So Now What??? - Page 2

trout · 28th January 2010, 17:39

On 26/1/10,a penalty charges forum member successfully fought off a strikeout application by Yorkshire Bank using the PCF new defence/responce.

They ( PCF ) will be launching new POC's in a matter of days.

hope this helps

trout

choco · 29th January 2010, 16:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by trout

On 26/1/10,a penalty charges forum member successfully fought off a strikeout application by Yorkshire Bank using the PCF new defence/responce.

They ( PCF ) will be launching new POC's in a matter of days.

hope this helps

trout

Do you have a link???

trout · 29th January 2010, 18:43

Just google penalty Charges Forum.

Apparently,the response to the banks strike-out application was an initiative started by a member of this Forum's site team.

MARTIN3030 · 29th January 2010, 23:32

Ahem...it was Bankfodder himself actually.

caro · 30th January 2010, 03:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by trout

On 26/1/10,a penalty charges forum member successfully fought off a strikeout application by Yorkshire Bank using the PCF new defence/responce.

They ( PCF ) will be launching new POC's in a matter of days.

hope this helps

trout

I would urge caution about doing any more than you have to for the moment. It's all very well fighting off a strike out application, but you need to be very sure that you have a strong case to fight before deciding to carry on with your claim.

Just because a POC may be suitable for one person, or even one bank or group of banks, there is no guarantee of a one size fits all POC in my honest opinion.

The banks were judged seperately in the Supreme Court, and they did not all have the same contracts, T&Cs or arguments.

choco · 2nd February 2010, 15:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by caro

I would urge caution about doing any more than you have to for the moment. It's all very well fighting off a strike out application, but you need to be very sure that you have a strong case to fight before deciding to carry on with your claim.

Just because a POC may be suitable for one person, or even one bank or group of banks, there is no guarantee of a one size fits all POC in my honest opinion.

The banks were judged seperately in the Supreme Court, and they did not all have the same contracts, T&Cs or arguments.

Yes thats true, good points.
So how do i address my issue then? As I do not want my case to have all been in vain?

caro · 3rd February 2010, 03:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by choco

Yes thats true, good points.
So how do i address my issue then? As I do not want my case to have all been in vain?

Many people are in the same situation. If at all possible I suggest you sit tight for now. When is your stay due to end?

My Real Name · 3rd February 2010, 12:46

I have also received the letter from NatWest, informing me of the same old rubbish.

It looks to me as though NatWest is trying to either bait a response, hoping that I might withdraw my claim.

It's plainly apparent that it does not address the POCs that I sent, given that my POCs specifically mention clause 5.

I suppose that I could always apply to have the stay lifted myself and processed using clause 5.

It does not appear that NW are going to do apply to have the stay lifted, for whatever reason, although the letter makes out that they have dismissed autolinker.com autolinking image

the claim themselves (bypassing the court altogether - it must be a new power that they have inherited since Supreme Court ruling).

What I shall do, however, is hold on for the some sort of consensus from the MSE / CAG folks, as I'm a strong believer that strength of numbers is important in setting at least some degree of precedence, particularly as this is developing into a political issue.

choco · 4th February 2010, 00:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by caro

Many people are in the same situation. If at all possible I suggest you sit tight for now. When is your stay due to end?

I'm not 100% sure, are the stays just getting lifted now that the OFT lost???

choco · 4th February 2010, 00:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by My Real Name

I have also received the letter from NatWest, informing me of the same old rubbish.

It looks to me as though NatWest is trying to either bait a response, hoping that I might withdraw my claim.

It's plainly apparent that it does not address the POCs that I sent, given that my POCs specifically mention clause 5.

I suppose that I could always apply to have the stay lifted myself and processed using clause 5.

It does not appear that NW are going to do apply to have the stay lifted, for whatever reason, although the letter makes out that they have dismissed autolinker.com autolinking image

the claim themselves (bypassing the court altogether - it must be a new power that they have inherited since Supreme Court ruling).

What I shall do, however, is hold on for the some sort of consensus from the MSE / CAG folks, as I'm a strong believer that strength of numbers is important in setting at least some degree of precedence, particularly as this is developing into a political issue.

Yes I think thats exactly what they are doing! I am worried what will happen though if i do not respond in the given time frame???

My Real Name · 4th February 2010, 11:00

Who do you need to respond to?

Only the court can lift the stay - NatWest will have to apply to have the stay lifted, giving you the opportunity then to challenge the application, or fight the case in court on the basis of your original claim (which would be on clause 5).

choco · 5th February 2010, 13:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by My Real Name

Who do you need to respond to?

Only the court can lift the stay - NatWest will have to apply to have the stay lifted, giving you the opportunity then to challenge the application, or fight the case in court on the basis of your original claim (which would be on clause 5).

The full letter is on pg 1. They have said: "If we do not hear from you within 8 weeks of this letter we will regard your complaint as closed."

MARTIN3030 · 5th February 2010, 19:00

This is the same letters that are being sent en masse.
They have a requirement to tell you this,since after the waiver autolinker.com autolinking image

ended,their requirement to deal with your complaint within 8 weeks became their responsibility again.
Basically they are saying that they will consider your complaint closed if they do not hear otherwise by 8 weeks.
This satisfies Banking Code autolinker.com autolinking image

and fos criteria,but has no relevance to your Court Claim.
As has been said,only the Court can rule on that-or yourself by initiating it for example by withdrawing.

indebtstudent · 6th February 2010, 16:19

This is what I was thinking of sending, comments welcome. I don;t see how they have the right to say we will consider your complaint closed when, as far as I am aware, they have never made an effort to answers people's complaints.

This is in response to your letter dated 7th Jan 2010. I feel I must comment on the letter directly before turning to the future.

It frankly shocks me that you appear to be offering legal advice in your letter. You state

‘we do not believe that there is any other legal basis on which the level of these charges can be challenged’.

Fortunately I have read the judgment in full and am therefore able to make several observations. Firstly the purpose of this case was to provide legal clarity on this issue. This has manifestly not been achieved, two courts found in favour of the OFT and Supreme Court reached a different decision. In the judgement it is clearly stated that the ruling is on a point of law and that there ARE other avenues open, and that the ruling will not solve the cases in the County Courts.

Your response still does nothing to address many of the fundamental complaints about the charges. Yes the level of the charges is part of the complaint, yet there are other relevant facts. I feel I should draw your attention to the fact that the legal claim was not initiated as some get rich quick scheme rather it was an effort to find a solution to a situation which is totally unacceptable. We have a situation here where, due to being out of work, a debt increased from an agreed overdraft autolinker.com autolinking image

of £1000 to around £4000. To any reasonable person this is totally absurd. I spoke to NatWest the moment my circumstances changed. I was told by the mortgage centre that ‘we can’t do anything until you are three months in arrears’. I also had a policy in place to cover the mortgage payments which DID NOT COVER ME. I have complained about this issue before but you appear to have no record of it; even though you sent one written response to this complaint!

It is also of interest autolinker.com autolinking image

that you have chosen to reduce the charge for an unpaid item to £5, this despite assertions earlier that £38 was for administration. Are your customers to assume that you are now losing £33 each time a payment is returned? Or is it the case that you FINALLY accept that the charges, as they were, were excessive and damaging to many many people?

I am currently taking legal advice in relation to the developments which occurred during the test case autolinker.com autolinking image

, however I am also keen to enter into a sincere dialogue to agree a solution. I believe I legitimately owe you £1000 for the agreed overdraft, the frequency and amount of the charges levied are as much a failure on your part as mine. If ANYONE had looked at the account they would’ve seen the only payments in were jobseekers allowance, a single charge (at the old rate) was more than that.

Given the complete lack of effort on NatWest’s part to even consider the possibility that a customer was in financial difficulty, the insurance policy NatWest sold me did not in fact cover me, and the current charging regime I would suggest a reasonable compromise would be to go back through the accounts and reduce the charges levied to their current level.

I still believe this issue is far from settled, and it is of great concern that banks still will not accept that they got caught being much too greedy. I would draw your attention to the fact that the county court autolinker.com autolinking image

has stipulated that we must make efforts to settle the matter; as well as the fact that I was driven to take legal action due to your inability to make a meaningful response to my legitimate concerns. Every response you sent, including this one, was clearly a template which did not address the specific points I made.

I once again respectfully suggest that you read this letter and RESPOND to the contents of it. I would suggest at this stage a reasonable compromise would be to reduce the charges which were levied to match the current levels. This would go a long way to undoing the damage your charges have caused.

In relation to the point you continue make that the customer consented to the charges I would make the following observations. Firstly prior to the test case autolinker.com autolinking image

all banks and building societies had virtual the same conditions and charges. It has not escaped my attention that, with the notable exception of Nationwide, you and your competitors have changed your terms and conditions. This means at best you inadvertently mis-led customers about the nature of the charges, at worse you deliberately deceived them.

Secondly a bank account is a basic necessity in the modern world, one cannot be paid wages or benefits without one.

Finally the bank drafts the contract itself, the customer has no input into this process and for the reasons given above has no choice but to ‘consent’. If this is not the case I trust it would be acceptable to you for a customer to cross out the sections of the contract they disagreed with?

These are the kind of issues which the new legal arguments will be focussing on, and I should like to point out the initial deluge of litigation would not have occurred if NatWest had made any effort at all to address customers legitimate concerns about these charges.

choco · 8th February 2010, 10:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by MARTIN3030

This is the same letters that are being sent en masse.
They have a requirement to tell you this,since after the waiver autolinker.com autolinking image

ended,their requirement to deal with your complaint within 8 weeks became their responsibility again.
Basically they are saying that they will consider your complaint closed if they do not hear otherwise by 8 weeks.
This satisfies Banking Code autolinker.com autolinking image

and fos criteria,but has no relevance to your Court Claim.
As has been said,only the Court can rule on that-or yourself by initiating it for example by withdrawing.

Thanks Martin.
So do i need to reply to them reminding them that it is not closed and its still in the court?

indebtstudent · 9th February 2010, 09:41

I appreciate what you say Martin but personally I'm prepared to expend a little ink for two reasons firstly to my mind they have never made a serious attempt to answer any legitimate complaints made by customers, and secondly if does come to getting the stay removed (assuming at some future point it is to the customers advantage) then I want to be able to show I've made efforts to resolve the issue (as the letter from the court states).

With this in mind I would appreciate any comments or contructive criticism of the letter I've knocked up.

28th January 2010, 17:39	#21 (permalink)
trout Basic Account Holder Try our eBay sniping service Cagger since : Aug 2006 Posts: 42	Re: So Now What??? On 26/1/10,a penalty charges forum member successfully fought off a strikeout application by Yorkshire Bank using the PCF new defence/responce. They ( PCF ) will be launching new POC's in a matter of days. hope this helps trout

29th January 2010, 18:43	#23 (permalink)
trout Basic Account Holder Protect your signature with SignGuard Cagger since : Aug 2006 Posts: 42	Re: So Now What??? Just google penalty Charges Forum. Apparently,the response to the banks strike-out application was an initiative started by a member of this Forum's site team.

29th January 2010, 23:32	#24 (permalink)
MARTIN3030 Site Team The Consumer Action Group Protect your signature with SignGuard Cagger since : May 2006 I am in: St.Helens Merseyside Posts: 25,430	Re: So Now What??? Ahem...it was Bankfodder himself actually. __________________ Please take time to read up. Respect other users -no libel or flaming If you cant see what you need-ask Patience is a virtue - dont we know it. All advice and guidance offered is done so without liability,and is personal experience and views only.If in doubt seek professional help from a legally trained professional. Your views and thoughts count,we welcome any suggestions for improvements.

3rd February 2010, 12:46	#28 (permalink)
My Real Name Basic Account Holder Is your bank avoiding its debts Data disclosure poll Cagger since : Sep 2007 Posts: 714	Re: So Now What??? I have also received the letter from NatWest, informing me of the same old rubbish. It looks to me as though NatWest is trying to either bait a response, hoping that I might withdraw my claim. It's plainly apparent that it does not address the POCs that I sent, given that my POCs specifically mention clause 5. I suppose that I could always apply to have the stay lifted myself and processed using clause 5. It does not appear that NW are going to do apply to have the stay lifted, for whatever reason, although the letter makes out that they have dismissed the claim themselves (bypassing the court altogether - it must be a new power that they have inherited since Supreme Court ruling). What I shall do, however, is hold on for the some sort of consensus from the MSE / CAG folks, as I'm a strong believer that strength of numbers is important in setting at least some degree of precedence, particularly as this is developing into a political issue.

4th February 2010, 11:00	#31 (permalink)
My Real Name Basic Account Holder Free trial on our eBay auction sniper Cagger since : Sep 2007 Posts: 714	Re: So Now What??? Who do you need to respond to? Only the court can lift the stay - NatWest will have to apply to have the stay lifted, giving you the opportunity then to challenge the application, or fight the case in court on the basis of your original claim (which would be on clause 5).

5th February 2010, 19:00	#33 (permalink)
MARTIN3030 Site Team The Consumer Action Group Try our new digital signature service Cagger since : May 2006 I am in: St.Helens Merseyside Posts: 25,430	Re: So Now What??? This is the same letters that are being sent en masse. They have a requirement to tell you this,since after the waiver ended,their requirement to deal with your complaint within 8 weeks became their responsibility again. Basically they are saying that they will consider your complaint closed if they do not hear otherwise by 8 weeks. This satisfies Banking Code and fos criteria,but has no relevance to your Court Claim. As has been said,only the Court can rule on that-or yourself by initiating it for example by withdrawing. __________________ Please take time to read up. Respect other users -no libel or flaming If you cant see what you need-ask Patience is a virtue - dont we know it. All advice and guidance offered is done so without liability,and is personal experience and views only.If in doubt seek professional help from a legally trained professional. Your views and thoughts count,we welcome any suggestions for improvements.

6th February 2010, 16:19	#34 (permalink)
indebtstudent Classic Account Holder Try our eBay sniping service Cagger since : Jan 2007 Posts: 1,432	Re: So Now What??? This is what I was thinking of sending, comments welcome. I don;t see how they have the right to say we will consider your complaint closed when, as far as I am aware, they have never made an effort to answers people's complaints. This is in response to your letter dated 7th Jan 2010. I feel I must comment on the letter directly before turning to the future. It frankly shocks me that you appear to be offering legal advice in your letter. You state ‘we do not believe that there is any other legal basis on which the level of these charges can be challenged’. Fortunately I have read the judgment in full and am therefore able to make several observations. Firstly the purpose of this case was to provide legal clarity on this issue. This has manifestly not been achieved, two courts found in favour of the OFT and Supreme Court reached a different decision. In the judgement it is clearly stated that the ruling is on a point of law and that there ARE other avenues open, and that the ruling will not solve the cases in the County Courts. Your response still does nothing to address many of the fundamental complaints about the charges. Yes the level of the charges is part of the complaint, yet there are other relevant facts. I feel I should draw your attention to the fact that the legal claim was not initiated as some get rich quick scheme rather it was an effort to find a solution to a situation which is totally unacceptable. We have a situation here where, due to being out of work, a debt increased from an agreed overdraft of £1000 to around £4000. To any reasonable person this is totally absurd. I spoke to NatWest the moment my circumstances changed. I was told by the mortgage centre that ‘we can’t do anything until you are three months in arrears’. I also had a policy in place to cover the mortgage payments which DID NOT COVER ME. I have complained about this issue before but you appear to have no record of it; even though you sent one written response to this complaint! It is also of interest that you have chosen to reduce the charge for an unpaid item to £5, this despite assertions earlier that £38 was for administration. Are your customers to assume that you are now losing £33 each time a payment is returned? Or is it the case that you FINALLY accept that the charges, as they were, were excessive and damaging to many many people? I am currently taking legal advice in relation to the developments which occurred during the test case, however I am also keen to enter into a sincere dialogue to agree a solution. I believe I legitimately owe you £1000 for the agreed overdraft, the frequency and amount of the charges levied are as much a failure on your part as mine. If ANYONE had looked at the account they would’ve seen the only payments in were jobseekers allowance, a single charge (at the old rate) was more than that. Given the complete lack of effort on NatWest’s part to even consider the possibility that a customer was in financial difficulty, the insurance policy NatWest sold me did not in fact cover me, and the current charging regime I would suggest a reasonable compromise would be to go back through the accounts and reduce the charges levied to their current level. I still believe this issue is far from settled, and it is of great concern that banks still will not accept that they got caught being much too greedy. I would draw your attention to the fact that the county court has stipulated that we must make efforts to settle the matter; as well as the fact that I was driven to take legal action due to your inability to make a meaningful response to my legitimate concerns. Every response you sent, including this one, was clearly a template which did not address the specific points I made. I once again respectfully suggest that you read this letter and RESPOND to the contents of it. I would suggest at this stage a reasonable compromise would be to reduce the charges which were levied to match the current levels. This would go a long way to undoing the damage your charges have caused. In relation to the point you continue make that the customer consented to the charges I would make the following observations. Firstly prior to the test case all banks and building societies had virtual the same conditions and charges. It has not escaped my attention that, with the notable exception of Nationwide, you and your competitors have changed your terms and conditions. This means at best you inadvertently mis-led customers about the nature of the charges, at worse you deliberately deceived them. Secondly a bank account is a basic necessity in the modern world, one cannot be paid wages or benefits without one. Finally the bank drafts the contract itself, the customer has no input into this process and for the reasons given above has no choice but to ‘consent’. If this is not the case I trust it would be acceptable to you for a customer to cross out the sections of the contract they disagreed with? These are the kind of issues which the new legal arguments will be focussing on, and I should like to point out the initial deluge of litigation would not have occurred if NatWest had made any effort at all to address customers legitimate concerns about these charges. __________________ The views I express here are mere speculation based on my experience. I am not qualified nor insured to give legal advice and any action you take will be at your own risk.

9th February 2010, 09:41	#36 (permalink)
indebtstudent Classic Account Holder Our auction sniper is now live. Try it for free Cagger since : Jan 2007 Posts: 1,432	Re: So Now What??? I appreciate what you say Martin but personally I'm prepared to expend a little ink for two reasons firstly to my mind they have never made a serious attempt to answer any legitimate complaints made by customers, and secondly if does come to getting the stay removed (assuming at some future point it is to the customers advantage) then I want to be able to show I've made efforts to resolve the issue (as the letter from the court states). With this in mind I would appreciate any comments or contructive criticism of the letter I've knocked up.