This topic was closed on 03/05/19. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support their. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

This topic was closed on 03/05/19. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support their. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

I am claiming £2500 from NatWest and have been offered £1500. I now intend to reject the offer and issue a claim online. I really cannot be fagged to work out the interest item by item on 100-odd charges over 6 years, so is it OK to say:- 1/ the average amount of my money NatWest had over the six years was half of the total £2500 I'm claiming; 2/ the average time they had it for was half of those six years (i.e. they had some of it for 6 years and some of it they've only just taken); 3/ the interest rate they charged was 18% most of the time ...and therefore I now claim 3 years' interest (= the average time they've had the money) on £1250 (the average amount they have had) compounded at 18%, i.e. another £804 (approx)? Is an approximate calculation good enough for a SCC claim? As I see it they have had £3,300 off me if I include interest on that basis, so their £1500 offer is less than half what I have lost. Also, does anyone have a rejection template? Maybe I am being a div, but I can't find the templates library anywhere. TiA.

Seems like a sweeping generalisation. I am a landlord of 2 properties and I myself rent another one in which to live, and I am exceedingly nice to a fault both as a tenant and as a landlord If you were late paying rent and a landlord did start adding charges, I would challenge them immediately by asking for a breakdown of how they were arrived at. If any of the breakdown included things like 'management time' I would further ask to see the basis on which this time has been costed. Your deposit belongs to you and the presumption is that you get it all back unless the landlord can prove something has suffered from more than reasonable wear and tear. It's not, as I understand it, for you to prove that it hasn't, it's for him to prove that it has. The only time I've ever deducted anything from a tenant's deposit was when they had used a brillo pad on the stainless steel facia of an oven. In so doing, they had scoured off all the temperature and settings markings that told you what knob did what. This effectively made it unusable by anyone not familiar with the oven, so I knocked off £50 of the £80 replacement cost and explained why, enclosing a copy of the invoice.

I imagine you would, but the landlord perhaps has a better chance than a bank does of proving that he has incurred a cost. For example, if you paid him late and he incurred bank charges as a result, it would be cut and dried that he had incurred a cost, namely those charges. I doubt if you'd get anywhere in a small claims court arguing that he should sue to get those charges back either....

Yes, I had all the paperwork. They still refused to accept a return at the store (the London one). The link they direct you to is http://depot.info.apple.com

How long ago? I may want to mention this to them in my letter before action.

It is clear that banks do incur some cost when a cheque is bounced or whatever; it's not £35, and maybe it's £3.50 or something, but there's going to be some cost. Is it possible that when the whole practice of dodgy charges dies, as it must, they'll start countersuing people they've given a lot of money back to? Eg: you sue the bank for £3,500, being 100 bounced cheques at £35 a pop. They capitulate and pay your £3,500 back. They then sue you for the actual cost of your breach of terms, i.e. £12 a pop per the OFT. So you sue them for £3,500 and they countersue for £1,200 meaning you compromise on £2,300?

Someone bought me an iPod in November and last month it packed up. I tried to return it to the Apple Store in Regent Street, where it was bought, and they refused to accept it. Instead they directed me to their website. This takes you through a procedure whereby you are sent a replacement via UPS. You are required to give a credit card number, and if you don't return the defective product within 10 days you are billed for the replacement at full price. Fair enough - if they're going to send the replacement out before they've seen the dud, they're exposed to fraud. You have to accept a set of T & Cs around this to proceed. So far, so simple...except it's not. First, they do not tell you that 'return' means 'return to the Netherlands, only via Apple's UPS courier collect service, with collection only from the address we delivered the replacement to". They delivered to my home address and I didn't have the defective iPod there. I then went away on business, got back, and needed to return it by last Monday. I then found that they won't collect it from my office address. So I ring Apple to point out all this is unclear in their T & Cs, and can I please have either some extra time, or a collection from my office? The answer, after 29 minutes and 16 seconds waiting on an 0870 number? No. And no reason given except "the system's not set up to allow that". Oh, and they won't accept it back at the Apple Store. Nor will they provide me with a UK address to which I can send it, and nor will they allow any extra time to return the faulty product. As far as Apple are concerned, they are quite entitled to refuse to accept the goods back at their shop and quite entitled to charge me for delivery if it comes back late. Their argument is that I agreed to all this when I accepted the T & Cs of their returns policy. My argument is that none of the above is clear, they have no right to impose additional terms to impede me from exercising my consumer right to a refund, and they are in any case being unreasonably inflexible. They had no answer to any of this. I pointed out that if they charged me for the replacement of a defective product, after I have made reasonable efforts to return it including a personal visit to their shop, I would take them to the small claims court to recover any charge. Such contract terms seem to be to be very probably unenforceable. At this, the manager refused to continue the conversation and hung up. Does anyone know what the legal position is here? Is it legitimate in law to refuse to accept the goods back and to impose a further contract which cancels several of your rights under whatever the relevant consumer law is?

According to the OP they have already stated they will enter into no further correspondence.

Is this the same First National who are based in Harrow and do the credit for Dolphin Bathrooms?

It's all in the FAQ.

With what? You seem to be doing fine. Have you had any credit card charges levied in the last 6 years? Any credit agreements, anything like that? If so, sue them too.

Those charges are all unlawful. If you have had a letter refusing to discuss the matter further, sue them right away. Do it online, now, this morning.

Smile have now responded with a delaying message as follows:- I'm afraid it is unlikely that we will be able to reply within 7 days as requested but we will respond about this issue within Finacial Services Authority guidelines (This is up to 8 weeks but usually much quicker). Anyone have any views on this?

According to a press release last year (http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=143549), the Co-Op's operating costs are expected to fall:- An extensive modernisation programme has commenced to transform CIS' business processes, service channels and products - all with a view to improving our customer offer. During 2005, it will also lead to a significant reduction in year on year costs. If this is so, why are its penalty charges not also falling?

I have sent them a snotty note with a 7-day deadline via their online messaging system, on the basis that it is less hassle to me that way and any delay in payment simply results in my earning 8% interest. The catch is that I cannot prove when I sent it nor guarantee it reaching the attention of someone able to comply with it. So, if they do not respond within 7 days, I will send a more detailed claim in hard copy to their head office with another 7 day deadline, then file online after that. My OH actually has 2 current accounts, a Smile and a NatWorst because NatWorst was so awful. I plan to go after them in succession, in case either of them closes her account out of spite when they lose. I've a feeling the NatWest amount is going to be a lot higher.

Because £5 per day may be more defensible than £35 for a letter. They could argue someone was doing something in re monitoring the account.

That's interesting re Smile - last month my OH went over her OD limit by £65 for about 10 days and wasn't able to correct it because she was in hospital having a baby. Smile have charged £65 for this, consisting of £15 penalty plus an arbitrary daily punishment of £5 on top of penalty rate interest. I am inclined to go after them for the £65.

I find this thread interesting because I am contemplating going after NatWest for the return of charges incurred by my other half. One point I intend to spell out for them is that stating 'we charge everyone the same' is not a valid defence. Neither is 'this is what we estimate our cost at'. AIUI from having worked as an expert witness (in unrelated areas), in a commercial dispute each party discloses to the other the basis of its argument, and why it expects to win in court later. The other side can then look at that and maybe decide not to bother, but rather to settle, thus saving everyone's money and the court's time. This case is no different. If I sue the bank, I can demand this information anyway, so they should be happy to have a chance to encourage me not to sue by providing a cost breakdown. If a bank tries to argue that its charges are a fair and reasonable pre-estimate of its costs, then they had better have the basis of that estimate available; it had better provably pre-date the time when they applied their charges to you; and it had better originate from an economically competent area of the bank. An inhouse lawyer or call centre drone would not qualify as economically competent, and a plea of confidentiality would not help them. If they don't want to disclose their margins, they will have to settle. 'Pay up what we say but the calculation basis is a secret' will not work in court.