Bank Charges - illegal?

dchurch24

homersimpson wrote:

wrote to bank using standard letter saying either refund bank charges or i'll sue you. bank said they contacted their legal dept and charges are a genuine pre-estimate of loss and legally enforcable- charges include depreciation of machinery (maintenance and replacement), staff costs to maintain system & business rates in which system housed. Are bank correct? should i sue them? cannot afford to waste money. thanks

Which bank is it?

The 'big four' alone make £3 billion quid a year out of these charges - that doesn't include Abbey or some of the other high street names - in total I would say that they probably add at least another 2 billion. 1 in 5 people are being hit by these charges.

I'd like to know what sort of machines they are using, as to replace a Cray Supercomputer or a Big Blue chess machine would cost a fraction of the machines they are using at prices like those!!!

Make up your own mind - banks give the money back when faced with the prospect of having to prove in a court that these charges are a reasonable pre-estimate of cost. If they are so sure, then why, in the hundreds of cases against them so far, have they not come forward to prove it.

Try asking them for a breakdown of the costs - surely you would be entitled to that as you are paying for them, and they are declaring that the charges are 'reasonable'. Under the 1977 Unfair Terms (contracts) Act, any person claiming that a term of a contract is 'reasonable' is duty bound to prove as such. The law states many examples of what 'reasonable' is, and the way in which banks levy these charges is not one.

The costs depend on how much you are claiming for. Is it more than £1500? If so then the costs (which in my opinion you will get back) would be £230. That is the maximum it would cost if the claim was to be heard in the small claim court.

It depends on your 'bottle' - they will/may (not all banks do - First Direct were very nice and polite about it - as they refunded my money, which is good, as I stay with them due to the excellent customer service they provide) try to scare you off with ludicrous claims of legal costs, blatantly flout the Data Protection Act and in exrteme cases (like May's), recall overdrafts for no reason and generally act like the school bully.

If you want your money back, you have to weigh up the pros and cons.

I personally think it is worth doing - banks are overstepping the mark and need to be bought down a peg or two. Banks used to be respectable organisations some time ago - now they are just cowboys.

Murtle

dchurch24 wrote:

Well now, that wouldn't have been a particulary clever thing to do. If they were still in existence (which they are not, as explained in another post in this thread), perhaps I could have gone after them for the charges. I don't think I would have been employed with them for very long had I started legal action against them at the time, do you?

The fact that the charges shouldn't have been imposed in the first place, surely should mean that I should attack the problem at the root, not aim it at someone else who's actions resulted in a third party breaking contract law?

In that particular case, both parties were in breach of the law regarding contracts; my employer for not paying on time, and the bank for imposing penalties. My employer not paying on time was not a DIRECT penalty. The banks penalised me for breach of contract caused by someone else's breach of contract, which is not enforcable. It would be daft to go after my employer (regardless of whether or not I was still working for them) as their defence would be that punitive charges are not enforcable - they cannot be held responsible for a third party breaking contract law - that, most likely, would have ended up with me out of pocket for taking them to court in the first place - in effect, I would have been attempting to ENFORCE punitive charges in court. Punitive charges are NOT ENFORCABLE, so therefore, I would have been throwing good money after bad trying to get them enforced in a court.

I'm not sure I'm doing a very good job of explaining myself, so I'll stop there.

Incidently, for the information of the group, I have a copy of a letter from Abbey National admitting that they levy PUNITIVE charges, if anyone needs a copy.

Yes that makes sense, but in your killing case, if the company knew about the situation, then I would like to see them charged as well.

homersimpson_3

bank is halifax
£20.00 for exceeding overdraft limit by £5.24-
20.00 for them having to pay direct debit of £15 when overdraft limit exceeded
£28.00 for exceeding overdraft limit by £32.44
(charges go back to late 2003. overdraft limit at time was £400. at time was paying very high course fees & it was very difficult to budget.)
can't make up my mind. it is worth or not?

dchurch24

Murtle wrote:

Yes that makes sense, but in your killing case, if the company knew about the situation, then I would like to see them charged as well.

Yeah, my 'murder' analogy wasn't very good ;-)

Murtle

dchurch24 wrote:

Yeah, my 'murder' analogy wasn't very good ;-)

it kinda worked, it got the principle across and that's good enough!!!

thanks

Murtle

dchurch24

I would say so. £68 is still £68 and is legally yours. It's decentish pair of shoes, or (nearly) a first generation xbox, etc...etc...

It would be a point of principle - if you give them an inch, they will take a mile.

It's time banks stopped being 'self regulated' and became respectable once again.

homersimpson wrote:

bank is halifax
£20.00 for exceeding overdraft limit by £5.24-
20.00 for them having to pay direct debit of £15 when overdraft limit exceeded
£28.00 for exceeding overdraft limit by £32.44
(charges go back to late 2003. overdraft limit at time was £400. at time was paying very high course fees & it was very difficult to budget.)
can't make up my mind. it is worth or not?

kennyward

well,well,well.checked my account for last year and got charged £140.00 by halifax for being £2.19 overdrawn for two days then my wages cleared to bring my balance back to £25OO.00.neadless to say that i am off to see the account manager tommorrow to demand that this stolen money be credited back to my account.i have got every jack man and his dog interested as lots of people i know have had money stolen out of there accounts by the enemy.(let the battle begin)

joannemc3

joannemc3 wrote:

hi D church ,
i have today sent a letter to my branch ,stating that under the data protection act i require a full schedule of the charges made to my account in the last 6 years , is this right ?? , its just im not sure exactly how much they have charged me over the last 12 months as , or even possibly the last 6 years !!! i dread to think , like a fool i havnt kept my statements !!! , is this the right thing to do before sending them the letter i have read about ,as obviously i cant be sure of the full amount in charges !!!
many regards
jo

hello all ,
how long should it take for them to get the details back to me ?? anybody know ??? and is it likely the will ignore my request .
many thanks

Stubbarama

Pere_Ubu wrote:

My husband and I got £180 back just last week from the Nationwide stating they were only going to do it the once etc. Interesting sentance stated that they "understood how I felt" will quote this back to them when/if they charge me again. Only took one letter as well with a time limit of 7 days to respond.

Congrats. :j

Im looking at over £2000 though, will they be so quick ? :rolleyes:

comicmankev

Theres 2 days left for Abbey to reply to my letter requesting charge info within 20 days. I have now pieced together all charges except for one months, which they won't even give me over the phone, so I will have to proceed.

Can anyone tell me what I need to do next?