Tweet
I did have a thread on here in regard my fight with First Direct, but I can't seem to find it anymore, so will start this new one.
As some of you are already aware, the FSA has granted a new Waiver be put in place which will run until January 2009. What is interesting is that they have redefined what they consider cases of 'Financial Hardship'.
Amethyst has posted a thread in the OFT Forum entitled 'Banks Granted Unfair Charge Waiver' which has all the details.
In view of this new information, I called the Financial Ombudsman Service today quoting my original case number to them in my fight to reclaim unfair bank charges from First Direct. When I originally asked the FOS to look into this, they did not agree on my financial hardship (under the rules at the time) and therefore did not pursue First Direct to refund these charges.
However, under the new rules of what constitutes Financial Hardship, they have now told me that they WILL re-examine my case if I re-submit it to them. It did help that they know that I am due in court on 29th July 2008 with RBS who are trying to repossess my home, along with other facts that prove I am in severe financial hardship.
Therefore, as requested by Amethyst, Budgie et al, I now enclose the first draft of the letter I intend to send into the FOS to ask them to re-examine my case. Bear in minf that this a very rough first draft with much of the words being written as they came out of my head. I already know that I have repeated myself several times in the letter below. It WILL change significantly before it is sent to the FOS, but nevertheless, I would welcome comments/critiques from everyone on how best to word this letter.
I might only get one bite at this and time is of the essence. So please feel free to chip in with your comments/suggestions. I am really looking at getting this out in the post to the FOS by close of play tomorrow (as time is not my friend at the moment).
Cheers everyone.
July 21, 2008
Financial Ombudsman Service,
South Quay Plaza,
183 Marsh Wall,
London.
E14 9SR
Dear Sir or Madam:
FOS Reference Number: XXXXXXX
As you are no doubt aware, in the light of the ongoing test case hearing between the Office Of Fair Trading (hereby referred to as the OFT) and the leading high street banks regarding the fairness or otherwise of the bank charging regime, the FSA has today announced a new waiver to be put in place. The waiver will supercede the previous one issued in July 2007 and is not due to expire until January 2009.
Upon reading the conditions of the new waiver, I was extremely interested in the FSA’s definition of what constitutes Financial Hardship and believe we qualify for your assistance under these new guidelines. Given that the Royal Bank of Scotland have issued court proceedings against us to repossess our home (a hearing that will take place on 29th July 2008), this is taking on a new sense of urgency.
Therefore, I would like to bring to your attention the FSA’s definition of Financial Hardship and why I believe we qualify to have our claim against First Direct dealt with on this basis.
The new FSA Waiver defines Financial Hardship in the following terms:
2. In making an assessment of financial difficulty the firm will take into account:
a. evidence of changes in lifestyle, including loss of employment; disability; serious illness; imprisonment; relationship breakdown; death of a partner; starting a lower paid job; parental/carer leave; and starting full-time education;
I have been unemployed since August 2007. Despite hundreds of applications toward finding employment, I remain unemployed at this present moment in time
Yours sincerely,
As some of you are already aware, the FSA has granted a new Waiver be put in place which will run until January 2009. What is interesting is that they have redefined what they consider cases of 'Financial Hardship'.
Amethyst has posted a thread in the OFT Forum entitled 'Banks Granted Unfair Charge Waiver' which has all the details.
In view of this new information, I called the Financial Ombudsman Service today quoting my original case number to them in my fight to reclaim unfair bank charges from First Direct. When I originally asked the FOS to look into this, they did not agree on my financial hardship (under the rules at the time) and therefore did not pursue First Direct to refund these charges.
However, under the new rules of what constitutes Financial Hardship, they have now told me that they WILL re-examine my case if I re-submit it to them. It did help that they know that I am due in court on 29th July 2008 with RBS who are trying to repossess my home, along with other facts that prove I am in severe financial hardship.
Therefore, as requested by Amethyst, Budgie et al, I now enclose the first draft of the letter I intend to send into the FOS to ask them to re-examine my case. Bear in minf that this a very rough first draft with much of the words being written as they came out of my head. I already know that I have repeated myself several times in the letter below. It WILL change significantly before it is sent to the FOS, but nevertheless, I would welcome comments/critiques from everyone on how best to word this letter.
I might only get one bite at this and time is of the essence. So please feel free to chip in with your comments/suggestions. I am really looking at getting this out in the post to the FOS by close of play tomorrow (as time is not my friend at the moment).
Cheers everyone.
July 21, 2008
Financial Ombudsman Service,
South Quay Plaza,
183 Marsh Wall,
London.
E14 9SR
Dear Sir or Madam:
FOS Reference Number: XXXXXXX
As you are no doubt aware, in the light of the ongoing test case hearing between the Office Of Fair Trading (hereby referred to as the OFT) and the leading high street banks regarding the fairness or otherwise of the bank charging regime, the FSA has today announced a new waiver to be put in place. The waiver will supercede the previous one issued in July 2007 and is not due to expire until January 2009.
Upon reading the conditions of the new waiver, I was extremely interested in the FSA’s definition of what constitutes Financial Hardship and believe we qualify for your assistance under these new guidelines. Given that the Royal Bank of Scotland have issued court proceedings against us to repossess our home (a hearing that will take place on 29th July 2008), this is taking on a new sense of urgency.
Therefore, I would like to bring to your attention the FSA’s definition of Financial Hardship and why I believe we qualify to have our claim against First Direct dealt with on this basis.
The new FSA Waiver defines Financial Hardship in the following terms:
2. In making an assessment of financial difficulty the firm will take into account:
a. evidence of changes in lifestyle, including loss of employment; disability; serious illness; imprisonment; relationship breakdown; death of a partner; starting a lower paid job; parental/carer leave; and starting full-time education;
I have been unemployed since August 2007. Despite hundreds of applications toward finding employment, I remain unemployed at this present moment in time
b. evidence of the following events:
i. items repeatedly being returned unpaid due to lack of available funds;
i. items repeatedly being returned unpaid due to lack of available funds;
First Direct have plenty of evidence of this being the case, as do Alliance & Leicester with whom I also briefly held an account. Both of these banking organisations have withdrawn banking services from me in light of my financial difficulties
ii. failing to make loan repayments or other commitments;
My finances are currently in the hands of a Debt Management Company (the XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX). Furthermore, we are struggling to meet our mortgage payments, let alone find the money to actually live on. First Active (the RBS Group) have issued court proceedings against us to repossess our home. We are due in court in Swansea on 29th July 2008 where the RBS Group will be seeking leave to repossess our home. This is despite an agreement we reached with the RBS Group to accept lower (i.e. interest-only) payments on our mortgage for the next three months. We are currently only two months in arrears on our mortgage payments. Despite this, RBS still seek to repossess our home.
iii. discontinuation of regular credits;
All of our credits cards have been discontinued and are in the hands of the Debt Management Company
iv. notification of some form of insolvency or court proceedings;
As indicated above, my wife and I are subject to court proceedings with the RBS Group who are seeking to repossess our home. We have arrears on the mortgage payments and, despite an written agreement with RBS to make interest-only payments over the next three months, we are struggling with meeting these payments. My wife only earns £500 per month. We also receive a further £700 per month in tax credits. From these sums of monies, we have to find an interest-only payment of £873.87 per month in order to keep possession of our home, pay all our fuel bills, feed ourselves and three children and generally try to live our lives. We are well below the poverty line in regards to living finances and have no available disposable income as a result. The sum of money we are claiming in unfair bank charges from First Direct is £8184. This sum of money would enable us to fend off this repossession order and give us the breathing space we need whilst I continue my efforts to find employment
v. regular requests for increased borrowing or repeated rescheduling of debts;
That our finances are being handled by the Debt Management Company is surely evidence that we have had to reschedule our debts
vi. making frequent cash withdrawals on a credit card at a non-promotional rate of interest
Our credit facilities have all been withdrawn. Therefore, once we run out of money each month we must simply get by on what we have in the household. It is impossible to reach the end of any month without running out of funds at least 10 days prior to any month end.
vii. repeatedly exceeding a credit card or overdraft limit without agreement (and, in this regard, where a complainant has incurred over £500 in unauthorised overdraft charges in the previous 12 months, that is to be treated as indicative of financial difficulty).
First Direct withdrew all banking services to us in October 2007. Alliance & Leicester also withdrew all banking services to us in March 2008. However, the mere fact that we had a claim for Unfair Bank Charges totalling £8184 proves that we were incurring charges of more than £500 per annum. Furthermore, after we started our Bank Charge Reclaim against First Direct in February 2007, First Direct continued to hit us with further bank charges between February and October 2007. We estimate these further bank charges to be in the region of £900.
As you can see, we are in severe financial hardship. We have very little income and the very realistic possibility that we will soon be homeless to add to our problems should the RBS Group be successful at Court on 29th July in repossessing our home.
All we ask is that the Financial Ombudsman Service would re-examine our case with First Direct. First Direct (HSBC) are a large financial organisation with considerable funds available to fight a long drawn-out battle with the OFT. The current situation with the new Waiver being put in place means that we are unlikely to see any resolution in the Bank Charges Test case between the OFT and the leading banks before the end of 2008. In our current situation, we cannot afford the luxury of waiting that long for such a resolution. If First Direct were to refund the £8184 in Bank Charges that we believe were unfairly taken from our bank account over the course of the last 6 years (i.e. 2001 – 2007), our outlook would improve significantly. Whilst it would not be a long term solution, it would certainly assist us in our battle to keep our home from being repossessed and give us some breathing space to keep up our mortgage payments whilst I secure the employment which will enable us to become financially able to meet our commitments.
Your assistance in resolving this matter would be gratefully received. I therefore respectfully ask you formally for this assistance.
If you agree to re-examine this case, would it be possible if we could ask you to you draft a letter that we may present to the Judge at Swansea County Court stating your agreement that we are in severe financial difficulty and that you are currently examining our case with First Direct on our behalf.
Comment