Unenforceability

iolanthe07

They feel it is fair game for any other lender to see if you are willing to pay the loan whether it stands up to the law or not.

Quite right too. Lenders need to be able to protect themselves from people who will use any trick to try and avoid paying what they owe.

petermb_2

iolanthe07 wrote: »

They feel it is fair game for any other lender to see if you are willing to pay the loan whether it stands up to the law or not.

Quite right too. Lenders need to be able to protect themselves from people who will use any trick to try and avoid paying what they owe.

That is an opinion. A very jaundiced one but an opinion just the same.

cyril82

iolanthe07 wrote: »

They feel it is fair game for any other lender to see if you are willing to pay the loan whether it stands up to the law or not.

Quite right too. Lenders need to be able to protect themselves from people who will use any trick to try and avoid paying what they owe.

Just a shame theres no facility in place to give the consumer equal warning about some of the disgraceful tricks banks and other lenders pull. :rolleyes:

cyril82

petermb wrote: »

I have seen it in writing that they do not agree.

that doesn't suprise me, often big organisations will respond to a complaint with the usual, patronising "you're wrong, go away" letter. But the fact remains, banks need permission to record info on credit ref agencies, so if you push you should win. If they persist i'm sure the information commisioner would agree with the consumer should a complaint be made.

When large organisations do things like that it doesn't mean they are allowed to do it by law, just that they are being allowed to do it by you.

simon_templar_2

cyril82 wrote: »

Well, since banks are not legally allowed to fine anybody for any reason, including being "crap" with your finances, but they do/did means, in effect they stole the money as they took it despite having no authorisation to do so.
That in my book is, arguably, equivalent to theft but whether theft or not, it is unlawful for the simple fact, they acted above their authority and against F.S.A Guidance which states such charges should not be a fine, but a true reflection of the cost incurred by the bank.

But don't just take my word for it, the O.F.T seem to agree too, hence dragging the banks through the courts, also it would seem the owner of this site Martin Lewis agrees, as he has quite openly described these charges as unlawful on national t.v

Bank charges are mostly charged for unauthorized borrowing. By going overdrawn you are borrowing money, a very expensive way to do so. Martin Lewis is just a journalist, his opinion does not make it fact.

petermb_2

simon_templar wrote: »

Bank charges are mostly charged for unauthorized borrowing. By going overdrawn you are borrowing money, a very expensive way to do so. Martin Lewis is just a journalist, his opinion does not make it fact.

I was speaking to a bank manager the other day who totally agreed that much of the charges applied to overdraughts and bounced cheques, etc., are slaps on the wrist for being naughty.

Exactly what the OFT says should not happen.

This is not opinion but fact. The lenders are taking money that should have remained in that clients account. There is another name for it.....it is on the tip of my tongue......
T TTT Thats it THEFT. You cant make it any grander than that so please dont try to dress it up or condone it.

simon_templar_2

But clients are taking money without asking also known as THEFT or STEALING.

cyril82

simon_templar wrote: »

Martin Lewis is just a journalist, his opinion does not make it fact.

And you are? ......given the choice i think most here would accept his oppinion over yours somehow.

cyril82

simon_templar wrote: »

But clients are taking money without asking also known as THEFT or STEALING.

Here's an example, mr x has a bank account with zero balance. a direct debit goes through the account, bank refuse to pay, costs them nothing to do that, they charge mr x £35.

Would you like to explain, based on the above, (which is a typical example of how charges are applied) how you conclude that mr x stole from his bank?

i'm really interested to hear this...:rolleyes:

PROLIANT

cyril82 wrote: »

Here's an example, mr x has a bank account with zero balance. a direct debit goes through the account, bank refuse to pay, costs them nothing to do that, they charge mr x £35.

Would you like to explain, based on the above, (which is a typical example of how charges are applied) how you conclude that mr x stole from his bank?

i'm really interested to hear this...:rolleyes:

That is a loaded example if I have ever seen one. :rolleyes: