'unfair Bank Charges'

Nathan_Spleen

notmebug wrote: »

Banks are there to make money, what do you expect? .

You have completely invalidated your original post with this.

Zapp_from_Planet_Zogg

"banking is free" - yes, of course, I forgot that we get the full BoE rate on our in-credit current accounts.

Hang on.... 0.1%... what's this!!

Don't wish to sound patronising to our junior poster (and I congratulate you in taking an interest in these things, as opposed to mugging folk in your hoodie - if you believe the stereotype), but it is very easy for people to step outside their banking limits in real life.

Try juggling any combination of mortgage, house insurance, life insurance, health insurance, credit card bills, car payments, grocery shopping, clothing, eating out, entertainment, education costs, fuel costs, domestic bills and a whole host of other demands on your single salary payment. It simply isn't as easy as figuring out how many jelly beans you can buy on your allowance!

It is even easier for people to get in a mess with their banking arrangements if they suffer some form of financial trauma (redundancy, illness etc), particularly if they aren't on a salary and depend on a weekly pay packet.

And before you even think it, I have been charged by my bank once - and it was entirely their fault for messing up a direct debit. I got the charges refunded immediately with an apology.

militantconsumer

Oh dear, Let's try and keep it civil, shall we?

To orange26 and notmebug - I've never paid a penalty charge either, but please show a bit of sympathy! People get into financial trouble for all kinds of reasons. I've come across some really really tragic stories from reading these forums. Let's not tar everybody with the same brush and assume people have been irresponsible and that they deserve everything they get.

I do understand where you're coming from about some people getting into these situations themselves. But you've got to remember everyone is different and people have different skills in life. I happen to be good at managing my money and always have been. Lucky me, and thank you to my parents for passing that onto me through the right mix of nature and nurture. I can't draw or dance or play football to save my life, but fortunately lacking those skills hasn't got me into difficulties. On the other hand, I know some excellent artists and sporty people who can't run their own bank account properly. That's a big problem for them.

Ok, maybe a silly example, but that's why we need laws to protect consumers. People who don't have the aptitude to manage a bank account, even if you guys think it's easy. People who are vulnerable. People who fall on bad times.

I think it's fair to say that most other more fortunate people are reasonable and accept that we need these kind of rules as a society.

And let's not forget that the Banks have been found, in a court of law, to have broken these laws. That's what the reclaims are all about - getting back what's legally and rightfully yours.

katinthehat

I don't think anyone on here disputes the fact that banks have a right to charge people who have exceeded the limitations of their bank account. It is not that the banks charge us but the AMOUNT they charge us, it is totally disproportionate to their actual costs.
I personally don't trust my bank in the slightest as I have experienced on numerous occaisions their ability to bend the rules to suit. The government has just bailed the banking system out with millions of tax payers money, yet the fat cat bonuses and greedy money making schemes continue. What's FAIR about that?
My final word is that you are extremely lucky if you have never fallen on hard times for whatever reason but I think it is unkind for you to berate those of us who are less fortunate. At this time of year I would hope you had more generosity of spirit.

natweststaffmember

katinthehat wrote: »

I don't think anyone on here disputes the fact that banks have a right to charge people who have exceeded the limitations of their bank account. It is not that the banks charge us but the AMOUNT they charge us, it is totally disproportionate to their actual costs.What's FAIR about that?
My final word is that you are extremely lucky if you have never fallen on hard times for whatever reason but I think it is unkind for you to berate those who are less fortunate. At this time of year I would hope you had more generosity of spirit.

I totally agree with Kat, I have never had one single bank charge in my entire life but in my daily life, I know many. We do not always control the cards that we are handed for various reasons in life. I agree with let's keep it civil.

Notmebug, I do empathise with your views but there are kids your age who are charged by the bank which creates an overdraft on the account, effectively giving someone under the age credit(a loan we could suggest) yet they are not allowed one. It is one of my bugbears. The bank states you cannot do something yet allows it to happen without recourse. Remember, walk a mile in someone's shoes and maybe you will understand.

orange26_2

I fully agree the people who are GENUINE cases of financial hardship should perhaps have some sort of assistance is severe cases of misfortune, such as losing a job, partner etc. However, I strongly disagree with the fact that every person is being encouraged to jump on the bandwagon, I think it sends the message that its okay not to take any responsibility for your actions and gives the impression that it is always someone else's fault, that is what I personally have an issue with. I do believe that there are genuine cases out there, but I believe even more that most cases are not genuine and its just people chancing their arm because someone has told them to. As for the point of that people do not believe that bank charges reflect their true costs etc. I suppose we can say that for anything in this world. When we go to the hairdresser for example, how do we know that it 'costs' them say £40 in shampoo, water, towel, electricity, wear and tear on equipment etc for a hair cut. The point I am trying to make is, how can anyone truely prove the actual genuine cost for a service / product provided, at the end of the day we chose that service / product and agreed to pay for it when it suited us.
I will say again I agree with cases of genuine financial hardship, however I disagree with the whole bandwagon culture.

Zapp_from_Planet_Zogg

There is something fundamentally wrong with your logic on charges I'm afraid, and I am sorry to say that I am growing tired of reading / hearing that sort of compliant nonsense.

To use your analogy, we choose which hairdresser we use, then make a choice to pay the hairdresser according to the service that we require. That is very different from retrospectively being forced to pay an arbitrary sum, no matter what 'service' we chose.

The whole point of bank charges is that they are, in law, damages under a civil contract between you and your bank. Damages MUST, in law, be representative of the cost incurred in dealing with the problem. If they are not representative, then they are penalty charges and banks (or anyone else) are not allowed to levy arbitrary penalties or fines, under civil law.

You also mention how it is possible for anyone to truely prove that those charges are unreasonable. Quite right - it is impossible for us to PROVE either way. However, that is irrelevant. We, the claimants, do not have to prove anything. In law, if the bank wishes to claim damages then it is for THEM to prove the level of damages.

Arbitrary sums can be used and are referred to under law as 'reasonable pre-estimates'. The problem with reasonable pre-estimates, is that they must be reasonable and the same rules apply. The claimant (bank) must demonstrate that they are reasonable.

I purposely over-used the word 'law' to make the point that what the banks have been doing is not lawful. This has already been determined by a court and the banks, despite their best efforts, have not been able to get the courts to change their mind since.

Unfortunately, despite numerous requests of banks to demonstrate how their charges are calculated, in detail, not one bank has provided this information. Doesn't that strike you as being odd? Surely, if they are reasonable pre-estimates, then there should be nothing wrong with letting everyone see how they are calculated. And the provision of this information would certainly stop all of these fanciful claims for compensation which are costing the banks millions - assuming that the raw facts supported the banks' argument!

Notwithstanding all of this, I agree that some people are searching for any excuse to write off irresponsibly accrued debt or otherwise looking for a free meal ticket. However, this is a minority of individuals and by far the vast majority are simply defending their legal rights.

I, too, disagree with the bandwagon culture. The banks' unlawful charges bandwagon has to stop.

bengal-stripe

Zapp_from_Planet_Zogg wrote: »

..... then they are penalty charges and banks (or anyone else) are not allowed to levy arbitrary penalties or fines, under civil law.....that what the banks have been doing is not lawful. This has already been determined by a court and the banks, despite their best efforts, have not been able to get the courts to change their mind since.....The banks' unlawful charges bandwagon has to stop.

Zapp, being on Planet Zogg, you might have missed the fact that the court has already decided, ‘bank charges’ are not penalties
(in the meaning of the law) and are therefore not unlawful.

Whether or not they are ‘fair’, has to be decided.

See also this posting;

natweststaffmember wrote: »

It is at appeals stage and currently the doctrine of "bank charges as penalties in law" has gone. However, the UTCCR 1999 is still in play.........

natweststaffmember

To clarify the above, Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 could invalidate the charges if they are proved to be eligible for the test of fairness within the Regulations.
I understand more of Orange's viewpoint and I see where they are going, and I understand Zogg's post from the opposite perspective.

craigers

16 year old getting credit? Here was me thinking lending criteria had stiffened...