jimhl81 v clydesdale

[jimhl81]

Hi,

 

I've sent letter asking for all fees over the last 5 years by Recorded Delivery and confirmed that it was received in Glasgow Head Office on 6 July. Still no reply or acknowledgement. Same for the branch, letter handed in on 3 july and signed for but still no reply or acknowledgement. Reckon that there are in excess of 4K in fees over 5 years. If no reply by 17 July will happliy send LBA.

Is it usual for the Clydesdale to totally ignore any or all correspondence?

 

On a separate point has anyone had any dealing with I Group (GE Money).

Thanks Jim

 

 

Being new I posted this on the Welcome forum instead of Clydesdale!!!!!!!!!DOH

Thanks to the wifeandi for pointing me in the right direction.

 

Have changed the name on the thread to make it easier to identify

[jimhl81]

Hi

Have just received letter from Clydesdale Customer Relations saying not willing to pay any charges, so am about to personally hand next letter in to branch this morning . Hope this gets somewhere. Keep you posted.

[caro]

Hi there and welcome. I think your experience so far is fairly standard. Just wanted to warn you to ensure that you send any letters etc to your branch if it is in England, and not Head Office. If you go directly via HO your claim would be via the Scottish Court and would be subject to £750 limit applicable there, rather than the £5,000 allowable in England.

 

Good luck and keep us posted.

[jimhl81]

Hi Caro, Many thanks for your post.

I'm based in Scotland so it will have to be £750 per time.

[jimhl81]

HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

I'm in total shock. I Sent first letter away to Clydesdale asking for charges back and received the usual standard letter. Sent LBA on Friday 14 July and sat back for a long wait. Today received a letter from Clydesdale from Neil McKirdy which had enclosed a cheque for £2030 representing half of the charges debited to the two accounts. (Which if I'm being pedantic should have been £2171). The letter also says that if I was successful the bank would countersue for failing to adhere to terms and conditions.

 

"The cheque is tendered without admission of liabilitity and is in full and final settlement of your claim and your encashment of it will be taken as your acceptance of this.

Please note that as this letter is written in an attempt to reslove this matter without the need for court action it is withot prejudice to the banks whole rights and pleas and may not be founded on in any action without the banks written consent."

 

 

I am in a real quandary, do I hang on and take them to court for the full amount or do I cut and run????????????

 

Your help and advice would be appreciated

[caro]

Well that is a turn up for the books. Sneaky move including the cheque and see encashment as acceptance of conditions.

 

DO NOT FALL FOR IT.

 

Why would you accept less than what they owe you. If they countersue, your defence is that their terms and conditions are unfair, so it is another threat. They still will not want to go to court, so please do not fall for this sneaky ploy. They will not follow through to court, and if they did, you would get all the help you need here.

[JMio]

Would you be able to scan a copy of that letter for me please?

 

I'll PM you my details, feel free to leave out anything personal, like Account Number / Address etc - it would be very helpful for me to have a copy of this prior to my next phone call to the Bank!!

 

Oh, and that is VERY VERY good news!

[Robertxc]

The letter also says that if I was successful the bank would countersue for failing to adhere to terms and conditions.

This is laughable. You could always ask them to specify the actual liquidated loss they suffered through you not adhering too the terms and conditions. Oh, hold on, that's what the whole argument's about anyway....

 

You can only sue someone to recover something which you have lost (like all your bank charges). Their threat is meaningless. Tell them to get lost.

[dan-rides-bikes]

new trick, but shows we will get paid out in the end

[caro]

new trick, but shows we will get paid out in the end

 

Never doubted it. They are obviously rattled.

[geedels]

HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

I'm in total shock. I Sent first letter away to Clydesdale asking for charges back and received the usual standard letter. Sent LBA on Friday 14 July and sat back for a long wait. Today received a letter from Clydesdale from Neil McKirdy which had enclosed a cheque for £2030 representing half of the charges debited to the two accounts. (Which if I'm being pedantic should have been £2171). The letter also says that if I was successful the bank would countersue for failing to adhere to terms and conditions.

 

"The cheque is tendered without admission of liabilitity and is in full and final settlement of your claim and your encashment of it will be taken as your acceptance of this.

Please note that as this letter is written in an attempt to reslove this matter without the need for court action it is withot prejudice to the banks whole rights and pleas and may not be founded on in any action without the banks written consent."

 

 

 

 

This is amazing! I think it would be of interest of many of us fighting the Clydesdale to see the letter in full - without your personal details. Any chance of pasting it up for us?

Thanks

[caro]

The letter also says that if I was successful the bank would countersue for failing to adhere to terms and conditions.

 

Which is exactly what they are doing to me. They have put in a counterclaim in case I win. Good thing I am a laydeee or I might be tempted to swear. Pathetic.

[jay6664]

sent my LBA on 18th i hope the clydesdale dont offer me half the cash. im so skint i might be tempted to take it

[geedels]

Is anyone aware of other banks countersueing, and doing so successfully? Seems odd that they will first offer you the cash then claim they have the right to countersue don't you think?

[caro]

I haven't heard of any of them doing anything so stupid. They would still end up in court having to give a breakdown of charges so it won't happen.

[jimhl81]

Re previous posts,

 

I have sent letter to Neil McKirdy by recorded delivery asking for clarification of a number of points raised in his letter. Have confirmed that letter was received by the bank today. (Royal Mail tracking).

 

Will advise you when reply received from bank.

[jimhl81]

Have received a reply to my letter in previous post asking for clarification of a number of points raised in their letter.

 

their reply contains the statement as follows

 

"The Office of Fair Trading made comment on "late payment fees" levied by credit card issuers. There has been no ruling or investigation on charges relating to current accounts."

 

Can anyone clarify if this is in fact correct or are they being selective with their understanding?

[caro]

The investigation was into credit cards, but the OFT also commented on the high level of bank charges. The banks were really miffed because there had not been any discussion with them, and it was nothing to do with the original investigation. Their turn will come however. The OFT did say it though which is why we mention it.

[jimhl81]

Hi Caro

 

Thanks for your reply.

I am still considering my options. Trust the Clydesdale to find a new twist on this!!!!!

 

I can vaguely remember seeing something about this in another thread/post, but can anyone advise why in the first letter from the bank (the one with the cheque) they said

 

"Please note that this letter is written in an attempt to resolve this matter without the need for court action it is without prejudice to the Bank's whole rights and pleas and may not be founded on in any action to follow without the Bank's written consent", but the letter received today mentions nothing about this

 

 

Thanks

[rachel2609]

Hi jimhl81

 

That sentance was in my letter (well my Mums) letter received about a week ago. Basically they are trying to baffle you with legal speak and by saying that the letter is without prejudice means that you wouldnt be able to produce it should the matter be brought to Court.

 

You mention a further letter received today, what else did that say? Other than not saying without prejudice I assume??!?!?! Therefore one would assume that the letter received today could be used in Court if necessary.

 

Regards

 

Rachel

[rachel2609]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/14520-without-prejudice.html?highlight=prejudice

 

The thread I was referring to discussing 'Without Prejudice'

 

Rachel

[caro]

Don't worry about the OFT thing. All of the banks are saying it doesn't apply, but it does not change the fact that the OFT made the statement about bank charges and it should carry some weight to your claim. Just stick to your guns and hold out for the full amount. They charged you unlawfully and unless they offer the full amount force them into court. They are highly unlikely to go, as they don't want to explain how their costs are calculated, so they will pay up.

[JMio]

Pay up, they shall!

 

Stick in there my friend!

[jimhl81]

Hi everyone,

 

A family member had a letter from CB to say that from 1 Sept 2006 they are reducing their charges for failed direct debits etc to £12.

 

After much soul searching and letters back and forth with the Clydesdale I have paid the cheque in to the bank and have written to them to inform them. I have also said that as the OFT are investigating bank charges that if they are found to be excessive then I shall be seeking recovery of the remaining charges.

 

I await the OFT report with interest.

 

 

IT might help other claimants to see the letters (or parts there of ) that were sent.

 

9 June 2006 Data Protection Act request sent

3 July Letter sent requesting return of unlawful charges

13 July Standard sod off letter from CB

14 July Appeal letter sent

 

Re: Your refusal to refund bank charges

 

I write in response to your letter refusing my request for a refund of bank charges. I note your position is that I am not entitled to a refund because the terms and conditions of my account allow you to impose charges where I have insufficient funds in my account.

 

I also note your suggestion that I can complain to the Financial Services Ombudsman if dissatisfied with this decision. However, please be advised that it would be inappropriate to complain to the Financial Services Ombudsman where the only forum, which can determine a dispute on the legality of charges, is my local court. I would ask you to note the following.

 

Your bank insists it can impose charges in accordance with its terms and conditions of contract. However, those terms and conditions are subject to the common law and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (UTCCR). Indeed, the UTCCR takes precedence over any contractual term where the court finds a term to be ‘unfair’. The court can then treat that term of contract as having no legal effect.

 

The question that arises is this: are your charges unfair in terms of the UTCCR? 0n 26 July 2005 the OFT stated that 'a charge is likely to be disproportionately high if it is more than a court would be likely to award if the lender sued the cardholder for breach of contract'. So what would the court award your bank for my minor breach of contract?

 

As you will be aware, the court will only award (in a non-negotiated consumer contract) a sum to reimburse actual loss. Your charges do not reflect actual loss. Rather, they include a massive profit margin or penalty. Alternatively, they subsidise the bank's global debt recovery costs and lending losses. There is parliamentary evidence for this assertion.

 

When the UK banks gave evidence to the House of Commons Treasury Committee on how bank charges were calculated they said:

 

"[bank charges] are going to pay for all the people we have who pursue debt, collect debt, speak to customers and chase payments. The way these charges are arrived at is by taking these total costs and making some assumptions about the volume that is going to come through to arrive at the individual charges" (House of Commons, 2nd report, 25 January 2005, paragraph 50).

 

Accordingly, your charges do not reflect the actual loss in my case. They are an illegal penalty charge designed to recover money unconnected with the conduct of my account. I enclose a list of the charges raised on both accounts.

 

Please advise whether you have an appeals procedure, and if so, please treat this letter as a request for an appeal against your decision not to refund charges.

If I do not hear from you within the next 7 days, I will raise an action of payment at my local court. In that eventuality, I would require you to lodge in court financial vouching for the actual loss sustained in my case, together with your full financial accounts revealing how much income is generated from your bank charges, as against the cost of administering dishonoured transactions.

 

I look forward to your response.

 

 

19 July Letter denying liability but containing cheque

 

"The cheque is tendered without admission of liabilitity and is in full and final settlement of your claim and your encashment of it will be taken as your acceptance of this.

Please note that as this letter is written in an attempt to resolve this matter without the need for court action it is withot prejudice to the banks whole rights and pleas and may not be founded on in any action without the banks written consent."

 

 

 

 

Continued on seperate post

[jimhl81]

Continued from previous post.

 

20 July 2006

We refer to your letter of 19 July 2006 and your offer as your way of resolving the matter.

We are currently considering this but wish to clarify a number of points before deciding our course of action.

To help us come to a decision, we would like to know the bank’s reasoning behind offering half the amount of the charges raised.

As you are aware the Office of Fair Trading have stated that charges of more than £12.00 will be presumed to be unfair and unenforceable in terms of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI. 1999/2083).

Clydesdale Bank charges for failed direct debits, standing orders and cheques at £35.00 are almost 3 times that amount, not double as your offer would suggest.

It would be very interesting to find out what losses the bank had incurred as a result of our alleged breach of contract in failing to adhere to the terms and conditions of the account. These costs would presumably be the basis of your threatened claim against us for damages.

 

31 July 2006 Letter from Brian Durrand stating "The Office of Fair Trading made comment on "late payment fees" levied by credit card issuers. There has been no ruling or investigation on charges relating to current accounts."

 

The offer should not be taken as ameasure of loss where customers breach the terms and conditions of their account.

 

3 August 2006 Letter to Neil Mc Kirdy

I note your comments that the Office of Fair Trading made comment on "late payment fees" levied by credit card issuers and that there had been no ruling or investigation on charges relating to current accounts. I understand that the OFT are currently investigating this matter.

We are disappointed that your letter failed to answer the specific points that we raised, namely why half was deemed to be a suitable offer and what losses the bank had incurred as a result of our alleged breach of contract.

May we remind you that the time limit on my letter of 14 July has now expired. Like you we would like to settle this on an amicable basis without the need for court action, but feel that your offer does not adequately reflect the extent of the unlawful charges that have been raised on these accounts. As you are no doubt aware if we decided to take this matter to court then we would be entitled to add interest to the claim together with court costs.

An early reply would be appreciated to enable us to decide our course of action and to agree a mutually suitable outcome for both parties.

 

7 August 2006 Letter from Neil McKirdy

 

There is to be noincrewased offer and I refer you to my letter of 31 July in respect of which I have no further comment.

 

14 August 2006

 

We have reluctantly decided to accept your offer as payment towards the refund of the unlawful charges.

As you are aware the OFT are currently investigating bank charges and if it is found that the bank’s charges are in fact excessive, we shall be seeking recovery of the remaining charges.

We note with interest in your letter of 31 July 2006, that the OFT made comment on "late payment fees" levied by credit card issuers. We also have been made aware that from September 2006 the bank are reducing their charges to £12, thus agreeing with our argument that £35 was too much. Can the bank still argue that the £35 charge was to cover costs, never having supplied a breakdown of costs, despite being asked.

We await the OFT ruling with interest and its ramifications.

 

 

To add further insult when I paid the cheque in I asked how long it would take to clear and was advised by the teller that it would take 5 days to clear. I asked if he would care to reconsider baring in mind that it was a bank cheque signed personally by the branch manager. Once he stopped spluttering he said that it would clear immediately .