Bank Charges - illegal?

dchurch24

gothicf0rm wrote:

really. do explain then the existence of the BCSB and their ability to punish banks? answers on a postcard if you please. whilst youre at it explain compliance visits and the statement of compliance CEOs have to sign. the BCSB is voluntary to join, but compliance is expected once someone has joined, compliance of all signatories is mandatory not voluntary. what you probably mean is the BCSB cannot deal with claims of compensation for bad treatment or that financial organisations dont HAVE to join.
from the banking code - "if you find yourself in financial difficulties, you should let us know as soon as possible. we will do all we to help you overcome your difficulties".
does "doing all you can" include adding to them? the consumers association disagrees with you.

As does the OFT and the Treasury Select Committee.

M_Thomson

dchurch24 wrote:

Irrelevant - the charges (as you are quite aware) are punitive in nature - the reason why the charge was applied has no bearing in law - I may be quite mad, I don't claim otherwise - but trust me, I will be getting my money back from FD in due course. Maybe I'm not the mad one after all?

If the date on a cheque has no bearing, then does a signature? Or a name, or an amount or a bank account number? Why draw the line there? Why not just take the cash out when it suits them? And from whomever they want to take it - i.e. when there is no money in the account - which according the the T&C's would allow them to take their illegal charges.

If you really cannot see why I have a case against FD for these charges, then I dispair - you've read my other posts regarding charges and unless you are daft as a brush - which I doubt, then you surely can understand the legalities of punitive charges vs. liquidated damages.

It does make me laugh, you and M Thomson are about the most right-wing people I have come across. I cannot understand the wanting to profit (by way of 'free' banking) at the expense of people who can least afford to pay for it. Welcome to the Thatcher school of finance ;-)
No offence meant, but when I get rid of these charges for good and we all are paying a fair price for a fair service, I'll be having a little chuckle to myself about you two.

You call yourselves 'money savers' yet you do not take advantage of an 8% return on your money by way of banking charges - at least 3% higher than the best savings account around.


To Russe11, regarding the email to BankChargesHell - did you do this via the yahoo group - if not, this is the best way to get a reply.

D Church, thank you so much for making me laugh so hard on this first day of 2006. It truly is one of the funniest posts I have ever read on this website.
You are bonkers!!!

dchurch24

If you say so.

I'd prefer to get 8% interest on my savings than 4.5 or whatever the going rate is nowdays.

Your arguments for bank charges are futile - penalties in contracts are not enforcable, as you know - thus, anyone who wants their charges back can get them back, regardless of how the charges were incurred in the first place.

Happy new year anyway :-)

dchurch24

Why the heck do you imagine you have any case against FD for clearing a cheque which you wrote?

Arrrhhhggg! Nobody is that stupid surely?

M_Thomson

dchurch24 wrote:

If you say so.

I'd prefer to get 8% interest on my savings than 4.5 or whatever the going rate is nowdays.

Your arguments for bank charges are futile - penalties in contracts are not enforcable, as you know - thus, anyone who wants their charges back can get them back, regardless of how the charges were incurred in the first place.

Happy new year anyway :-)

You don't have anything to gloat about . What you are doing will lead to the end of free banking in this country. We will go down the American route of being charged for each cheque that is written and for making a payment by direct debit etc. And whilst we are at it you need to get things into context. Taking responsibility if I make a mistake does not make me a "right winger" as you called me in your previous post. By thinking you have the right to sue a bank willy nilly you are making it more difficult for people who have genuine reasons for incurring charges to get their money back. Just remember that there are poor people who will be worse off when we have to pay fees for things like writing a cheque etc. You are being insulting to poor people who struggle everyday but still manage to not incur charges by doing what you do.

Tim_L

No, M Thomson, there is extreme competition between banks in this country and a consumer culture that simply will not permit banks to charge for current accounts. Undoubtedly the banks wish to start charging, hence the provision of premium accounts with a charge which can be 'upgraded to' by a mouse click. But basic banking will remain free, whether or not these ridiculous penalties are allowed to persist.

And the idea of allowing penalties squarely targetted at those in marginal difficulties is reprehensible by any standard, as has been noted by anyone who has seriously investigated the practice. It is not "mad" or "bonkers" to point this out, nor to explain the means available to have these charges reversed, and frankly resorting to silly name calling is not a way to win any argument.

But of course even if you can make the claim that they can be used to subsidise other peoples' banking, there is no logic that says that just because these charges exist (to "cover costs") the banks won't start trying to make more cash by attempting to instigate charges for cheques and so on.

The banks have a lot of form on this sort of thing. Going back 25 years, cash machines were going to be used to reduce costs in branches and hence remove the need for current account charges. Now we are told that in order to maintain low cost or free banking we are going to have to accept charges on cash machines. Year by year the banks examine their business for any new income stream that they think their customers will tolerate, but it does not mean that they should be allowed to have carte blanche just because of what they print on their t&c.

dchurch24

By thinking you have the right to sue a bank willy nilly you are making it more difficult for people who have genuine reasons for incurring charges to get their money back.

I do not think I have the right - I DO have the right, and so does everyone in this country - it's called our legal system. As for the argument that it creates a litigious society, well I think the bank should shoulder that blame too - what happens if you can't pay a loan or OD? You get threatened with legal action - which eventually will end up with that person in court.

As they are not working strictly within the law, we have to play them at their own game until they do.

As to the 'genuine reasons' to get their charges back - I will explain again: punitive charges are not enforcable under English law irrespective of the reason as to why the punitive charge was incurred in the first place. Therefore, it is not harder for any one person to get their charges back than it is for anyone else - the legal system is the same for all of us, be it you, me, rich, poor, black, white or anyone else who wants to use it.

dchurch24

does not make me a "right winger"

...but for the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor, is surely a right-wing ideology, no?

DilbertJones

I went over my agreed overdraft by £48.36

I was then immediatley hit with a Paid Transaction charge of £25 and a future charge of £25 for a unauthorised overdraft fee

so £50 in fines & Charges for spending £48.36 too much if someone could work that out as a percentage i'd be gratefull

I have just come of the phone to the A & L, they have agreed to refund the paid transaction charge but refuse to do anything about the unauthorised OD Charge.

do you guys think its worth my while pursuing this for £25? If so how do i go about doing it, is there a letter template to write to my bank?

Any advice greatly appreciated

Russe11

YAHOO groups,, please direct me dcurch24