Posted on 01/20/2007 7:02:31 AM PST by ChildOfThe60s
A man who was fed up with paying massive bank charges decided to give one of the high street giants a taste of its own medicine.
When Royal Bank of Scotland refused to refund £3,400 charges that Declan Purcell believed he was owed, he sent in the bailiffs.
Stunned customers at his branch of RBS watched as debt collectors seized four computers, two fax machines and a till filled with cash.
The branch manager was told that the items would be sold unless RBS came up with the money owed to Mr Purcell.
Only when the manager gave an undertaking that the debt would be paid did the bailiffs leave.
Mr Purcell said: "I think the bank was pretty shocked when the bailiffs went in. But my view is that this is exactly what they would have done to me."
The move, which will raise a cheer from millions of other bank customers, is part of a consumer fightback against bank charges, which net an estimated £4.5 billion every year.
Every time a current account customer goes overdrawn by as little as £1 most banks will charge around £28, even though the administration cost is only about £4.50.
Then every cheque, direct debit, or card transaction that goes through or is bounced incurs another charge of up to £38.
The Office of Fair Trading is investigating whether banks have implemented these charges unlawfully.
The Daily Mail's Fair Play on Charges campaign and that run by the Consumer Action Group have helped thousands reclaim charges in the past year.
Like other customers Mr Purcell, 48, from East London, had warned his bank that he was prepared to go to court to claim back charges he believes were imposed unlawfully.
In June last year he demanded the refund of £3,400 charges he accrued during the previous six years while running a motorcycle dealership.
RBS ignored the claim so in October Mr Purcell filed an online application to get the money back through the county court.
After 30 days the bank had not responded and so on December 10 the court ruled in Mr Purcell's favour.
It ordered RBS to pay the charges and £120 court costs. When RBS again failed to respond Mr Purcell got the court to give him a warrant of execution, allowing him to order debt collectors to reclaim items from the bank equal in value to the amount he was owed.
Finally on Monday, January 8, a team of debt collectors walked into the busy Camden Town branch in North London, demanded to see the manager, showed their court order and announced that they were repossessing items.
Mr Purcell, who now works for London Underground, said: "I was dismayed by the bank's reaction when I made my claim for a refund – it was so rude and arrogant.
"They thought they were above the law, so it is great to know that customers can use the law in the same way the bank does to get money they are owed."
A spokesman for RBS said: "We are looking into this as a matter of urgency, but early indications suggest that unfortunately due to an administrative error, the bank failed to defend the claim leading to a default judgment being obtained on the branch and a resulting warrant.
"The confusion was cleared up at the branch."
Marc Gander, who set up campaign website Consumer Action Group, which helps consumers get refunds from their banks, said: "I am quite sure that Mr Purcell will not be the last person to send bailiffs in to his bank.
"The continued operation by UK high street banks of their unlawful charges regimes will see to that.
"The heavy-handed debt collecting approach is something that the banks have been handing out to their customers for years. Mr Purcell simply gave them a bit of their own back."
Wow
Yeah, but they were glad to see you go.
You know what credit card companies call their customers who pay their balance in full in time?
Answer: Deadbeats.
***Practically every bank I know has cut back on its services -- no more returned checks,...***
My own bank has stopped sending the checks back, BUT you can actually get the checks with your bank statement for $60 A YEAR. Thanks for nothing, bank.
About the only thing they do in banks today is to try to sell investments to the unwary account holder. Even on a routine visit to the teller to make a small deposit, the tellers can see your holdings and will refer you to a STOCKBROKER sitting in one of their offices masquerading as an assistant manager. I've discovered that I can put as much faith in the assistant manager/stockbroker as I can in some place that sends me an offer in the mail. Which is none.
***Where, oh where is George Bailey when you need him..***
If still alive, George Bailey would be working for a multi-national banking firm and have NO say about how customers' are treated.
I think this discussion is missing a significant point in the story. That is, the bank was not forced to pay the money back to him because the charges were ruled improper. The judgement was against them because they refused to even respond to his claims, thus abdicating their legal rights.
It seems to me a bank can pretty much charge you what they like (legally) as long as it is made clear up front what these charges are going to be and the customer enters the relationship with a clear understanding of these charges. I don't think they are fair or reasonable charges, but if one takes the account with full knowledge of the potential charges, well, I can't see any illegality here.
As far as this guy's figures, he may very well have computed interest and damages into the amount for which he was suing.
IMO, the concepts of making money AND serving customers are not incompatible. Just the opposite. One makes more money.
I live in a small town with (gasp) local banks. But I also use ING (an internet bank, no brick and mortar), quite impressive the interest I am receiving. Try 4.5% for completely liquid savings account ($250 min) and 3% for checking.
The first paragraph, which is a platitude, and the second paragraph, which is how you have decided to live your life, are in opposition with each other.
McAdder: Oh blast, I forgot the bailiffs.
Platitude? I am in sales. I make more money because I do just that. I provide more and better service than my competitors. That's what keeps my customers loyal and placing orders with me. If I served my customers less, I'd take a hit in the pocketbook.
the second paragraph, which is how you have decided to live your life, are in opposition with each other.
That statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Platitude: Trite remark
You say good customer service will bring in more business. Yet you yourself send your big money away from the bank that gives the best customer service to someone who provides very little customer service.
Nothing wrong with that, just don't lecture us on how good customer service will attract customers. It doesn't even attract you.
"The confusion was cleared up at the branch."
Heh. Love that Brit understatement.
"keep some astronomical balance in your account(s)."
In the case of my Bank of America account, that balance is five thousand dollars, which earns interest and saves me banking fees. As to whether five thousand dollars is 'astronomical' I guess it depends on what universe one lives in.
First of all, I'm not lecturing anyone. I'm stating facts.
If service didn't count, as I say it does, I wouldn't do any local business. Because I don't put all of my banking business in one place in no way negates what I said. It's not all or nothing.
I'm not the only vendor that many of my clients deal with, but my piece of their pie is bigger because I go the extra-and they tell me that is the case. .
I shop at Wally World, but I also do considerable shopping at the local hardware store, where I might add, I pay higher prices in exchange for (primarily) superior service.
Instead of devoting your efforts to belittling me, why don't you demonstrate how customer service counts for nothing, as you seem to be trying so hard to say.
Customer service counts, no where did I say it didn't.
If pointing out that your words and your actions are not in sync with each other, well, if the shoe fits..........
No, what you are intent on saying is that because I bank at more than one institution, service is not a factor in my decision making.
If pointing out that your words and your actions are not in sync with each other, well, if the shoe fits..........
They are quite in sync with each other. What I don't follow is why you seem to have such an attitude about it.
I suspect a lot of folks don't have five large just laying around with nothing better to do than keep the bank happy.
Your hyperbolic astronomical won't even buy a good used car.
Well, since it's so trivial a sum, drop it in an envelope and mail it off to IronJack, 'kay?
I agree with balding eagle. You go on about the virtue of companies spending for good customer service while...
"But I also use ING (an internet bank, no brick and mortar), quite impressive the interest I am receiving"
... you send your business out where there is none because you get a return your wouldn't get if the internet company had to pay for customer service.
I put it to a better use, rather than squawking about evil bankers.
I don't recall using the word "evil." I did make note of the fact that most banks do not offer the same level of services they once did, or that those services now cost their depositors where they used to be free. I also pointed out that the money banks handle don't belong to them, but to the depositors, and that it is an upsetting practice to charge people for access to their own money.
If you construe that as "evil," maybe you'd be better off spending that 5K for a couple of sessions with a caring professional.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.