🚀 go-pugleaf

"Windmill" <spam-no-spam@Onetel.net.uk.invalid> wrote in message 
news:KI5s4J.9p8@Millstream.onetel.net.uk...
> "Simon Finnigan" <simonfinnigan@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>>Complain to the bank, and ask them to escalate the complaint as it has not
>>been resolved correctly in the past.  Also explain that you require them 
>>to
>>escalate the complaint to ensure your involvement of the ombudsman can be
>>made in a timely manner.
>
> That is more or less what I plan to do. After I've cooled down a little
> and removed from the letter the (at least moderately plausible)
> suggestions as to why this is happening, which won't sit well with
> people who are glad that their nice employers are still paying them
> money.

It`s not just that the people will be grateful to still have  job, as myself 
and others have said a lot of your claims make you look less than entirely 
stable mentally - this then damages the impact of ANYTHING else you have to 
say.  Imagine walking down the street and you see a man wearing a sandwich 
board telling you the world is about to end, that it will be eaten by blue 
cheese monsters.  That person ma well then go on to tell you the truth about 
life, the universe and everything, but are you going to believe him?

> But the bank's complaints department probably now consists of a spotty
> kid with a large waste bin, and the ombudspersons will be (a) deluged and
> (b) told that they must support the banks.
>
>>Not sure why you feel this is relevant (or indeed if this is true - have 
>>you
>>never had a mortgage for example).
>
> Never in this country until now, and it is small.

Being in debt isn`t automatically a bad thing if you are sensible about it. 
Being in debt proves to the banking system that you are able to manage your 
affairs while you keep on paying your dues.  Being in debt to many times 
your income doesn`t automatically make you a bad credit risk, other things 
come into it.

>>None of this is at all relevant, apart from possibly making you feel a bit
>>better about letting off steam to the company.
>
> I agree; I should remove that part, or at least save it for the
> inevitable later.

I really wouldn`t bother with it - you`re wasting your time.  In my 
experience, the best way to get a result from a bank, or any other large 
company, is to escalate the complaint as quickly as possible as highly as 
possible.  Tell them what laws they`re breaking with their actions, tell 
them you intend to involve the ombudsman at the earliest opportunity if they 
don`t resolve the matter, and tell them what you want them to do to make you 
go away.  If you feel that a promise not to continue sending letters is 
enough, then ask for that.  If you feel that �500 would be fair compensation 
for the hastle they`ve caused you, then ask for that.

>>[..................................]  Lets be honest, the above does
> have a hint of >tin-foil hat about it, and who can respect, or even
> care about the opinion >of, someone of that kind?
>
> I'd say that all of my suggested explanations are things which
> actually happen, as one can tell by reading the papers.
> Which one might be correct, in these 'troubled times' as they call
> them, is impossible for me to know.
> But I would repeat that if it's happening to me, it will be happening
> to many others.

You may argue that all you want, but if I got a letter with those claims in, 
my first thought would be tin-foil hat nutter, which then means I care very 
little about anything else you have to say.

>>> If this matter is not immediately cleared up, I intend to bring a claim
>>> in Small Claims Court.
>>What will you be claiming for exactly?  Perhaps if you now inform them 
>>that
>>you will be charging them to deal with any and all future mistakes of this
>>kind made by themselves and give a list of REASONABLE charges, you might
>>have a chance of getting money from them in the future.  Reasonable is not
>>�25 to read a letter, reasonable would be what you normally charge your
>>employer for your time.
>
> In the past various banks have tried to charge 25.00 and even 50.00 when a
> sudden reduction in overdraft limit put me over limit.
> And that was some sort of automatic computer response, not involving
> bank staffs' time until I asked them to cancel it.
> So I'd say that 25.00 would be quite reasonable if as before I had to
> phone, find and copy old documentation, write, go to the Post Office to
> pay for and send a Recorded Delivery letter, and so forth.
> 3 hours at minimum wage, perhaps?

I doubt you`d be able to really justify 3 hours to reply to a single 
letter - you could try, but failing to prove this as an actual cost wouldn`t 
make anyting else you say look good.  Don`t forget that those charges from 
the banks you`re complaining about are now being challenged, and many banks 
have brought them down to a more sensible level themselves - how do you 
fancy your chances at proving your letters cost much more than the banks do, 
when they have teams of highly paid people to make their point?

> But my real point would be to ask the court to order the bank to behave
> as they should in such a situation.
> Possibly I'm wrong, but I understood that a Small Claims COurt could
> make such an order.

AIUI they can make them pay you money, but not much else.