RBS bank charges battle

[sal09]

I have received the reply below. They have received the courts claim against them. There are two separate accounts and one dates back to 1998 and the other one was closed in 2006. Can some one guid me what to do now plaese.

regards

The attached file is a response from RBS

sally

[Amethyst]

Re: RBS bank charges battle

ooooooooo naughty people they should allow back to July 2001 whatever.

Coincedentally i received this today from the FSA

Dear Ms Amethyst


Thank you for your query below:


The relevant provision of the waiver is condition 13(14). This states that firms must not take into account the period between 27 July 2007 and the date of termination of the waiver for the purposes of relying on any limitation periods or time limits within which complainants must:


(a) make relevant charges complaints;
(b) refer relevant charges complaints to the Ombudsman; or
(c) bring claims before the court.


So, the position is that a complainant may claim charges going back as far as the limitation period plus the period of the waiver and this applies to complaints made directly to firms as well as claims to the courts and the FOS.



Further, to clarify a point in your email, there is no need for the consumer to raise the issue of limitation. The waiver requirement means that firms may not raise limitation as a defence (in court, to the FOS or directly to the consumer).



Thank you
S. Malko
Information Access Team
Financial Services Authority

So therefore they have to allow you your claim back to July 2001 whenever you started claiming.

I'd write back and remind them of their obligations under the FSA waiver, and you can also argue s.32 limitations act 1980 to get back to the charges 1998 to 2001.

I'll have a look a bit later for a letter to use

[Tools]

Re: RBS bank charges battle

Just posting here for reference do not use as much of it is out dated

16. (a) The Claimant seeks permission to include XX charges debited from one of the Accounts (Account No.XXXXXX) by the Defendant between XXth XXXXXX 19XX and XXth July 20XX, under s.32 (1) (b) Limitation Act 1980, on the grounds that the Claimant could not reasonably have discovered the Defendant’s concealment of the true nature of these charges before the publication in April 2006 of the Office of Fair Trading`s report on penalty charges. The Defendant continues to maintain that these charges are a legitimate cost for a service, yet also continues to refuse full disclosure of its actual costs in relation to the Claimants contractual breaches. The facts relevant to the Claimant’s right of action are that the Defendant is unjustly enriched by exercising the contractual terms in respect of default charges with a view to profit. If the Defendant has elected to present its charges as if they were a legitimate loss or cost, whilst it is in actual fact profiting in a material sense from the charges, the Defendant can be seen to have been operating without accountability to its customers, and to have consciously concealed the true nature of these penalty charges. This conduct further reinforces the Claimants belief that the Limitations Act would permit the inclusion of penalty charges from six years ago and older on the basis that the Defendant concealed from the Claimant the true nature of these charges. The Defendant is in a privileged position to have direct means of withdrawing monies from the Claimants bank Accounts; the Claimant is entitled to know whether the charges debited represent a justifiable business cost, or whether they are in fact penalties for contractual breaches.

(b) In the alternative to 15(a), the Claimant seeks permission to proceed with the claim under s.32(1)(c) Limitation Act 1980 on the grounds that the payment of these penalty charges were conceded on the mistaken belief that the charges did not amount to penalties – Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council [1999] 2 AC 349- and that the Claimant could not reasonably have discovered such mistakes before the publication of the Office of Fair Trading’s report of April 2006

[Amethyst]

Re: RBS bank charges battle

hi Sal

Can you do us a favour, you posted your letter up just as I was talking to the FSa about the waiver and the agreement between the banks and the fsa not to raise limitations beyond July 2001 and i mentioned your letter and they would be interested to see it.

could you contact them- just explain you have entered your complaint with the bank and at court for a refund of unfair charges and you have received this in response which you believe breaches the terms of the fsa waiver, could they look in to it, and attach a copy of the letter (you can leave your details visible for them) They won't be able to act for you specifically but they should be encouraged to enforce the limitations part of the waiver.

Be much appreciated

the details Ms Malkos of the fsa gave to contact are in the link below, however I think an email to the centralwaiversteam@fsa.gov.uk wouldnt go amiss too (as they are the resposible team for the banks waiver)

http://www.moneymadeclear.fsa.gov.uk/contactus.aspx

[Tools]

Re: RBS bank charges battle

Could I also ask what prompted you to enter this complaint into court knowing that it would be automatically stayed? Were you advised to do so elsewhere?