Don't Feel Guilty Claiming Against Banks

[Igotts]

Some people I speak to feel guilty on the moral issue claiming against the Banks, I just say look at the BONUS CULTURE that they opperate, then tell me you feel guilty.
POWER TO THE PEOPLE lol.

[Budgie]

Re: Don't Feel Guilty Claiming Against Banks

Tell those people who express their guilt to come on this site and read some of the stories relating the misery and hardship ( and worse ) that the banks have cause to Consumers over the years and are still doing so today.

Their is nothing wrong or to feel guilty about in claiming back charges that have been taken from you unlawfully.

In fact, I personally regard failure to attempt to claim back these charges as almost as much of a despicable act as the banks have perpetrated in the first instance.

Failure to claim back these charges allows the banks to get away with their unlawful acts and encourages them on to even greater misdeeds.

[ROBSTER]

Re: Don't Feel Guilty Claiming Against Banks

Tell those people who express their guilt to come on this site and read some of the stories relating the misery and hardship ( and worse ) that the banks have cause to Consumers over the years and are still doing so today.

Their is nothing wrong or to feel guilty about in claiming back charges that have been taken from you unlawfully.

In fact, I personally regard failure to attempt to claim back these charges as almost as much of a despicable act as the banks have perpetrated in the first instance.

Failure to claim back these charges allows the banks to get away with their unlawful acts and encourages them on to even greater misdeeds.

Well said Budgie, if banks over paid they would be quick enough to claim it back so why not put the boot on the other foot?

Suppose we could start a charity to benefit from these charges if people are too prudish to claim them back..at least that way the banks are being held to account!!

[ROBSTER]

Re: Don't Feel Guilty Claiming Against Banks

Well said Budgie, if banks over paid they would be quick enough to claim it back so why not put the boot on the other foot?

Suppose we could start a charity to benefit from these charges if people are too prudish to claim them back..at least that way the banks are being held to account!!

Someone had to do it!




Any comments?

[ROBSTER]

Re: Don't Feel Guilty Claiming Against Banks

Bump

[Budgie]

Re: Don't Feel Guilty Claiming Against Banks

I have a comment.

Personally I detest the idea.

My opinion might be subject to change if the Claims Management Company promoting the idea were also to donate their fee ( earned by way of keeping the interest claimed on behalf of the Consumer ) to the same charitable cause specified. Otherwise, it's simply a marketing ploy on behalf of the Claims Management Company.

[ed.]

Re: Don't Feel Guilty Claiming Against Banks

A Robertson Holbrook initiative

At Robertson Holbrook we appreciate that although many millions of people have been over charged on Bank Charges and Credit Card & Store Card Charges it is a sad fact of life that many people for their own personal reasons will not bother to engage their Bank or Credit Provider to ensure that these institutions are held to account for these over charges.

Sorry am I missing something here Robster you've bumped this thread for thoughts.

EVEN IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO USE OUR SERVICE, REGISTER YOUR CLAIM WITH YOUR BANK OR CARD PROVIDER ASAP YOU MAY SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE YOUR PAYOUT......DO IT NOW !

ROBERTSON-HOLBROOK FAQ

The Hosting for this eazyweb Site has Expired
Robertson Holbrook - The Consumer Forums

[ROBSTER]

Re: Don't Feel Guilty Claiming Against Banks

I have a comment.

Personally I detest the idea.

My opinion might be subject to change if the Claims Management Company promoting the idea were also to donate their fee ( earned by way of keeping the interest claimed on behalf of the Consumer ) to the same charitable cause specified. Otherwise, it's simply a marketing ploy on behalf of the Claims Management Company.

Good point.

I think that could be considered,

The point is there is and always will be folk out there who will "Feel Guilty" and if the fact that they are donating the proceeds to charity motivates any one of them to put in a claim they would not have done under any other circumstances would you still detest it?

I bet the banks would. LOL


I've dropped the link (now you've seen it!)

Thanks for the comment.

[ed.]

Re: Don't Feel Guilty Claiming Against Banks

The point is there is and always will be folk out there who will "Feel Guilty" and if the fact that they are donating the proceeds to charity motivates any one of them to put in a claim they would not have done under any other circumstances would you still detest it?

Why, on the proper culmination of the Test Case the terms become unbinding and the banks will have to refund everyone regardless of whether they complained or not?

What exactly is achieved by a charity PR whoring CMC advising the start of legal action now, especially when they don't even realise credit card claims are slightly different?

The website itself is more amatuerish than my 8 yr old could come up with given 4 hours with Dreamweaver given most of the links don't work. The information is in most parts is seriously substandard again reference the lack of distinction between bank and CC.

They don't use secured data transfer, they reference simple snail mail post for applications.

Every link on Google to RH comes up with substandard service, and peed off customers.

I'm not sure why it was ever linked in the first place, especially as you seem to defend on the basis of those who would never claim anyway......when given the right result, that is irrelevant.

The terms and conditions are also fantastic, at one point despite taking on 'this charity misrepresentative whoring CMC' as your agent, you also agree that you may have to appear in Court and present your case on your own anyway PMSL

[ROBSTER]

Re: Don't Feel Guilty Claiming Against Banks

Charges for Charity About Us

Sorry am I missing something here Robster you've bumped this thread for thoughts.



ROBERTSON-HOLBROOK FAQ

The Hosting for this eazyweb Site has Expired
Robertson Holbrook - The Consumer Forums

There s loads of stuff out there on RH.

I like the one about Winding up HBOS

There s good reason for all of it.

Point being is there a way to get the people who would otherwise not claim to consider claiming, if it went to a good cause and they didn't have to make any effort themselves.

If that doesn't motivate them would you agree it's one up for the banks?

Got any better Ideas ?

Thanks for the feed back...I asked for it!!

[Budgie]

Re: Don't Feel Guilty Claiming Against Banks

Not really.

I have an alternative solution. Maybe a bit of wishfull thinking but hey !!!

When the whole matter finally comes to the succesfull conclusion that we are all hoping for it is clear that the banks will have had to divulge ( amongst other things ) the total amount of charges that they have imposed on Customers for the period of limitation that the courts decide will be applicable. The situation regarding compensatory interest will also have been resolved and each bank will have been able ( with the Courts assistance ) to fully calculate how much it is likely to have to pay back to it's Customers.

Assuming that the banks are not forced to make automatic refunds to Customers ( If they are then your charity claim via a CMC is out of the window as well), it would perhaps be fitting for a period of time to be set by the Court for Consumers to claim their individual refunds from their banks. At the expiry of that time period I believe that any refunds not claimed should be stripped from the banks and used for some charitable purpose, maybe to benefit those who have been caused irrepairable damage in the past by these charges, damage that was caused by the imposition of charges but which would not simply not be fully compensated by a refund of the charges plus compensatory interest alone.

Good point.

I think that could be considered,

The point is there is and always will be folk out there who will "Feel Guilty" and if the fact that they are donating the proceeds to charity motivates any one of them to put in a claim they would not have done under any other circumstances would you still detest it?

I bet the banks would. LOL


I've dropped the link (now you've seen it!)

Thanks for the comment.

[ed.]

Re: Don't Feel Guilty Claiming Against Banks

lol well you did ask Rob!

No ultimately, I don't think there should be any incentive. The TC will be 'binding' on all customers so anyone who can't be bothered to complain will still benefit. Once that issue is sorted, we already know the credit card issue was a 3 year deal but the TC took over, therefore the CC issue will end up based on the TC determinations (plus penalty arguments) so again anyone with a CC who can't be bothered to argue, will still benefit.

That is the bottom line.

No incentive is needed in my opinion, and that website quite frankly should be taken down as an embarrassment to amatuer coders. lol

So yeah better idea. Have patience ultimately.

As for 'if that doesn't motivate them' one up for the banks. No, because God willing they have lost already it's just a matter of time. If you aren't prepared to argue of your own accord to benefit yourself, why the flying feck would you care about benefiting a charity?

It's a non starter.....charity starts at home regardless of your position. Unless you get something from it, nobody helps others, so people who aren't prepared to help themselves won't suddenly do so in order to help a charity.

And that goes for sites like this aswell. Those who advise on this site, get the personal satisfaction of knowing they help another. It's why I do it, although I'm not that active here in advice terms normally.

Everything costs something in life, and if you don't get something for it you don't do it.

So somebody who won't help themselves by default, won't decide to help themselves in order to help somebody else.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Budgie, unless we are going back to customers in 1970 I really do doubt there is no record of customers with charges that can't be repaid.

Some notion of an ex customer has to exist in accounts somewhere.

[ROBSTER]

Re: Don't Feel Guilty Claiming Against Banks

Why, on the proper culmination of the Test Case the terms become unbinding and the banks will have to refund everyone regardless of whether they complained or not?

Is that a fact?

What exactly is achieved by a charity PR whoring CMC advising the start of legal action now, especially when they don't even realise credit card claims are slightly different?

I think the context was even if you are not going to use RH: get your claim registered (with your bank) asap and before the test case stay ends as there may be a financial disadvantage by not doing so (re 6 year statute). Would you disagree?

The website itself is more amatuerish than my 8 yr old could come up with given 4 hours with Dreamweaver given most of the links don't work. The information is in most parts is seriously substandard again reference the lack of distinction between bank and CC.


They don't use secured data transfer, they reference simple snail mail post for applications.

Can you think of another way to get an original copy of a signature, to provide to a bank.? (they wont accept an electronic copy) and who trusts sdt that much over a stamp addressed envelope? not as quick granted.

Every link on Google to RH comes up with substandard service, and peed off customers.

All old and addressed.

I'm not sure why it was ever linked in the first place, especially as you seem to defend on the basis of those who would never claim anyway......when given the right result, that is irrelevant.

Expand?

The terms and conditions are also fantastic, at one point despite taking on 'this charity misrepresentative whoring CMC' as your agent, you also agree that you may have to appear in Court and present your case on your own anyway PMSL

PRESENT YOUR CASE ON YOUR OWN? Where does it say that again?

I take it on balance its not quite your cup of tea?
Edit
Sorry ed took so long responding I missed your above post comments

Charity does begin at home and in fair world the banks would give back everything ever taken in the charges issue and all the earned interest but it would fold the banking system IMHO (ill explain why if you want).
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

Not really.

I have an alternative solution. Maybe a bit of wishfull thinking but hey !!!

When the whole matter finally comes to the succesfull conclusion that we are all hoping for it is clear that the banks will have had to divulge ( amongst other things ) the total amount of charges that they have imposed on Customers for the period of limitation that the courts decide will be applicable. The situation regarding compensatory interest will also have been resolved and each bank will have been able ( with the Courts assistance ) to fully calculate how much it is likely to have to pay back to it's Customers.

Assuming that the banks are not forced to make automatic refunds to Customers ( If they are then your charity claim via a CMC is out of the window as well), it would perhaps be fitting for a period of time to be set by the Court for Consumers to claim their individual refunds from their banks. At the expiry of that time period I believe that any refunds not claimed should be stripped from the banks and used for some charitable purpose, maybe to benefit those who have been caused irrepairable damage in the past by these charges, damage that was caused by the imposition of charges but which would not simply not be fully compensated by a refund of the charges plus compensatory interest alone.

That would work (shame about the CMC business) LOL

Out of interest..
You know the fair way to calculate interest Budgie, what would your claim look like if you had to represent the British Banking Clients? If we agreed there has been about £20bn taken in the lat 8 years.

could the banks survive?

me thinks not!
and for that reason the banks will be falling over themselves to come to some sort of agreement before it gets to giving it all back i think we all got a flavor of the type of agreement which might be in the hat from the recent GMAC -FSA cosy climb down.

[charitynjw]

Re: Don't Feel Guilty Claiming Against Banks

It would seem we have a small disagreement here.
Allow me to offer a suggestion.
Anyone who wants to claim, claim.
Those that don't, the funds could be diverted from the banks into a safe account.
My..............er, the account number is........................

Cnjw

arty:

[ed.]

Re: Don't Feel Guilty Claiming Against Banks

Just realised how harsh some of that sounded, sorry wasn't meant to appear to be directed at you Rob.

Originally Posted by ed.
Why, on the proper culmination of the Test Case the terms become unbinding and the banks will have to refund everyone regardless of whether they complained or not?

Is that a fact?
If we win, I would say it was a fact. The UTCCR makes the terms unbinding, ergo funds have to be returned. That has to stand in law and practicality as 'whether you've complained or not' a refund is required.

Failing to apply it across the board would seriously subvert the standing of the legislation, and I can't really imagine the OFT doing all this and then saying by the folks, now we've done this...carry on putting claims in at Court, we've given you the arguments now you are on your on.


What exactly is achieved by a charity PR whoring CMC advising the start of legal action now, especially when they don't even realise credit card claims are slightly different?

I think the context was even if you are not going to use RH: get your claim registered (with your bank) asap and before the test case stay ends as there may be a financial disadvantage by not doing so (re 6 year statute). Would you disagree?
Yes, because the waiver is clear that limitations no longer apply at the moment. And moreover if the banks and the FSA try a fast one here, then what better proof for S32 of the LA is there than a 24+ month Test Case in the High Court.

I don't believe there will be a disadvantage for those who haven't claimed in Court yet, or registered with the bank. But again the point was, mixing up CC claims as having something to do with the TC.


The website itself is more amatuerish than my 8 yr old could come up with given 4 hours with Dreamweaver given most of the links don't work. The information is in most parts is seriously substandard again reference the lack of distinction between bank and CC.


They don't use secured data transfer, they reference simple snail mail post for applications.

Can you think of another way to get an original copy of a signature, to provide to a bank.? (they wont accept an electronic copy) and who trusts sdt that much over a stamp addressed envelope? not as quick granted.
There would be plenty of ways of doing it, however that point was an addition, of more concern is the dead links and the lack of clarity between different types of claims.



Every link on Google to RH comes up with substandard service, and peed off customers.

All old and addressed.
But given the state of the site, the only reasonably conclusion to form is that whatever prior problems this company had, they will still have. If the time isn't there to provide a complete working site, with no deadlinks, provide clarity between different types of claims etc then what confidence could you have in them for handling a claim again now - given the history?

Again as they use the charity angle as a means of enticing people to claim.

I'm not sure why it was ever linked in the first place, especially as you seem to defend on the basis of those who would never claim anyway......when given the right result, that is irrelevant.

Expand?
The issue is coming up with a means of benefiting charities, for all the concerns I've mentioned about the site I just unsure as to why you picked them on this issue of a charity benefiting and then why you were defending them.

The terms and conditions are also fantastic, at one point despite taking on 'this charity misrepresentative whoring CMC' as your agent, you also agree that you may have to appear in Court and present your case on your own anyway PMSL
PRESENT YOUR CASE ON YOUR OWN? Where does it say that again?
I further understand that though unlikely it may be necessary to attend the County Court.

How else can read that? If you have legal representation you do not have to attend to Court although it's preferable admittedly. The only way to read that is, to present for some reason or not. If it wasn't, an entirely different phrase would be required to quantify it ie I understand whilst RH will be representing me in this matter, I may be required to attend with them in any necessary County Court hearings.


I take it on balance its not quite your cup of tea?
Edit
Sorry ed took so long responding I missed your above post comments
Certainly not in the format suggested by this company. If there was legs in this, I'd favour Budgie's suggestion as it pertained to customers now deceased, customers who had emigrated or otherwise couldn't reasonably be found to have their charges returned. In that case as opposed to allowing the banks to keep the money, a charity payoff would be far preferably.

I don't see it working any other way, and I don't see anybody who naturally isn't reclaiming deciding to because a charity would benefit. In theory it's a good idea, but in practice it's like Communism, it would never work. lol

Charity does begin at home and in fair world the banks would give back everything ever taken in the charges issue and all the earned interest but it would fold the banking system IMHO (ill explain why if you want).

Feel free to expand chap, nothing like a good debate!

I actually don't agree with that line though, so much of a refund would go back to banks directly because of debts naturally anyway. The real term loss would be no where near as high per individual bank when compared to the level of refund.

I actually wonder if existing debts will factor into refunds at the end of the day, ie the Bank's right of setoff. I do think that will figure somewhere along the lines aswell.

LOL charity