Hardship claim rejection. Help please.

[JibTeenuc]

I submitted a claim for between £800 and £900 to my former bank (£500+ in charges and £300+ in interest @8%), which was rejected - despite my being in genuine hardship, having suffered two strokes and having been unemployed since 2005.

 

My monthly benefits do not even cover my basic rent, power, transport (nevermind food, clothes etc).

 

The rejection letter cites:

 

"The Supreme Court considered bank fees and issued its judgement in November 2009. The Supreme Court, which is the highest court in the United Kingdom, decided fees cannot be challenged on the grounds that they are too high and that they are not considered penalties. This judgement did not make any exception for customers who are suffering financial difficulties".

 

I was of the understanding that not only did the Supreme Court mention that a claimant should not necessarily be put off claiming, despite their verdict, but also said that it expected banks to behave responsibly and positively towards claimants suffering financial hardship.

 

1) Any advice and/or experience would be sincerely appreciated.

 

2) Should I appeal to the bank, go straight to Financial Ombudsman Service or simply even drop my claim?

 

3) Despite submitting and receiving the results of a SAR (Subject Access Request) there is no signed agreement between myself and the bank to the bank's terms and conditions - only a generic, unsigned, set of TAC's. Does this make my case any the stronger?

 

Many thanks for taking the trouble to read this and I look forward to advice from those better placed than myself, hopefully.

 

Jib T.

[slick132]

Hi JibT and sorry this went unanswered so long.

 

Please see my advise to another site user a few mins back - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?402454-Barclays-Bank-Business

 

The same principles apply whether it's a personal or a business a/c. The Lending Code applies from March 2011 onwards.

 

I doubt a complaint to the FOS will be of any help in your case as they tend to side with the banks in such matters.