Massive victory for Bank Charge reclaiming News Article Discussion

WillyP_2

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

No. As usual you ignore the facts and continue to perpetuate your now demonstrably discredited 'theories'.

Blimey, is it your time of the month?

They weren't perpetuating any 'theories', merely summing up their understanding of the recent news and it's implications. Other than the European courts bit, they were factually correct.

Take your petty rivalries elsewhere. Martin has already asked everyone to stay on topic.

Tozer

WillyP wrote: »

Blimey, is it your time of the month?

They weren't perpetuating any 'theories', merely summing up their understanding of the recent news and it's implications. Other than the European courts bit, they were factually correct.

Take your petty rivalries elsewhere. Martin has already asked everyone to stay on topic.

In fairness, it is totally on topic.

Nathan_Spleen

WillyP wrote: »

Blimey, is it your time of the month?

They weren't perpetuating any 'theories', merely summing up their understanding of the recent news and it's implications.

DotingDad ''Yes I am propounding a theory but a highly feasible one in my opinion''

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1509271

Although this is off topic I do think it's extremely important that we stick to the facts if we are to have a meaningful debate. A lot of people here rely on and believe what posters read.

If collectively we do not develop the skills to interpret information we're going to get easily manipulated, or we're going to walk around confused, ineffectual and powerless. It's our individual responsibility as citizens to do everything we can to ensure we really understand what is happening around us and don't just blindly accept what we're told - whether that be from the media, the government or on furums like these.

We're living in a dangerous time and there are a lot of people being manipulated. A lot of people believing what they read wthout questioning it because they don't have the tools to be able to question it. A lot of people want black and white answers but that's just abdicating our responsibility as citizens to debate and understand the issues. Let's hold those around us accountable but let's do it because we understand the issues and not because the media or others tell us what to think. Only that way will we begin to move to the society we all want.

Nathan_Spleen

Back on topic, the OFT have updated their test case questions & answers and it's good resource for those who want a brief, simple explanaition of where the test case is at.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/personal-current-accounts/banksqa260209.pdf

Show_me_the_money_3

Well, i'm just on the phone to Halifax now to reject their rejection!! The customer service guy is trying to escalate it now as my account is funded purely by benefits. I m anaged to dig out my old letter and its the Social security Administration Act 1992 sect 187 a,b &c which are applicable if anyone else is in the same boat as me!!!

I tried to claim under the hardship ruling & got rejected even though my OH has lost a quarter of his wages & we have 3 children & are struggling to pay our bills!

Hope this helps someone in the same boat. I'll keep you posted!

Tozer

Show_me_the_money wrote: »

Well, i'm just on the phone to Halifax now to reject their rejection!! The customer service guy is trying to escalate it now as my account is funded purely by benefits. I m anaged to dig out my old letter and its the Social security Administration Act 1992 sect 187 a,b &c which are applicable if anyone else is in the same boat as me!!!

I tried to claim under the hardship ruling & got rejected even though my OH has lost a quarter of his wages & we have 3 children & are struggling to pay our bills!

Hope this helps someone in the same boat. I'll keep you posted!

That Act does not apply to bank charges as has been stated many, many times.

The test case does not have anything with the Act either.

Show_me_the_money_3

Tozer wrote: »

That Act does not apply to bank charges as has been stated many, many times.

The test case does not have anything with the Act either.

Thats odd, as they have agreed (Halifax) that it is illegal to take funds out of an account that is purely funded by benefits. They have escalated my claim and are looking into it. Also, they reversed some in Jan 2007 for the same reason. There were also other members of MSE who managed to claim back their charges on the same principle.

Can anyone clarify this please??? My OH is a solicitor and he has read the act and has agreed. ( though this is not an area he specialises in!!)

Tozer

Show_me_the_money wrote: »

Thats odd, as they have agreed (Halifax) that it is illegal to take funds out of an account that is purely funded by benefits. They have escalated my claim and are looking into it. Also, they reversed some in Jan 2007 for the same reason. There were also other members of MSE who managed to claim back their charges on the same principle.

Can anyone clarify this please??? My OH is a solicitor and he has read the act and has agreed. ( though this is not an area he specialises in!!)

I'm sure they haven't agreed to acting illegally!

The Act refers to it being unlawful to assign or charge benefits. Your OH will realise that this is "charge" in a legal sense (i.e. to mortgage, encumber or take security rights over).

The principle behind the section is to stop people saying "Give me £100 now and I will legally give you the rights to my benefits if I don't pay it back".

krisskross

Great if people get charges back.

I feel the banks will say that people who reclaim can, in future,only have a basic account with just a cashcard facility. Would do away with the problem of people spending money they don't have. Wonder if everyone would be happy with that scenario.

Tozer

krisskross wrote: »

Great if people get charges back.

I feel the banks will say that people who reclaim can, in future,only have a basic account with just a cashcard facility. Would do away with the problem of people spending money they don't have. Wonder if everyone would be happy with that scenario.

I think this is a good point. They are not going to permit people to default without the repercussion of charging them.