The Ongoing Saga of my campaign against Natwest

[Guest]

THE STORY SO FAR

 

I haven't actually launched an action to get previous bank charges back - my campaign is geared towards getting the NatWest to accept that they can only charge me £5 for each bounced transaction, which I class as a "reasonable amount" even though it's still way more than it actually costs.

 

Several letters have been exchanged - the NatWest say that they'll continue to run my account their way, I keep telling them they won't.

 

Next post will contain my last letter to them.

[Guest]

Ms Lisa Howell

Customer Lending Centre

PO Box 6868, 7 – 10 Brindley Place

Birmingham B1 2WZ

 

Dear Ms Howell,

 

Account Sort Code xx-xx-xx number xxxxxxxx

 

The contents of your letter dated 11 January 2006 are noted.

 

With regards to account operation, an “Internal Matter” which potentially affects the running of the account cannot be regarded solely as an internal matter, especially when internet fraud is a growing concern. To have a transaction disappear for days may mean that by the time a fraudulent transaction does occur, the bank has already made a charge. I would remind you that this HAS HAPPENED to my account on one occasion, where a small amount was being debited on an irregular basis by what I was told at the time was a sex site based in the USA. I therefore request further details on what this "Internal Matter" is, and how it works, so that I can see how it might affect the running of my account.

 

To this day I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer from the bank about how my account details got to them, as I never heard of them before charges started to appear on my account and am only aware of what they are from the banks own internal investigation. If memory serves, YOU knew who they were because their charges were being applied to a number of accounts, but I still don’t know who they are. This is but one example of where the Bank will apply it’s illegal charging structure, and the so-called “Internal Matter” will be used to mask the audit trail. I also note that when charges are reversed, they are reversed – in most book-keeping computer programs I have used, to nullify a transaction you have to post an equal counter-transaction; therefore please explain to me how come reversed bank charges and obvious bank errors disappear without trace?

 

Which bit of “I am fully aware of what the Bank considers it’s “Standard Tariff” and was already in possession of the leaflets that you sent out to me with your letter.” are you not understanding? I am aware of the way Bank charges accrue, and of the billions of pounds the High Street Banks made off their customers in these charges last year. I am also aware of numerous occasions when customers who have taken legal action against their bank to recover these illegal charges have won because the bank will not enter a plea in court for fear of losing and setting a precedence that might allow ALL customers to claim back their charges. I know these charges are illegal, YOU know these charges are illegal, and should I decide to take legal action – which I am not at this stage ruling out – for back charges up to the point the account is opened, we both know that the bank will repay the entire amount rather than letting it be heard in court. There are now dozens of people who have sued their banks, NatWest customers included, and NO bank has been prepared to stand up in court and try to justify these charges because they cannot be justified. Pure and simple. In an age where computers do all the mundane tasks, £38 cannot be a fair and accurate estimation of liquidated damages. If I am wrong, EXPLAIN HOW THE BANK REACHES ITS FIGURE rather than just say “We apply that to all accounts.” The first might be acceptable, the second is a whitewash. I will reiterate once again, you CANNOT apply any charge from any account which GOES AGAINST the law of the land, said law being contract law. A bank account is an agreement, an agreement is a contract, contracts are bound by contract law.

 

I am not asking you to ‘amend the banks charging policy’ I am telling you that I am clarifying this particular issue about how my contract for a bank account with you stands. If you wish to dispute it, you will provide a summary breakdown of how a charge is made. I am quite willing to pay your liquidated damages provided I am given a full breakdown of how these charges add up. To apply a charge because you happen to do that to everyone remains unacceptable.

 

Therefore, since further clarification appears to be necessary:

 

TAKE NOTICE THAT as of January 1st 2006 the amount of liquidated damages I agree to compensate the Bank for in the event of a breach of contract on my part is £5.00 per occurrence. Permission is hereby given to deduct this amount.

 

TAKE NOTICE THAT until a mutually acceptable compromise on charges, which must follow a full breakdown of charges, is agreed, this figure shall stand in law as the sum of liquidated damages the bank is entitled to, and further

 

TAKE NOTICE THAT in the event of an in terrorum charge above the liquidated damages detailed above being applied to the event, I shall regard this as technical theft and shall WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE proceed with legal action to recover any and all sums charged to me by the banks over and above what is acceptable by a court of law. This includes any and all charges made to date since the account was opened.

 

I shall, as discussed on the telephone, make an application for all data under the Data Protection Act at my branch, and reserve the right to use this information in subsequent calculations should legal action turn out to be necessary.

 

Yours sincerely,

[Guest]

Natwest Customer Lending Centre

PO Box 6868

7-10 Brindley Place

Birmingham

B1 2WZ

 

19 January 2006

 

Dear Mr Sheldon

 

Further to my colleague's recent letter regarding your account, I am writing to update you as to the status of your concern.

 

Due to the nature of the issue, and to ensure the best possible resolution of this matter, I feel that it will be beneficial for your concern to be taken forward by our Customer Relations Unit - a specialist team dedicated to resolving more complex concerns.

 

Customer Relations Unit will contact you within the next two days, however if you wish to contact them prior to this you can telephone them on 0800 015 4212.

 

I regret that I have been unable to resolve this matter for you.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Mechelle Rafter

Customer Care Team

[BankFodder]

I appreciate that you are trying to show them that you are being fair-minded. However I think that it would be more appropriate to insist that they accept the underlying principle first that they are only permitted to recoup their losses. Once this is agreed by the banks then one can start talking about a reasonable markup.

 

However, what is a reasonable markup?

Most businesses markup 100% - and in the book trade it is ony 30%. So why should the banks markup any more than that -assuming that by bouncing your direct debits etc they are actually offering a service.

 

To allow the banks the opportunity not to admit the principle of penalty clauses is to privilege them and I don't see that they have anything do have deserved it.

To offer them £5.00 is still to give them a markup of (probably) many hundreds of per cent.

 

I am sorry but I think that the banks should be brought down to earth - with a bump. They have abused their dominant positon in the market and in people's lives. They need to be made to understand that they stand equal with all of the other business interests in the High Street and that they are welcome to make profits but in a reasonable, lawful and non-injurious way.

 

Anyway, despite your very decent and fair-minded intentions, I think that it is certain that the bank is not capaable of recognising such a gesture for what it is and they will not agree the prinicple with you but will stand completely firm and will give no ground.

You may recoup some "goodwill" payment this time but they will give you the same fight every time.

[Guest]

I think I need to clarify my position a little here.

 

I feel that £5 is a reasonable amount, which will cover the materials and wear and tear on equipment their end, plus up to THREE letters (one to me, one to the other bank, one to the account holder who isn't being paid) each chargeable at first class rates of 30p per letter. The remainder of the £5 is a "good will payment" from myself to them for sundry expenses that may arise that I am not aware of. I know it's an over the top figure, but if I do take action against them at a later stage, to say to the court that I've offered what I consider to be a fair and generous amount will lead to a court looking more favourably on it - and this MAY WELL reach court, because I am simply not going to take 'no' for an answer.

 

My objectives in this entire matter is as follows:

 

1) to get the bank to accept that £5 is a generous offer given the circumstances, and thereby set a precedent that a FIXED payment of £5, which is NOT SUBJECT TO REVIEW by the banks whenever they feel like it is an acceptable outcome

 

2) to get the bank to outline how IT makes its figure of £38 - I accept it is unlikely that I will achieve this objective, but I'm going to give it a damn good try

 

3) once I have achieved objective 1, to have it applied retrospectively, and all charges over £5 per item to be repaid not as a "goodwill payment" but because this is the contract between myself and the bank, and applies across the board

 

4) To then give other NatWest customers the details of the precedent now set, so that they can use that as leverage with their own accounts, and other bank account customers also use it as leverage against their own banks.

 

I am aware of the ultra-hardline approach of "let's not give them a penny more than we absolutely have to" but when it comes to legal battles this is one big game of chess. You will always win if you outmanoevre your opponent, and courts don't like to be dragged into this. By showing that I WILL take this to court, and I WILL insist that a court imposes these terms on my contract with the NatWest, but offering them a chance to settle the issue without the courts getting involved, I am offering them an opportunity to set voluntarily, the precedence it is likely to be years before a banks legal department slips up and allows to be set by the courts.

 

The OFT won't investigate this for several years. The government doesn't want them to. The government wants to hit the banks with a HUGE 'windfall tax' so they want the banks to be getting as much money as they can so it can be taxed, and the government doesn't care if the banks make that money illegally. So, they won't let the OFT carry out a full investigation until they've decided how much they're going to claw back in tax. We cannot, therefore, count on the OFT being on our side in this.

 

The banks know how the courts work. The likelihood of them getting an actual court ruling against them is extremely low, because they will always rely on default judgements that don't affect their legal position. With the courts bogged down already, if enough people launch county court actions against their banks, even though they are right to do so, we'll end up bringing the court system to a grinding halt - it's already in dire danger of coming to a halt with all the Council Tax cases. If it does, this isn't going to help anyone.

 

So, I feel to get the NatWest to voluntarily accept my thorn-in-the-side approach to offering them a small carrot and a big stick is the best way forward. They will have a devil of a job closing my account because I'll pursue other legal avenues to stop it occurring, yet at the end of the day I'm offering more than their costs without taking legal action. This backdoor approach is a lot more likely to succeed than the direct "in yer face" approach, but when it does, it will establish that the Bank is prepared to follow the law, but doesn't want to shout about it.

 

And then I'll do all the shouting for them.

[western promise]

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.

[Guest]

30 January 2006

 

Dear Mr Sheldon

 

I know that you have been corresponding with Lisa Howell at our Birmingham Customer Lending Centre about your complaint. As we have been unable to resolve your complaint, this letter sets out the Bank's position and provides you with the option to refer it to the Financial Ombudsman Service should you remain unhappy or dissatisfied. I am sorry that you feel the Bank has let you down and for the distress and inconvenience you have been caused.

 

Having reviewed all of the information available to me, my understanding of your complaint is that you are unhappy with the Bank's charging policy. You are saying that our Unpaid Fees of £38 per item are unfair and illegal. In order to resolve matters you wish us to change our policy so in the event that a fee is due, you pay £5 per item.

 

Under existing guidelines, we may decide not to pay items presented through your account if there are insufficient cleared funds available to cover them. When this happens charges will be levied according to our publicised tariff and these will then be debited from your account. Our literature explains that these charges may be debited from your account immediately or at a later date and can be obtained from any of our branches. I do acknowledge that this literature has been sent out to you. Details regarding some of our charging procedures can also be found on the reverse of your bank statements. In addition, copies of our Terms and Conditions are automatically provided when an account is opened.

 

I appreciate that you have spent some time in raising this issue with us and I am grateful to you for taking the time to do so and for the patience you have shown in allowing us to address matters. I am sorry that we have not been able to agree on a solution, but I am unable to agree to your request. These fees are standard across the Bank network and cannot be adapted on an individual basis. I confirm that providing you have available cleared funds to meet your commitments, no charges will be payable.

 

If you remain dissatisfied with this final response you may refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service who offer a free independent arbitration service. If you decide to take this course of action you must do so no later than six months from the date you receive this letter. The enclosed leaflet, produced by the Financial Ombudsman Service, gives you more details about what they do and how you can contact them.

 

Yours sincerely

Martin King

Head of Customer Relations

[Guest]

31 January 2006

 

Mr Martin King

Head of Customer Relations

National Westminster Bank

Ground Floor, National Westminster House

225 Shenley Road, Borehamwood WD6 1TE

 

Dear Mr King,

 

I refer to your letter of 30 January 2006, the contents of which are noted.

 

With reference to the financial ombudsman, the literature you have provided states that the ombudsman service is an arbitrator with no powers as a watchdog. As the Bank is clearly not prepared to change this stance, the ombudsman is clearly not the route to follow. I am of the opinion that the Bank will change its stance only if forced to by a court of law; however I am still hoping that it will not be necessary to involve the courts in a dispute that could easily be settled between ourselves.

 

I wish clarification on two points. Please answer these questions directly.

 

1. I believe these fees to be illegal as they do not reflect the losses that the bank incurs due to breach of contract. On what grounds do you claim these fees are legal, given that you consistently refuse to provide the figures that proves the bank has made these losses and thereby needs to be compensated for them?

 

2. I do not wish you to change any policy, I simply wish to exercise my rights under consumer contract law. Upon what grounds do you refuse to abide by section 5 of the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations which states that the consumer shall have a right to negotiate breach of contract compensation payments?

 

These two questions form the core of my disagreement with the bank. I am happy to meet any losses the bank incurs due to any breach of contract on my part, but I must be satisfied that such losses genuinely reflect the amount the bank has needed to pay out. An automated letter in a franked envelope with no apparent human contact does not justify a fee in excess of a normal human hourly wage, and since the letter is issued because the Bank has chosen not to make a payment, the Bank cannot claim to be out of pocket by the amount of this payment as it has never been made.

 

While I accept that you may decide not to pay items presented under existing guidelines, I do not accept that you have any right to waive the consumer contract law which is quite clear in specifying that you may not recover more than you have lost, nor may you make penalty charges, nor may you attempt to force a consumer into a contract without being open to negotiation. These things are matters of law and no guidelines can excuse refusing to follow the consumer contracts law.

 

Before I make a further decision on how to proceed, I would be grateful if you could answer the two simple questions I have asked in this letter, directly and without referral to policy, as they concern matters of law not matters of bank policy. I am still willing to consider paying the £38 provided you provide a full breakdown of how this figure is arrived at, and such a breakdown obviously constitutes an accurate summary of the losses the bank incurs.

 

If you still refuse to justify the charge, then I believe the only option will be to ask the courts to make a final judgement, based again not on bank policy, but on the fairness aspect of the fees and stance the Bank insists on taking. If this turns out to be the case, I shall pursue the matter even if at some subsequent point in the proceedings my account with you should be closed, as I believe that a court ruling on this particular aspect is long overdue.

 

I look forward to your swift response.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Edward Sheldon

[Guest]

Not at all Be my guest.

[xasan]

whisperwolf.

why are you wasting your time and money on corresponding with them.

take them to court, get your money. simple as that.

[Guest]

I'm not after them specifically for money for me. I'm after manoevering them into an untenable position with a view to getting a legal declaration that their charges are unfair and unlawful.

 

If it was just about getting my money back, I'd be right there with the summons, but it's not. The reason for my complex game of chess is to have them checkmated in a position where they can't say ANYTHING that isn't going to get them into more trouble, and therefore go for a declaration that will send massive shockwaves through the entire banking industry in this country. That is my goal. That is why I'm willing to spend so long corresponding.

 

In the end they'll either offer me absolutely obscene amounts of money to not only go for a declaration but sign a confidentiality agreement, or they'll have to defend these charges in court and we'll have it out once and for all. Either way, at the end of the day, I'm still going to get my refund on my charges - so I'm in no particular hurry.

[Russe11]

sterling work work mr wolf

[leehughes]

Whisperwolf, I believe your stance is in truth the best option.

 

It is time that few or many put this matter through the legal system, by force if necessary. We need a definitive response and not the constant side stepping that is taking place by the financial institutions.

 

It is the principle.....prevention is better than cure.

 

 

In all....my penalty charges exceed £10,000...these companies have put me through hell, I want payback but I would like it with the clarification that I cannot lose............PERIOD.

 

Good luck.

[xasan]

i wasnt being selfish dave, i didnt understand the reason why whisperwolfe was writing to them but now he has explained and i know its not about the money.

 

whisperwolf did you know they make over 3billion from charges every year?

how do you hope to bring that down?

[xasan]

i agree with you dave but they stand to lose alot of money if they lose at court. it will be tough.

 

and no hard fellings about ealier comments.

[Guest Alison82]

It hard to belive the site has bee running for just over a month, It's done so well in raising the profile of charges!

[xasan]

That it will be - but I think we're starting to make progress.

 

Members of this forum, in prarticular Stephen, has a meeting with the OFT on Monday to discuss their inaction.

 

I think we're nearly a thorn in the sides of the banks - which is more than we were on the 10th Jan, when we started!!

 

 

the oft are more concerned about local dodgy dealers than taking the banks on, the only thing they've done is issue a statment about credit card companies charges last july and didnt follow it up. they just dont care.

 

this idea my have already been said but if people who listen to their local call in radios show could talk about the site and spread the message it will help, also if someone wins their money back againts a bank they should try to tell it to their local free papers, most are dying for stories and will more than likely run it.

 

just an. :idea:

[Guest Alison82]

You could get some stickers made up with the website address and some brief info and stick them on the cashpoints

[xasan]

You could get some stickers made up with the website address and some brief info and stick them on the cashpoints

 

they will probably sue.

[Russe11]

You could get some stickers made up with the website address and some brief info and stick them on the cashpoints

 

that would be the most stupid thing to do, defacing the banks property.

 

You think just because you can get get one on them, now you can do what you like, rest assured when you are in the wrong it will hurt you ten times more.

[xasan]

You could get some stickers made up with the website address and some brief info and stick them on the cashpoints

 

that would be the most stupid thing to do, defacing the banks property.

 

You think just because you can get get one on them, now you can do what you like, rest assured when you are in the wrong it will hurt you ten times more.

 

 

dont feel sorry for the banks russe, they can take alot of prodding before they are "hurt". besides this banks will take your money illegaly and drive you to hardship and porverty and wouldnt lose a millisecond of sleep over it.

[Russe11]

What happens when the bank defends against the declaration, this will be on the basis that it they had to return all charges made in the last six year they just would not be able to afford to do it ?

[Guest]

What happens when the bank defends against the declaration, this will be on the basis that it they had to return all charges made in the last six year they just would not be able to afford to do it ?

 

As far as we call can tell, there's no basis on which the banks could defend against the declaration. The declaration is simply a clarification of the law we all know already, in relation to the particular behaviour of the banks. Contract law simply does not allow penalty charges to allow one side in a contract to profit from the other side, and that's that. But that's exactly what the banks are doing - and that's why they don't want the declaration.

 

As regards paying people back - well, yes, that is a major concern. They've taken so much off people that some of them might seriously struggle to pay it back... but they are worldwide institutions, and they'll just have to sell other assets if it comes to that.

 

Or they could always ask for a loan...

[Guest Alison82]

It was a joke Russell, and please don't call me stupid- there is no need for that on this site!

 

(sorry for posting in your post Whisperwolf)

[Guest Alison82]

It was a joke Russell, and please don't call me stupid- there is no need for that on this site!

 

(sorry for posting in your post Whisperwolf)