Bank Charges - illegal?

gothicf0rm

smokescreen? look, if they are aware their contracts are unlawful and continue with them thats called obtaining money by deception, thats a criminal offence. the con man who goes from door to door conning little old ladies because they dont know better preys on them and succeeds because of their ignorance, as with what the banks do.
cant you see that? if their contracts arent unlawful why arent they fighting hundreds of people in court, they must be paying out millions and millions a year. why does every single lawyer on the planet think they are illegal?
do you actually have any idea about the law at all. there's this small thing called proportionality. english law does NOT allow punitive damages. we do not live in america. the damages should be directly related to the cost born. dont you agree with that?
do you think that 58 pounds is a fair level of damages for someone being one pence overdrawn for one day? do you then think with your lecture of responsibility that its fair that the halifax bank for example only makes one charge for someone using a debit card and not having the funds no matter how many times they do it so someone who can potentially cause a loss of 1000 pounds pays the same amount as someone who causes a loss of one penny?
didnt you read my previous posts with a huge list of the !!!! ups the bank had done, these people are so useless they even cancelled my card when i was in credit because they said i wasnt - their excuse was their computer didnt show my true balance! if my bank are unable to keep a handle of my balance how can i?
i tried working with them. i made phone calls, i visited them, i even complained they hadnt sent me letters saying i was overdrawn when i was and they just blamed the post office. i even made an agreement with them that they wouldnt charge me fees for the period between incomes which was fine in the absence of them not increasing my overdraft, they then charged me anyway and said they had no such record. interestingly they did send me a letter saying i'd broken the agreement despite them having no such record - i hadnt broken it, the moron at the call centre had typed the date of when i would pay in wrong as 25th rather than 26th. they charged me fees anyway. you read that right, they said i broke an agreement they had no record of despite them sending me letters showing they had a record of it. they also said id never made a phone call to them ever, although my phone bill shows i called their number several times. impressive double think isnt it.
all of that because of me reducing my overdraft and thinking i could get it increased again if i needed it and because i wouldnt take a bank loan for 1000 pounds to pay off over 5 years when i needed no more than 250 quid for three months - all very responsible i'd say. before this i accepted the bank charges because largely it was my mistake, i'd miscalculate by a few pence but their disgusting treatment of me during the few months i needed some actual sympathy means i will be persuing them for every single penny they ever took me.
read my previous posts before you get so high and mighty and then do justify how a CHAPS payment made on the 23rd has still not cleared whilst all outgoing payments have been made despite the same holiday season applying. doesnt it then become obvious the entire clearing cycle of these is weighted to cause people to recieve charges?
incidentally, did you know that its the policy of almost every large company around to pay people late if its a business to business transaction? financial responsibility? hahah. shell saved over £20 million last year by paying small businesses late and breaking the law in doing so.
one company owes me over 200,000, ive been waiting 11 months for them to pay. i cant afford to sue them to get the money becuase the size of the debt is such it has to be heard in a crown court with a q.c, costs could easily reach the size of the debt. they figure they dont have to pay because its a small company so they can just mess us about and we cant afford to reclaim the money they owe. this behaviour is one of the three top causes of bankruptcy for small businesses. guess how much debt recovery costs i could claim for a 200,000 debt? 100 pounds! now you get an idea of the proportionality that the law really applies.

dchurch24

I'm sorry if you think I'm trivialising the issue - that is not my intention.

However, it is not a difficult process to get your money back, that is what I am trying to convey and if by that I seem to be trivialising the issue then I apologise.

dchurch24

how about how irresponsible it is to recommend someone who is having money problems to go to the extreme measure of sueing a bank instead of trying to work with them?

I'm not sure I see why it's irresponsible to recommend a way of getting someones money back that has been taken illegally.
However, I CAN see how financially punishing people who are already (obviously) experiencing financial difficulties and forcing them into further debt IS irresponsible.

couldnt agree more. it's a shame we have to keep coming back to this topic with dchurch24 (as interesting as he may find this hobby, it is setting a bad example to the easily led on this board).

If someone asks for help in getting punitive charges back, then I will continue to offer that help. If getting your illegally taken money back and ensuring that the law of the land is upheld is a bad example, then I have no idea what you might consider a good example.

If it's that much of a shame that we talk about this subject may I respectfully request that you don't open posts that pose questions about the legality of punitive bank charges?
If you don't want to read opinions from people about a particular subject it may pay to read the subject line.

this is just causing a smoke screen to the issue at hand.

Smokescreen? For what?

gothicf0rm

dchurch, i think maybe the rep youve got is because you seem to go from bank to bank suing them and thats bad p.r. youre within your rights to do this, but if you care about the reputation of the group youre involved in you should think about the p.r issues too, it looks like you make frivolous claims, that you know better, that you actually willingly enter into a contract you think is unlawful. im not sure what the legal status of actions like that would be but it would certainly complicate your claim should someone enter a defense. banks will use these things to attack you with the more you pick fights with them.

dchurch24

I only sue the banks that made punitive charges against me at a time when I was experiencing financial difficulties.
At that time I had 3 bank accounts for a variety of reasons - all of them ignored my pleas and caned me with charges. As they did with my partners account as well - payments were not coming from my account to hers anymore as the bank had taken the money in charges before any money was moved into hers - leaving her account short too and thus incurring these charges..
I investigated the legalities of the charges and sued them all one-by-one for the charges back in the hope that at least one of them would have the balls to actually appear in court to defend themselves. Not one has.

Abbey did put a defence in (which basically stated that the charges were a reasonable pre-estimate of cost), but gave the money back when they realised I was serious.

that you actually willingly enter into a contract you think is unlawful.

Since 1984 the choice of an employee as to how he/she receives their wages is no longer available to us. Most employers choose to pay by direct transfer into a bank account - that means I HAVE to have a bank account.

I have been unable to find a bank account that does not have these unlawful clauses in, therefore I am forced to enter into an agreement that I do not think is legal by the rather 'cartel' like agreement (officially or unofficially) between banks to make these charges.

M_Thomson

Tim_L wrote:

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.

I am sorry, I have to disagree with you. Bank charges are written in terms and conditions which you sign when you open an account. I have never said that if you are in genuine financial need or that you have made a genuine mistake that banks should not be sympathetic to reversing charges. What will happen is that when DChurch and others carry on suing banks they may in the end decide to lower bank charges. What will happen then is that they will look for other ways or re couping costs and we will all end up paying fees for anything from Cheques to Standing orders like they do in the US and Europe. Fair enough, D Church has said that sometimes his employers paid him late, then a bank should work with him and either cancel or reduce his charges. On the other hand he also has said that he has done that he has been fully aware of that will incur him charges and at the end of the day he has nobody to blame but himself. He needs to take personal responsibility.

Tim_L wrote:

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.

Would you care to read a few posts back when DChurch had the nerve to call me a right winger for my point of view??! If that is not silly name calling then I don't know what is. He seems to think that I do not care about people who are not very well off. It would probably surprise him that I do not earn a huge salary myself. I would expect my bank to be sympathetic to me if I lost my job or lost a family member, yet I am fully aware that if I make a mistake like not having enough money to pay a direct debit and it was my own fault I will be charged and I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is if I end up having to pay lots of banking fees because other people don't want to take responsibity for themselves.

dchurch24

In essence what I said was that expecting to be subsidised by people who are in financial difficulty, and to defend rich banks getting richer at these peoples expense is a right-wing attitude.
It's not name calling; it is a right wing view.

paying fees for anything from Cheques to Standing orders like they do in the US and Europe.

I also have a current account in France - there are no annual fees, there are no fees for Cheques, Standing Orders or Direct Debits - there are also no charges for not having enough funds to pay a Direct Debit et al.

If we end up with banks like in Europe as you state - then that's fine with me.

What I do have a problem with is if I end up having to pay lots of banking fees because other people don't want to take responsibity for themselves.

I think that you are missing the point - the subject of this thread is about the questionable legalities of punitive charges imposed by banks. It is not about taking responsibility for myself. I have plenty of responsibility, both at home and at work, here and abroad and I rise to those responsibilites.

What I will not do is pay a charge that is not proportional to a loss incurred by ANYONE - banks included.
This issue is not limited to banks. NO contract can contain terms purporting to profit from a breach of contract if it expects to hold up in court.

M_Thomson

dchurch24 wrote:

In essence what I said was that expecting to be subsidised by people who are in financial difficulty, and to defend rich banks getting richer at these peoples expense is a right-wing attitude.
It's not name calling; it is a right wing view.

Er no, you said and I qoute "It does make me laugh, you and M Thomson are about the most right-wing people I have come across."

A baseless comment for which you owe me and MarkyMarkD an apology.

dchurch24 wrote:

I also have a current account in France - there are no annual fees, there are no fees for Cheques, Standing Orders or Direct Debits - there are also no charges for not having enough funds to pay a Direct Debit.

If we end up with banks like in Europe as you state - then that's fine with me.

LOL! Well thanks DChurch. I will look forward to paying for your mistakes!

dchurch24

Er no, you said and I qoute "It does make me laugh, you and M Thomson are about the most right-wing people I have come across."

...and to put that in context that sentence was followed with:

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.

(which incidentily, gives the comment it's 'base')

LOL! Well thanks DChurch. I will look forward to paying for your mistakes!

You'll have to explain that one to me - I'm not sure how not having fees for everyday banking and having no punitive charges is paying for my mistakes.
I stated that if we end up with bank accounts like those in Europe (and France is in Europe as is, oddly, my French bank account) then that is fine with me.

M_Thomson

dchurch24 wrote:

...and to put that in context that sentence was followed with:



(which incidentily, gives the comment it's 'base')



You'll have to explain that one to me - I'm not sure how not having fees for everyday banking and having no punitive charges is paying for my mistakes.
I stated that if we end up with bank accounts like those in Europe (and France is in Europe as is, oddly, my French bank account) then that is fine with me.

Right, so the people who do not incur charges but yet struggle each day to stay afloat will be happy to pay fees for everyday banking???!! You are contradicting yourself big time!!