Banks Charges & their fairness!!!

angus08

I everybody new to this but it`s on my mind so i`ll post it:
Wasn'T the government concerned a few years ago about the charges that loan sharks make? Well to me the banks far outweigh them i.e: Yorkshire bank a few years ago, you go overdrawn the charged you £25 plus £3 every day that your overdrawn < Thats higher than loan sharks > but there's more- the charge fee went up depending on what you went overdrawn with could be £25 0r £27.50 or £32 & the daily charge went up to : from £4 per day then £5 per day then £6 then £7 then £8 per day, so lets say you go 50p over drawn you get charged say £25 plus £8 day your not in credit & the bank tells you your overdrawn in around 2 to 3 weeks after, how come that letter took so long to arrive then they new from day 1 as they charged you & charged you 1 hell of a percentage really, now then why didn't the government warn you then about the banks like they did with the loan shark companies?
Perhaps someone could pass this on to one of the board members as I don't know how to, you see when things go to court its people that are educated in text I mean its done from a book & logic & sensibility goes out the window, it`s abit like the court said that the banks did explain it in plain english, but who`s english you needed a lawyer/barrister to understand it simply because of it`s technicality, so it`s not everyday English then it`s that really educated 1? also didn't the courts pass a new rule that court literature was to be in plain English! how many of us could go to court & represent ourselves with the required elements & understanding of law books, not many that's why lawyers/barristers exist/study law & get paid all that money, because it`s there job to understand whats in those books that we don't have?
Sorry for spelling mistakes, commas, full stops & anything else you notice, and anyway: I`m Only Saying!!:money: <- Top Guy This Fellow -> & so is the rest of the board OK, Just that we watch The 1st fellow on telly don't we.
Thanks for all your help Martin & the Team lets hope thinks work out eh!!!:j

simon_templar_2

I like how people can work out the interest rates when going overdrawn but cannot do the maths so they dont go overdrawn! Have full stops been credit crunched??

angus08

Thats guy`s at the Royal bank of Scotland isnt bothered about full stops at the end of his pension, think he forgot about them to don you?

simon_templar_2

Whats that got to do with it??

natweststaffmember

angus08 wrote: »

I everybody new to this but it`s on my mind so i`ll post it:
Wasn'T the government concerned a few years ago about the charges that loan sharks make? Well to me the banks far outweigh them i.e: Yorkshire bank a few years ago, you go overdrawn the charged you £25 plus £3 every day that your overdrawn < Thats higher than loan sharks > but there's more- the charge fee went up depending on what you went overdrawn with could be £25 0r £27.50 or £32 & the daily charge went up to : from £4 per day then £5 per day then £6 then £7 then £8 per day, so lets say you go 50p over drawn you get charged say £25 plus £8 day your not in credit & the bank tells you your overdrawn in around 2 to 3 weeks after, how come that letter took so long to arrive then they new from day 1 as they charged you & charged you 1 hell of a percentage really, now then why didn't the government warn you then about the banks like they did with the loan shark companies?
Perhaps someone could pass this on to one of the board members as I don't know how to, you see when things go to court its people that are educated in text I mean its done from a book & logic & sensibility goes out the window, it`s abit like the court said that the banks did explain it in plain english, but who`s english you needed a lawyer/barrister to understand it simply because of it`s technicality, so it`s not everyday English then it`s that really educated 1? also didn't the courts pass a new rule that court literature was to be in plain English! how many of us could go to court & represent ourselves with the required elements & understanding of law books, not many that's why lawyers/barristers exist/study law & get paid all that money, because it`s there job to understand whats in those books that we don't have?
Sorry for spelling mistakes, commas, full stops & anything else you notice, and anyway: I`m Only Saying!!:money: <- Top Guy This Fellow -> & so is the rest of the board OK, Just that we watch The 1st fellow on telly don't we.
Thanks for all your help Martin & the Team lets hope thinks work out eh!!!:j

I am really sorry, but i honestly do not know what you are talking about. The OFT took the Banks' to court over the fairness of bank charges and the case is still ongoing. I appreciate the point you are making re loan sharks and banks but there is a court case already so action is being taken.

angus08

I know there is an ongoing case re; the bank charges, but what i`m trying to say is: The courts have ruled that charges are governed by fairness, this point has only been raised via outside people & people like Martin Lewis explaining to us including you that these were unfair & illegal in the 1st place. I made a quote that Loan Sharks charged very high interest rates and infact still do, but the charges that the banks make are in proportion to what loan sharks charged if not higher depending on what the overdraft amount was i.e Yorkshire bank £27.50 plus £8 per day & this could be for an amount of only 50p, and what I was saying is that the goverment did not warn people of these high charges by the banks but they did with the loan sharks & are doing so at the moment. I simply made a point that banks have got away with this for years really and it`s still not final at the moment we are not guaranteed to win or infact get the majority of the charges back, I do agree that parts of my letter was abit unclear and un-interesting but then just ignore it if thats your opinion & read some others!!!

natweststaffmember

angus08 wrote: »

I know there is an ongoing case re; the bank charges, but what i`m trying to say is: The courts have ruled that charges are governed by fairness(the charges can be assessed for fairness), this point has only been raised via outside people & people like Martin Lewis explaining to us including you that these were unfair & illegal in the 1st place.
If Martin Lewis said that the charges were illegal then he doesn't know what he is talking about. He may have said that they were unlawful which I would totally agree with.


I made a quote that Loan Sharks charged very high interest rates and infact still do, but the charges that the banks make are in proportion to what loan sharks charged if not higher depending on what the overdraft amount was i.e Yorkshire bank £27.50 plus £8 per day & this could be for an amount of only 50p, and what I was saying is that the goverment did not warn people of these high charges by the banks but they did with the loan sharks & are doing so at the moment.
The legislation is different. Loans are governed by the Consumer Credit Act and are not being assessed for fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.
I simply made a point that banks have got away with this for years really and it`s still not final at the moment we are not guaranteed to win or infact get the majority of the charges back, I do agree that parts of my letter was abit unclear and un-interesting but then just ignore it if thats your opinion & read some others!!!

As I said, I understood parts of your post but because the legislation is different then the way they are dealt with are different.

angus08

natweststaffmember wrote: »

As I said, I understood parts of your post but because the legislation is different then the way they are dealt with are different.

Ah right thanks for making the loans thingy clear!!! as for the, the illegal bit & doesnt know what he`s talking about, if I remember rightly at the very beginning of Martin bringing this to light, he stated that if the charges were: <PENALTIES> then they are illegal as they do not have the power to impose these only law boddies can issue them, if you once worked for the bank I think you might recall at some point that people going overdrawn were penalised for doing so& in conversation proberbly that not in all cases were stated as charges & if the where fair charges as yes thats whats all this is about, why is there such a vast diff. in the amount each bank charge, !! I`m thinking that you still work within this industry as you seem to want to make your point very clear for some reason? } My post was simply just a very basic point of my interest which I suppose I should keep to myself by the sounds of it!!!, Sorry if your not happy with what I originally put, but I did & that`s that, Listen chill it`s just some very basic points, Have A Nice Day Now! & I do think i`m right at what was originally said about the i`llegal bit?

natweststaffmember

angus08 wrote: »

Ah right thanks for making the loans thingy clear!!! as for the, the illegal bit & doesnt know what he`s talking about, if I remember rightly at the very beginning of Martin bringing this to light(If I remember rightly Dave Smith from Consumeractiongroup wrote the initial article here in 2006 cos I read it)., he stated that if the charges were: <PENALTIES> then they are illegal as they do not have the power to impose these only law bodies can issue them(the analogy is kinda wrong, if they are penalties in law(OFT lost that bit of the bank charges case) then they are civil and therefore either lawful or unlawful), if you once worked for the bank I think you might recall at some point that people going overdrawn were penalised for doing so(they were charged but I never explained it as a penalty) & in conversation probably that not in all cases were stated as charges & if the where fair charges as yes thats whats all this is about, why is there such a vast diff. in the amount each bank charge(surely that is whether the charges are fair or not and that is not the law of penalties but the UTCCR 1999), !! I`m thinking that you still work within this industry as you seem to want to make your point very clear for some reason?(I have been in the bank charges campaign since June 2006. I very rarely disagree with many points but PENALTIES IN LAW doctrine is DEAD. For information, I no longer work for the bank because I was sacked in February 2009. I am currently as we speak, unemployed.} My post was simply just a very basic point of my interest which I suppose I should keep to myself by the sounds of it!!!, Sorry if your not happy with what I originally put, but I did & that`s that, Listen chill it`s just some very basic points, Have A Nice Day Now! & I do think i`m right at what was originally said about the i`llegal bit?

I hope that is clear enough for you. You have penalties in law, my details and some inaccuracies in your post. Anything else:?