what is a "fair" unpaid Direct Debit charge?

natweststaffmember

proeleche wrote: »

I am aware of the legal arguments involved thank you.

I was merely expressing an opinion.

I was helping your knowledge as you have merely read "penalties in Law" and not UTCCR 1999 which was in the OFT test case all along and was in Bank Charges POC's for many years. Your posts didn't indicate you were aware of UTCCR 1999 or that the penalties in law argument had gone. Glad to see that partially I was wrong.

Nathan_Spleen

posted wrote: »

It is a matter of consumer choice whether you pay charges or not.

They do advertise it, you get the terms when you open an account, you get a leaflet with terms and conditions every time they change, it is on the website, they are available in branch.

I must have misread your previous post that said ''It is the consumers choice to open a bank account''.

Terms & Conditions are not advertising.

proeleche

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

Clearly you don't. It's difficult to understand if you haven't read the judgment.

I don't want to be arguing with people - all I said was I remember reading an investigation, I think by the OFT, it may not have been, apologies if it was not - that they could possibly be common law penalties. As you quite correctly said the argument doesn't actually matter. I was just saying the way I saw it and using the information at my disposal and from memory.

proeleche

natweststaffmember wrote: »

I was helping your knowledge as you have merely read "penalties in Law" and not UTCCR 1999 which was in the OFT test case all along and was in Bank Charges POC's for many years. Your posts didn't indicate you were aware of UTCCR 1999 or that the penalties in law argument had gone. Glad to see that partially I was wrong.

You quite clearly know more about the details than I do - I do not doubt that for one second. I have only ever been expressing my opionions and thoughts. I always find your advice very helpful and informative.

natweststaffmember

proeleche wrote: »

You're not a lawyer or beyond reproach merely because you have read a '10 page' judgement and are not an expert because you worked for a bank.

Thank you.

I said it was 10 pages because you seemed to indicate that you didn't want to read a long judgment(that was how I interpreted the Sunday comment) so that is why I indicated how long it was so that you didn't think it was 100 pages of text to read. Apologies if you took the 10 page judgement bit as anything more than a factual comment on the length of the judgement.

Nathan_Spleen

proeleche wrote: »

You're not a lawyer or beyond reproach merely because you have read a '10 page' judgement and are not an expert because you worked for a bank.

Thank you.

With respect Natweststaffmember has attended many of the test case hearings, read all the judgments & transcripts and is therefore in a better position to opinionate on the subject than most, including yourself.

proeleche

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

With respect Natweststaffmember has attended many of the test case hearings, read all the judgments & transcripts and is therefore in a better position to opinionate on the subject than most, including yourself.

I do not doubt that for one second.

I apologise if I went on the defensive. But from my perspective it was being implied that the rest of us were automatically wrong, we didnt have the knowledge and how dare we discuss something we do not know all the ins and outs of or express our opinions.

I just thought the point of the forums was to give advice and share knowledge and not be curt with people who have not read every court paper involved in this test case.

posted_2

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

Terms & Conditions are not advertising.

"It is the consumers choice to open a bank account knowing the terms of the bank account, and not run it in credit."

What do you want them to do, come to your house and stick a big price list on your window?

Nathan_Spleen

posted wrote: »

What do you want them to do, come to your house and stick a big price list on your window?

You said that they ''advertise'' by way of their terms & conditions. In the test case hearing Justice Smith commented on the absence of 'advertising' in the context of marketing. Clearly terms & conditions do not amount to advertising or marketing.

Nathan_Spleen

posted wrote: »

"It is the consumers choice to open a bank account knowing the terms of the bank account, and not run it in credit."

What do you want them to do, come to your house and stick a big price list on your window?

Err this is not my quote. I suggest you actually read who posts what before responding to the wrong person.