Massive victory for Bank Charge reclaiming News Article Discussion

roger5at

My son's claim from Abbey is for about £4000. Due to shortime working and periods out of work he is in severe financial difficulties - e.g 2 months behind on his mortgage and this week insufficient money to buy food.

How could her best go about seeing if his claim can get out of the 'limbo' that it is currently in as ge desperately needs money now?

By the way, Martin, you deserve a knighthood ! Or are they reserved only for rogues these days.

Nathan_Spleen

Sparrowhawk wrote: »

I agree with most of what you are saying Tozer, the point that many seem to have missed, is that charges are supposed to reflect the actual costs incurred.

This is not strictly true. It would be the case if the charges were penalties at common law (which with the possible exception of Natwest's 2001 T&Cs they are not) but under UTCCR it is the contractual term that triggers the charge that is the issue, not the level of the charge against the cost of administering it.

mlucyminx

chris_spackman wrote: »

Spoke to Abbey yesterday and they said ' Claims for charges are not going to be paid back as Abbey won their point that our fees for going overdrawn are fair and are not classed as a 'fine' If you do put in a claim Mr Spackman then we will ask you to clear you arranged overdraft straight away and their is a chance we may not want to do business with you. This may result in a poor credit file as we share information regarding this type of thing with the Credit Reference companies which may lead to toher Credit Searches returning a poor rating?

Er........is She right?

Am pretty sure that claims do not affect your credit rating. The information is usually available to see on your credit reference anyway but they can call in your overdraft in at any time and I think a lot of people may be like me. what they are claiming back more than covers the overdraft owing.

mlucyminx

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 already only have a cash card for that exact reason. A slight miscalculation on how much left in account could cost me £35.00 pound. this way I can only spend what i have. And pay for my goods the "old fashioned" way in shops.

mlucyminx

Head-Out-Of-Sand wrote: »

When did they do that? I wonder if the others will follow suit? Still more than it costs them, but considerably better than £40 for one!

Interesting indeed.

Its been a while now. Think I got my letter about september time. Was definately way before christmas

whodoitaketocourt

I think we all need to prepare ourselves to get a lot less than we are expecting here :

Here's my best guess about the way it's going to go :

Banks will appeal direct to the House of Lords and have the appeal rejected (they know it will be rejected, but the cost of solictors etc. is negligible if they can delay paying out as long as possible).

Banks will apply to the European court and force a further delay

Even if the banks appeal, this does not alter the fact that the fees are currently defined, in law, as being able to be unfair and so the OFT will continue it's work to decide if they are.

Why does it take so long ? Well, the ruliong needs to be based on whetehr the banks are charging us more than it actually coxtsa them. In order to decide this, the OFT will need to carry out a details analysis of the banks' real costs. The banks will not be prepared to give this info out and so will edge towards a "lets agree on a fair fee" approach - as happened for credit cards.

The OFT is likely to say that £12-15 is fair.

Banks will change their charges, but introduce new creative charges (as many already have), so instead of paying one £30 charge, you will pay 2 different ones, each of £15 or so. This will be legal, and the banks will not lose any revenue going forwards.

Banks will not have to refund people automatically (remember that this is just for the difference between the amount charged and the OFT approved rate, not the full amount, as was the case in the credit card case).

Claims therefore continue

The banks will appeal against the ruling applying to historical charges - anything to delay as far as possible

etc !

The bottom line is that in about a year or so, we will all have to fight for the difference between what we were actually charged and the OFT approved rate. We will be able to claim for charges dating back to 2001 with interest added at a statutory rate of 8%.

Note that due to the statute of limitations, the banks only need to store/provide under the Data Protection act, any records going back 6 years, despite actual claims being able to be made a little earlier.


Still a great result though ! Thanks Martin !

Nathan_Spleen

whodoitaketocourt wrote: »

I think we all need to prepare ourselves to get a lot less than we are expecting here :

Here's my best guess about the way it's going to go :

Banks will appeal direct to the House of Lords and have the appeal rejected (they know it will be rejected, but the cost of solictors etc. is negligible if they can delay paying out as long as possible).

I wouldn't be so sure. This is a big case with massive financial implications and the HoLs may feel obliged to hear the case.

Banks will apply to the European court and force a further delay

I'm not sure they can.

Even if the banks appeal, this does not alter the fact that the fees are currently defined, in law, as being able to be unfair and so the OFT will continue it's work to decide if they are.

Why does it take so long ? Well, the ruliong needs to be based on whetehr the banks are charging us more than it actually coxtsa them. In order to decide this, the OFT will need to carry out a details analysis of the banks' real costs. The banks will not be prepared to give this info out and so will edge towards a "lets agree on a fair fee" approach - as happened for credit cards.

The OFT are currently analyzing the banks costs. Ultimately a court will decide on whether the charges are actually unfair and will demand evidence of the banks' costs whether they like it or not. The OFT have repeatedly ruled out a credit card style '''fair fee'' approach. There wouldn't be much point in having a test case would there?

The OFT is likely to say that £12-15 is fair.

I can't see the logic in this. If the OFT are not prepared to say that credit card default charges at £12 are fair the same would apply to bank charges.


Banks will change their charges, but introduce new creative charges (as many already have), so instead of paying one £30 charge, you will pay 2 different ones, each of £15 or so. This will be legal, and the banks will not lose any revenue going forwards.

Banks will not have to refund people automatically (remember that this is just for the difference between the amount charged and the OFT approved rate, not the full amount, as was the case in the credit card case).

Claims therefore continue

The banks will appeal against the ruling applying to historical charges - anything to delay as far as possible

What ruling?

etc !

The bottom line is that in about a year or so, we will all have to fight for the difference between what we were actually charged and the OFT approved rate. We will be able to claim for charges dating back to 2001 with interest added at a statutory rate of 8%.

This won't happen but there will be other issues not resolved by the test case such as consequential loss.

Note that due to the statute of limitations, the banks only need to store/provide under the Data Protection act, any records going back 6 years, despite actual claims being able to be made a little earlier.

No, the waiver direction prevents this


Still a great result though ! Thanks Martin !

Nathan Spleen

natweststaffmember

That statute of limitation act and the stay period. Please please please read the FSA Waiver on Bank Charges(link is on my signature) because, as Nathan Spleen has just said the waiver direction prevents the bank from destroying evidence of claims since at least July 2007.

kev2b3

I am not 100% sure but if the banks are rejected by the HOL then they are unable to seek an appeal with the European Courts.
I was wondering if anyone listened to Angela Knight from the BBA on the radio on Saturday,she did say that the banks were considering appealing to the HOL. Does anyone know the time scale for the banks to apply for a appeal with the HOL and if any of the banks have made statements on making an appeal.

Nathan_Spleen

The banks have 28 days to lodge an appeal application and the HoLs have 8 weeks in which to grant of refuse leave to appeal.