Bank Charges - illegal?

dchurch24

I don't know, but you can bet it's before the banks are told they have to charge a max of £15 - opening the floodgates for claims against them for the 'extra' that they've charged.

Getting them down to £15 is a small victory - it should still be the cost of the breach to them. It won't change much - 3 years ago banks were charging 15-20 quid.

3 years from now, they'll be charging 35-40 quid again.

It shows you just how bent the whole system is - the OFT making decisions like that with no evidence, then the statute of limitations being changed.

What a corrupt country that systematically allows banks to rip people off - then when the peasants revolt - change the laws to help their friends.

I hadn't realised I'd moved to Sudan.

exil

Well - the OFT isn't able to change the law. If excessive charges are illegal, they are illegal, and the OFT can't rule otherwise. The OFT has, though, to its credit, managed to strike a deal with the banks so that the most ridiculous charges are no longer going to be made.

Until the legal basis for the challenge to charges is tested in court, the "jury is still out".

By the way - if we're talking about votes - fewer people are hit with big bank charges than those who are not, so I don't think that argument holds. If the banks had to give way on this, the result would be standard charges for everyone, since if they applied the same charges to everyone they would no longer be seen as "punitive".

dchurch24

The OFT may not be able to change the law - but do you not think that the Govt. saw this coming and decided to change the Statute of Limitations before the OFT made an announcement? Why else did they let their deadline to the banks/cc companies of Oct 26th slip by so much?

To charge more than a cost of a breach to the first party is unlawful - £15 is still more than it costs them - this means that as the OFT are almost the only people who can act on the UTCCR's they are acting illegally by allowing - nay, encouraging banks to charge more than they are lawfully allowed to do so.

Regarding the comment about more people are not hit by the charges than are - that may well be correct - however, that does not excuse unlawful behaviour from a pucuniary trustee. There are still more people hit by bank charges than there are bank directors.

If they applied the same charges to everyone because of a breach of contract and the amount imposed was more than the actually cost, or the amount that caused the breach then in law, they would still be punitive and therefore not legally enforcable.

I agree that at least this is a step in the right direction, but the OFT is there to protect US, the consumer from this sort of exploitation - and it's not doing so. It's come up with a half-hearted, luke-warm response in an attempt to not upset it's friends whilst at the same time pretending to be on the side of the consumer.

It's not good enough.
Also, why have all the banks been 'unofficially' told about this before the consumer - the very people that the OFT was set up to protect.

Nope. - sorry - it smells too much for my liking.

Kevicho

dchurch24 wrote:

So it's ok for them to drive people out of business? - but not ok for them to be driven out of business because they can't operate within the law. You should have reminded her of the Worldcom fiasco. Remind them what happens when big businesses operate outside of the law.

Nice.

Thanks to your advice (and what ive learned) every time i phone the banks i am now in charge, ecven though they wouldnt admit liability for the charges i got my money back and am happy as far as that goes

I agree with the above by the way.

((

(other things i said in that call)
1) The people they are ripping off are the vulnerable ones who cant afford these unenforcable charges, and dont know the law

2) The girl on the phone should check her statements to see if she had any unfair charges she could claw back (she prob wouldnt as she may lose her job, but i suppose the unfair dismissal lawsuit would make up for that )

I though that was funny

3) That the customer support were trained in what the banks wanted them to say, rather than the truth

))

Cheers

kev

dchurch24

Now that is interesting - do you know if the call was recorded - they usually are.

If so, I don't suppose you would make a DPA request for the recording would you.

That would be incredible ammo - you would of course be anonymous.

maka_2

Is it best to send the letters recorded delivery?? this we they cant claim they never had a letter from us?

djohn2002uk

Whoooo Hoooo!
Bank Action Group mentioned on Working Lunch and url posted onscreen. Could get a lot more hits now...:j:T

piper5

hi i have been with abbey national since i was about 3.
im 24 now, and am at the point where i am SO sick of this bank and the treatment i recieve from them, i am looking for help and support.
abbey national will not give me an overdraft, a credit card or a loan, yet will quickly put my account overdrawn with their interest charges or even just charges of £30, and then charge me a further £30 for going overdrawn.
i recently won some money from a magazine, £2500 to be exact, and before the cheque had even cleard £140 had been taken by abbey, and then a charge was put on of £30 because i had insufficient funds in my account... even though i had a cheque of over 2 grand waiting to clear. this is just one example.
any ideas on what to do next?

ali82

Take a trip to
http://www.bankactiongroup.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1916

Grabby National are well know for this, good luck and when you get you money back don't spend it all at once

piper5

thats how i found out about all the various websites. god bless television!