Massive victory for Bank Charge reclaiming News Article Discussion

Tozer

satelliteone wrote: »

Tozer vbmenu_register("postmenu_19190071", true); wrote "I think a lot of people should take more responsibility in respect of bank charges"

We have! and taken them to court as "unfair charges" and won

Thanks to MSE! martin L and the squad

Your point is Mr Tozer?

My point? Lots of people (not ALL - hence definition of "lots") need to be more responsible.

Do you disagree?

chris_spackman

borgbaiter wrote: »

most of what your listing are standard business overheads. £2.50 is more than generous.



Abbey are covered by the court case. under the terms of the waiver they cannot close your account or pass it to dept collections as its in dispute. the credit file issue would only be relevent if your whole debt is made up of bank charges. if they attempt to do any of the above complain to the FOS.

Borgbaiter

Thank you for your reply.

My account is in an 'agreed overdraft' which i am paying off at my own steam.

So from your answer as my account is an agreed overdraft they can not close it or send off to debt collection but can they ask for the ovewrdraft to be paid of straight away?


Is the fact that i am counter claiming ie: Bank Charges mean that they have to leave it in house and wait for the court case outcome?

Tozer

rag31 wrote: »

Well I didn't know that there were two different kinds of house of lords, so I have learned something new today.

.

Absolutely - there is the second chamber of Parliament. And there is the Law Lords being the ultimate appeal court in the UK. They are not the same.

It is REALLY important that people realise that if the case is appealed it is not to the bunch of Tony's Cronies but to a bunch of immensely clever lawyers who will judge it on the merits. Not "Boys Clubs" or any similar rubbish that has been spouted earlier.

We have a great judicial system - I would have thought charge-reclaimers would have realised that today.

W_s_n

Hooray, this is such good news!
:beer:

Cheers to Martin and all the team there!

Darth_Marty

Please excuse my ignorance but has something happened today that ensures all charges have to be paid back? What am I missing?

W_s_n

Darth_Marty wrote: »

Please excuse my ignorance but has something happened today that ensures all charges have to be paid back? What am I missing?

The Court of Appeal has ruled against the Banks appeal. So that means that the ruling that the charges are subject to the 'unfair contractual terms' laws.

This is very good news. It now means that the OFT will look into whether or not they are unfair.

This is a link to the article by MSE Dan:
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/news/2009/02/massive-victory-for-bank-charge-rec

Tozer

W_s_n wrote: »

The Court of Appeal has ruled against the Banks appeal. So that means that the ruling that the charges are subject to the 'unfair contractual terms' laws.

This is very good news. It now means that the OFT will look into whether or not they are unfair.

This is a link to the article by MSE Dan:
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/news/2009/02/massive-victory-for-bank-charge-rec

Yes, but can some caution be urged?

Don't go sticking 2 fingers up to your bank. I've been shocked by how people on this thread are saying that judges are corrupt, bankers are "scum"...but don't seem to want to take responsibility for themselves.

The outcome of this seems to be that the OFT is ENTITLED to review the charges. They will NOT say "any charge is unlawful". What they will say (on the basis of credit card charges) is that £12 ish seems fair.

Tozer

MSE_Martin wrote: »

Please can we keep this on topic.

The veracity of judges is a very small side issue here (personally I think our judges at the higher levels tend to be pretty fair - the problem is often the law they're needing to adjudicate on). And lets stick to bank charges.

Thank you

Just for the record, Martin, I would like to say that the veracity of judges is a non-issue. Its not a "very small" or a "side issue" - it is not an issue at all - as perhaps today has demonstrated. Unless you have evidence to say that the integrity of judges in this matter can be called into question, it would be good if you could stick to the bank charges dispute as you suggest.

W_s_n

Hi Tozer,

That's what i'm saying.

Regards
W_s_n

simon_templar_2

Some people do mind paying as they claim back ALL the charges and not for example each charge minus £12.