• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

Err...Hello?

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Err...Hello?

    This is quite funny I think. It appears that the only successful line of
    communication open between a client and bank charge reclaim company
    Robertson Holbrook is on a forum of MoneySavingExpert where I found
    this:




    Hi, we appointed Robertson Holbrook to act for us in the recovery of between £5000 to £6000 in charges that Lloyds TSB have stolen from us in the past six years, I have included a letter we sent today 9th Sept 2007 just to give you all a general idea of what we, as an ordinary family are having inflicted on us by the pirates we bank with and the seemingly fly-by-night company we mistakenly appointed to act for us....happy reading?not.....

    Dear Robertson Holbrook,
    We write to remind you that we have a claim against our bank, which you acknowleged reciept of on 17/01/2007. We are disappointed with your lack of communication, which unfortunately betrays a lack of organisation on your part. On average, since we appointed your company to recover our money, we have been charged £180-£200 per month, making an average figure of £1,620 this year alone.
    We now find ourselves in the position of having to enquire as to what your company is doing about this matter? The only communication we have had with Robertson Holbrook is ONE letter, dated 17th Jan 07, and a phone conversation, which we had to persist with as we were put on hold and cut off TWICE, making it look like you didn't want to talk to us. Nevertheless, we weren't deterred by this, so we rang back until we got to speak to someone. We were then told that you were waiting for Lloyds TSB to provide our statements, and that we would recieve a letter from yourselves in the near future, however, that was MONTHS AGO!!! Yet we are STILL WAITING to hear from you. This is an abysmal way to conduct a so called customer orientated business, and we regret that we appointed you to represent us, and if we had dealt with this ourselves we would have been refunded by now. We don't expect that this email we are sending you today will recieve any attention, let alone an answer from you, and this is highly disappointing
    as we are constantly in the red, our bank is stinging us worse than ever, and we cannot foresee an
    end to it. We have included an excerpt from the "Which," website just to remind you of your duty
    to conduct yourselves on our behalf against our bank, and get our money back for us:
    ************************* ******
    If you don't have an arranged overdraft facility and you dip into the red, or if you go over an agreed overdraft limit, you're using what banks call an 'unauthorised overdraft'. A Which? survey in 2006 found that one in four of us had used an unauthorised overdraft in the previous year.

    While it might be said that banks provide consumers with a certain flexibility by allowing unauthorised overdrafts, they're also raking in the cash – to the tune of an astonishing £4.7billion a year (as reported in Which? magazine, June 2006).

    That's because they slap massive charges and interest rates on accounts that are in the red – even if the amount of the unauthorised overdraft is just a few pounds and is cleared quickly.

    We think these bank charges are unfair and breach consumer contract regulations.

    The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 state that charges can’t be disproportionate to the costs incurred by the bank. These charges cannot be used as a deterrent or a profit stream by the bank.
    ************************* *******
    Now that we have made our position clear to you, we would like to present you with a clear opportunity to COMMUNICATE with us, our address, phone numbers and e-mail address are at the top of this mail to you, therefore, you have no excuse not to get in touch with us. Please do not ignore us any more, we are starting to tire of this long drawn out matter, and your complete ignorance of customer relations. After all, we are part of a large community of ordinary people who provide your profits by getting ripped off by our banks, and we think that we deserve better, and would like to let you know that the clock is now ticking, waiting for a response from you, and if no such response is recieved we will require that you provide us with all the papers and information re; our case, that you have so that we can either proceed ourselves or find a reputable organization to do it for us.
    Some background information about us for your consideration, I am Mr xxxx xxxxxxxn, I am carer to my wife who is disabled, we have 4 children aged 12,5,3,2. My wife xxxx is on disability benefits, and today we checked our accounts via internet banking only to find that our bank has sent us £240 into the red by CHARGING us, and now that we are this far into unauthorised overdraft they will be CHARGING us again. This cannot continue, they are taking all the money that is meant to feed our children and run our household. What we are saying to you is that WE CANNOT SUSTAIN IT, and we have decided that we are going to publicise this grand theft from us, and if needs be, we will also publicise your company and your total failure in dealing with our case as it's now 9 MONTHS since you acknowledged reciept of our Form of Authority and we are still completely in the dark. We are not going to let this continue, and I will be on the phone to you tomorrow 10th Sept, with a printed copy of this email to read to you as I'd like to make sure that you take notice this time, instead of ignoring us like you have so far.

    Regards,................. .......,.............9th Sept 2007.

    I'd just like to know if anyone else has had any experience of this seemingly fly-by-night company, as we are not at all impressed. Lloyds TSB are crippling us financially with their extortionate charges, and I'm questioning the legality of this large scale theft from ordinary people like us.


    Rizlathecat,
    Please email me your contact details,(Unfortunately we do not check this site as often as we probably should but you are understandably annoyed at the treatment you appear to be receiving and we are always striving to ensure that our clients are treated correctly). Or phone Tim Russell (08453300665) on Monday he is expecting your call and is keen to establish where the break down in communication has occurred.
    I am sure your issues can be resolved to obtain your desired result. Remember we are on your side and we will do everything required to bring Lloyds to order.

  • #2
    Re: Err...Hello?

    Lmao, it got the desired result then?
    msl:

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Err...Hello?

      jaysus!! Surely if they are members of the MSE forum, they realise by now that there is no need to use such a company, especially as the service has been so poor.

      GRRRRRRR:bang:

      Having said that, I'll bet most of the companies set up to handle claims have been sent into total free fall following the OFT test case announcement. Rather a clever move by the government really. Back in April after the Compensation Act came in, it will have cost these 'claims management' companies between £400-800 just to register plus they have to pay a couple of percent of recovered fees to the govt.

      A mere 12 weeks later, their business is effectively terminated. Life is tough huh?msl:
      "Although scalar fields are Lorentz scalars, they may transform nontrivially under other symmetries, such as flavour or isospin. For example, the pion is invariant under the restricted Lorentz group, but is an isospin triplet (meaning it transforms like a three component vector under the SU(2) isospin symmetry). Furthermore, it picks up a negative phase under parity inversion, so it transforms nontrivially under the full Lorentz group; such particles are called pseudoscalar rather than scalar. Most mesons are pseudoscalar particles." (finally explained to a captivated Celestine by Professor Brian Cox on Wednesday 27th June 2012 )

      I am proud to have co-founded LegalBeagles in 2007

      If we have helped you we'd appreciate it if you can leave a review on our Trust Pilot page

      If you wish to book an appointment with me to discuss your credit agreement, please email kate@legalbeaglesgroup. com

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Err...Hello?

        Yes that's an interesting point. The OFT case hasn't done sites like this any
        favours either with no one winning claims.

        Comment

        View our Terms and Conditions

        LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

        If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


        If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
        Working...
        X