Bank Charges Charter/Petition Discussion

I have a problem with the fixed charge element of the 'charter'. It still provides an incentive for banks to push for charges rather than to lend money. And that means that the banking system becomes set up to obtain these charges rather than set up to make the economy work.

Even with a £5 charge, somebody overdrawn for a couple of days by £10, will be paying an interest rate of 9125%.

It simply doesn't cost the banks that much to maintain their liquidity reserves. It is pure profiteering.

To me there are double standards at work here. There are complaints that door step money lenders charge exorbitant interest rates of 300+%, and yet there is a suggestion that standard banks can charge poor people (who are the ones that are overdrawn the most) 9000+%.

Frankly I'm disappointed. The scale of an unauthorised overdraft charge should be proportional to the amount overdrawn and the length of time overdrawn. And that is what an interest rate does.

All banks should be limited to charging consumers via an interest rate. It would aid transparency and comparison across the market.

NeilW

It is a shame that 'the Big Three' chose to overlook the smaller consumer groups when discussing this Charter. Legal Beagles and Consumer credit Support, have members who have been through the grinder with the banks and credit card companies and could have given some valuable input into this Charter.

Why give the banks an 'elegant' figure. it still gives them a license to print money at the expense of the most vulnerable in our society. Whistleblower exposed the cost of the administration of the so called penalty charges and it would be closer to the mark to be even more 'elegant' at £2.00. People forget that these companies also have access to bulk mail rates, so they are not paying the same price as you and I for first class stamp.

It reads like a Document of Appeasment.

I feel Walter Merrick needs to revisit his statment of 12 December 2006.

I am sorry but I do not agree with the Charter. It is far too simplistic and the ramificatins will have far reaching unwanted effects if notice is taken of it.

Hi,

I have been going through this process since February this year when I requested my bank statements. I have come up against a brick wall every step of the way, Abbey owes me over £2000 in charges but yet keep telling me that the charges were lawful and that they do not have to repay me. I am now at the point of taking them to court and have just written to the Banking Ombudsman in a last ditch attempt to get my money back when BAM! Bank Charges Test Case and everything gets put on hold. Abbey send me a letter referring me to the Ombudsman and the Banking Ombudsman says they cant help now due to this case...

What do I do now? do I go ahead and send the court letter to the bank and get put in the holding system? do I wait and see what the High Court has to say? or do I just give up?

:mad:

I too have to agree. I feel you are simply saying to the banks ok we give up by saying that you agree to £5 as fair.
They will then steadily increase the amount and we will be back to square one.
I feel the issue at the moment is to get the waiver lifted as the only ones to benefit from this is the banks. We need to fight together to get it removed or for the banks to be told to stop taking charges untill the case is resolved. An amesty for both sides. 1 year of no charges and whilst this may shave a bit of the banks profits it will at least give the harder hit customers a chance to pull their finances back together.

Midge

Member of CAG, Consumer Credit Support, Legal Beagles and MSE

My other point to raise is something I have raised elswhere and that is if we agree to the 6 years being refunded without making the point that pre limitation claims are also viable because they have been deliberatly concealing the nature of their charging regime for x amount of years, they will just look at all these claims and say well the consumer charter states nothing about pre limitation act claims.

We should be working on proving this aspect and including the point that we expect all claims to be paid since account opening and all charges are to be refunded as they are unlawful penalties, now as they were then, which we can also back up with case law which includes pre limitation case law.

Hit them hard not softly is what I say.

Tanz