charged?
Fiona was not impressed.
-- Neither am I, not impressed with their cowboy attitude."They are trying to frighten the life out of everybody," she said. "They are relying on people's ignorance."
Another claimant, Graham Clarke, has received an even more brusque approach from the Abbey.
So much so that he accuses the bank of trying to bully him. "On Friday I received a call from Abbey, the effect of which was that Abbey were quoting the judgment as a reason I should settle and offered me £90," said Graham.
"When I refused they tried to state this case means that now, I have no hope of being successful, and that the judge would look unfavourably on me continuing with the case and could award heavy costs against me for wasting Abbey's and the court's time."
The Abbey denied it was acting improperly.
--Oh and corporate threats are the correct way to treat customers?
"The issue regarding bank charges isn't as clear-cut as customers and the media think," said a spokesman.
--Well the banks, corporate thieves they are would claim that.
"Where we are faced with the threat of litigation we feel it is entirely appropriate to ensure that customers have the full facts to hand.
--So why not clarify the amount it costs your bank to impose a charge?
"We have not, nor will we, advise the claimants on the significance of these legal developments, and we leave them to draw their own conclusions," he added.
But Marc Gander of the Consumer Action Group, a leading bank charges campaign group, said any attempt by banks to suggest the Lloyds TSB judgement was a binding precedent would be wrong.
--And wrong it is.The Clydesdale/Yorkshire group is another bank that is now taking a new tack in the light of the Birmingham judgement.
--Yes seems that all the lowlife scum is crawling out of their corporate ponds, using the same scare tactics and heavy attitude with their customers.
Its letter to one customer states that the Birmingham decision "confirmed that our position... is correct. The bank is confident that your claim will not succeed."
--I am confident that they are talking out of a place where the sun doesn't shine. The charges are illegal and have no basis on actual costs with regards to the banks costs. Come on banks prove me wrong I dare you.The claimant from Yorkshire, Michael Rathbone, was very annoyed.
"It is obvious that the Yorkshire bank are trying to intimidate people into dropping their claims," Mr Rathbone said.
A letter to another customer, in Portsmouth, made the new stance crystal clear.
"We will rely on this judgement in the claims you have brought against the bank," it said.
The bank also goes on to warn customers about possible costs, even though these are limited on both sides as a result of the cases being classified as small claims.
A customer in Sheffield - who wants to remain anonymous - said: "This has left me very nervous and I do not know what to do now."
--Keep with it and see who blinks first is what you do. They will pay up.
A spokesman for the Yorkshire/Clydesdale denied it was trying to intimidate or scare people, and said the Birmingham case was being presented in an entirely neutral manner.
--And I believe that I have just seen a flying pig!We don't claim it is binding, and we give them copies of the judgement," he said. "There are costs involved so our letter simply mentions this fact. - Just happen to enclose a copy of the judgement, just happen to mention their are costs involved.
--So much for decent customer service. Oh how they attempt to defend the indefensible. Again I say the banks are wrong, wrong to impose the fees, wrong to cripple customers accounts and wrong to attempt to defend their illegal actions.
"There are some potential costs that are more than just a court submission fee," he added.
Other banks have been accused of adopting this more vigorous approach in trying to persuade claimants to settle.
Barry Mills, from High Wycombe, received a letter from HSBC citing the Birmingham case one day after the judgement.
"I think it's just another tactic to get out of paying all the money," said Barry. HSBC said it had definitely not adopted a new policy of citing the Birmingham judgement in standard letters to claimants.
--You have to give HSBC their due on that one, they certainly acted fast in attempting to keep illegally extorted monies from their customers.
A spokesman explained that it had been mentioned in an exchange of letters about legal cases, which had been initiated by Mr Mills, and it was certainly not claiming that the Birmingham ruling was binding.
But a bank spokesman added: "It is not unreasonable to point out there has been a judgement."
Another BBC reader, Robert, from Altrincham, reports receiving a phone call from the Royal Bank of Scotland last week, offering him a partial refund of £1,150 on his claim of £3,300.
He was not impressed when the bank's employee told him the Birmingham case meant its charges were valid.
"She was really snotty," he said. "She was trumpeting the fact that someone had lost in court."
However, RBS said it was not the bank's policy to quote the Lloyds TSB court victory to customers.
"We have... found absolutely no evidence of staff referring to this judgement," a spokesman said.
Claiming charges back, this is from the Daily Mail:
To view copies of the Daily Mail letter templates you can edit to include your own details and print off, click on the links below. Each one will open in a new window.
Step 1: Request your details You can claim up to six years' worth of charges. If you don't have the statements, use this letter to ask your bank for a list of charges.
Step 2: Ask for your money back With the information from Step 1, add up your charges. You can reclaim one-off charges for going into the red, monthly or daily charges for being overdrawn, charges for bouncing cheques, direct debits or transactions and charges for authorising a payment. Add to this total any interest charged on unauthorised overdrafts and send this letter.
Step 3: Don't back down Keep copies of all letters you send and make a note of the date you send it. Most banks will probably offer you a partial refund. This may be one charge - as a matter of goodwill - or sometimes half the amount you have demanded. Do not accpet this. Send this letter.
Step 4: Take them to court If your bank still refuses to pay up, take them to court.
http://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/ and submit it online or visit your local magistrate's court to begin proceedings.
Tags:
Bank Charges,
Banking,
Information Commissioner,
Charges,
The Financial Ombudsman** lastly this is why the charges are illegal:
- Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999) all penalty charges have to truly reflect the cost of administering them.
- They are not permitted to be a profit-making enterprise for any business.
- If a penalty charge is higher than its administrative cost, it is illegal.
- You can claim back all charges over a six year period, the maximum period that you can claim under English law. Ask the bank for a set of statements going back over that time, tally up all the charges and claim them back.
