Bank Charges - illegal?

carled

Perhaps a relevant bit of legal speak from http://www.3vb.com/pgs-articles/jn-recent-devs-contract.shtml would interest some people here - seems to be less than clear cut about a charge being penl merely because it exceeds the liquidated loss?

26. The law of penalty clauses has been looked at by the Privy Council in Philips Hong Kong Limited v. The Attorney General of Hong Kong (1993) 61 BLR 49, where it was necessary to consider whether a liquidated damages clause in a construction project for Hong Kong was penal. The Privy Council held that the relevant clause was not penal and emphasised that one did not prove that a clause was penal merely by postulating circumstances where it was possible that the liquidated damages claim would be greatly in excess of the actual damage suffered. Lord Woolf said:

"Except possibly in the case of situations where one of the parties to the contract is able to dominate the other as to the choice of the terms of a contract, it will normally be insufficient to establish that a provision is objectionably penal to identify situations where the application of the provision could result in a larger sum being recovered by the injured party than his actual loss. Even in such situations so long as the sum payable in the event of non-compliance with the contract is not extravagant, having regard to the range of losses that it could reasonably be anticipated would have to cover at the time the contract was made, it can still be a genuine pre-estimate of the loss that would be suffered and so a perfectly valid liquidated damage provision. The use in argument of unlikely illustrations should therefore not assist a party to defeat a provision as to liquidated damages."

exil

So who do you want to pay for the work the bank does on your account? The people who are in credit? Or for the bank to do it for nothing?

Of course charges are rather more than the actual costs incurred by the bank, so could be seen as "penalties" rather than "charges". However they are in the contract you have with the bank. You might win your case about Unfair Terms - but don't count on it!

The bank will find it extremely easy to fulfil your DPA request - and are ENTITLED TO CHARGE YOU FOR THIS!!!!!

avfc1982

I sent a let to Barclays on behalf of my girlfriend requesting a refund of all charges against her account within 14 days, for the sum of £203.47.

Barclays replied 9 days later, offering full settlement. :beer:

Full details of the letter sent to Barclays and there reply can be found here:

http://www.invictadigital.com/bank/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=3

This is also a very helpful site and info source for anyone wishing to claim back any penalty charges.

It does work people, spread the word....

exil

Without wishing to cast aspersions, there is no evidence that exchange of correspondence is genuine.

avfc1982

exil wrote:

Without wishing to cast aspersions, there is no evidence that exchange of correspondence is genuine.

So you're suggesting I'm fabricating the whole story, even coming up with a ficticious letter from Barclays to support my story? :rotfl:

And what would be the point in that I ask?

gothicf0rm

carled -
firstly that refers to hong kong. secondly it refers to a company vs a company. we're talking british consumer law here. thirdly, with britains four largest banks alone making £3.5 billion profit in a year from this little scam they can hardly claim they are a genuine pre-estimate of loss that they anticipated at the time, particularly given how regularly they update the contract which is several times a year.

carled

gothicf0rm. No problem - I'm on your side, trust me, just found the reference whilst looking for something else and thought it mildly interesting. As to being relevant to Hong Kong only, I doubt that's the case. Much of what is on the law books in Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand, etc... is statute law in this country too.

What I find kind of an interesting implication in all this is getting my head around the "screw HOW the charges came to be applied, it's the fact they are applied at all that is being challenged..."

I can see how some people reading this forum may think that the case is that the supporters are knowingly and wantonly running up charges by poor cash management then asking for refunds or something... it's not really the case.

exil

avfc1982

Sorry, hadn't noticed that this was YOUR gf's letter on the other forum. Therefore I accept it's genuine. However, in my defence, I've learnt to be sceptical about such things which have the ring of "urban myths". One comment though - why include your gf's name and address in the letter? If I did the same with my OH's financial-related letters, I'd be sleeping out in the garden for the next 6 months.

"I can see how some people reading this forum may think that the case is that the supporters are knowingly and wantonly running up charges by poor cash management then asking for refunds or something... it's not really the case."

Well - exactly.

avfc1982

exil wrote:

why include your gf's name and address in the letter? If I did the same with my OH's financial-related letters, I'd be sleeping out in the garden for the next 6 months.

QUOTE]

Cheers for the heart attack! Rushed over to check the site, only to see that it's the address of the Head of Current Accounts at Barclays, not my girlfriends!! I remember being pretty careful not to give her identity away when I posted.

Appreciate the confusion, as my sign-in names are different on the two forums.

exil

OK - apologies - I need to read a bit more carefully in future.