Nick Clegg & David Cameron reply to Bank Charges open letter

Options
2456711

Comments

  • Nathan_Spleen
    Options
    richwoo wrote: »
    This is a contract, why should people think they can break it?

    But they are not breaking the contract!
  • richwoo
    Options
    If they are attempting to avoid the terms of a contract you have accepted, surely that is attempting to break it?

    As for Mr Martin's face punching, if I had accepted willingly that the result of an action by me was a punch it perhaps would be legal to administer one!

    Do you not think though that a big factor in the present financial crisis is the belief by people that if they want, they must have even if they cannot afford it? Here I would agree that lenders probably have a bigger share of the blame by lending to people beyond their means.
  • Nathan_Spleen
    Options
    richwoo wrote: »
    If they are attempting to avoid the terms of a contract you have accepted, surely that is attempting to break it?

    As for Mr Martin's face punching, if I had accepted willingly that the result of an action by me was a punch it perhaps would be legal to administer one!

    Do you not think though that a big factor in the present financial crisis is the belief by people that if they want, they must have even if they cannot afford it? Here I would agree that lenders probably have a bigger share of the blame by lending to people beyond their means.

    In what way are people ''attempting to avoid the terms of the contract''? I'd genuinely be interested to know.

    You've now climbed down from ''theft'' to ''breaking the contract'' to ''attempting to break the contract''.

    Not looking good is it?
  • baldmosher
    baldmosher Posts: 71 Forumite
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker Car Insurance Carver!
    edited 12 August 2009 at 11:20AM
    Options
    Of course it wouldn't be legal. Punching someone in this country is only legal in licensed boxing establishments. Two consenting bareknuckle fighters would both be arrested and probably charged with affray and public disorder (assuming it was a fair fight of course, otherwise one could have a more serious charge of ABH, GBH, or attempted murder).

    Anyway, back on topic, since the debate over charges is covered by a million pages elsewhere in this site, and I'm sure nobody wishes to see it discussed all over again, this strikes me as a good example of how the political system in this country DOES work and you don't HAVE to vote to be a part of it, despite the moral high ground on voting that some people vehemently uphold.

    You don't have to be a voter, let alone to have voted for your MP, to be able to email him or her and get them involved in supporting this campaign in Parliament. They are paid handsomely by the state for supporting the PEOPLE of this country, so make sure they know what the people want by writing to them.

    http://www.theyworkforyou.com
    JDPower wrote: »
    Maybe I'm just a complete cynic but that stinks of political opportunism to me (especially the "as a subscriber to your weekly email", anyone really believe that for a second) - a nice big user base of MSE users to appeal to by claiming/spinning to be onside.
    Of course it's political opportunism. All political success is built on opportunism! And the answer? Persuade at least 300 MPs to become political opportunists too. It's not like Nick Clegg could possibly claim that any change in the law (fingers crossed) was all his doing, since he's just replying to Martin Lewis' open letter.
  • richwoo
    richwoo Posts: 5 Forumite
    edited 12 August 2009 at 12:45PM
    Options
    I haven't climbed down, I still think its theft. I was just trying to come down to your standards.

    !!!!!!!!!!s of the world Unite
  • Paddy_O'Moron
    Options
    What can I say? Respect due to Mr Clegg. I'm a floating voter, supporting the party with the best policies on the day, so the Lib Dems seem to have the edge on this one.

    As to whether Mr Cable will ever become Chancellor - what about Proportional Representation (PR)? That discussion is for a different forum I know, but it works well - very well - in other countries. PR may well allow the Lib Dems to share power with one of the larger parties.

    Theft - "a person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another, with the intention of permanently depriving him of it" (Theft Act 1968)

    Would be a brave Barrister who would try to prove that exceeding an overdraft limit amounts to theft. Most disputes between banks and customers are covered by Civil litigation, Theft is a criminal offence, for which the suspect can be arrested and tried in a Magistrate's Court.

    P O'M QC
  • jmannion
    Options
    I am glad to see the Liberal dems are backing the claims.

    I just wanted to let people know to be wary of companies who claim the charges back on your behalf.

    I asked claims financial to claim on my behalf andI received a couple of info e-mails telling me about the court cases and how the decision had been repeatedly postponed and not much else.

    After reading an article on your site about being able to claim due to financial difficulties I decided to ask the company already dealing with my claim to claim under these circumstances. I received a form from my bank about my finances which I filled in. I received a letter from the bank stateing " as a good will gesture and due to financial difficulties they would make me a payment. This was the end of the financial difficulty claim but was not an end to my unfair bank charges claim" and of course I accepted due to the state of my finances.

    Just a day after my good will gesture payment I received a letter saying I could claim my charges if I was in financial difficulty. I believe If I had not requested this option it wouldn't have been offered to me as they were unaware of the rules.

    I requested info from the company asking If I was the first client who was partially sucessful under this rule. I was told it was none of my business.

    I then received threatening e-mails saying that if I did not pay a third of the payment they would persist with company policy and I would never get credit again.

    I offered that when the claim was legally finalised (I thought they had to finish the job they started which was to claim back unfair bank charges) that they get any further monies paid to them in respect of the final offer which should be at least another £1500 which would cover the outstanding amount with some left over. Which I thought was reasonable as the payment was made due to my financial difficulties not a conclusion to my claim.

    I now feel the company will not persue this matter to a full conclusion and I will be left with further debt with them and no conclusion to my claim.

    Angry - London
  • marcharrison1979
    Options
    The Lib Dems always seem to say the right things and generally seem like the most trustworthy party out there. I really don't understand why people in Britain don't vote for them? personally i think that if the tories or labour wins the next election the British public deserves all it gets and i certainly wont be feeling sorry for the state the country gets in.
  • ProfessorX
    ProfessorX Posts: 18 Forumite
    edited 12 August 2009 at 12:58PM
    Options
    MSE_Martin wrote: »
    Again the entire point of the campaign for bank charges is that the contracts are not legal. They break the law - both the high court and court of appeal have ruled the law does apply and the OFT has said it thinks the fees break it.

    To argue "you were told" when the contracts illegal doesn't work. If I said to you in the street "im going to punch you" and then punched you. The fact I've told you doesn't make it lawful.

    Banks sending out these terms doesn't make them lawful, they have been breaking the law by levying charges at this rate.

    Martin's reply to 'richwoo' is correct as the UTCCR's (had richwoo read them) explain that any term which has not been 'individually negotiated' is open to review under the 1993 EU Directive and legislation derived from it. What needs to be asked is why should people be restricted to claiming back just 6 years and not as far back as the Directive should allow? It said that legislation was to be put in place by the 31st Dec 1994, yet the first UTCCR's were not effected until 1 July 1995 in the UK and every Bank or other UK Company (eg Credit card; Phone; or Utilities etc.) has ignored them. Why have the OFT and the Courts taken so long too, in upholding the law? Not that they've made a good job of that either.

    My Credit Card company sent me a letter of changes to these arbitrary charges, which they based on the OFT's opinion in 2006. They apparently said that they would not look too deeply into charges of less then £12, so when I was allegedly a day late in paying off my account for May of £54.71 by the 14th June, I was 'fined' £12 + £1.48 and £1.22 in interest over my next 2 statements.

    I got round to phoning them about it this week and after mentioning the UTCCR's they decided to wipe them out as a gesture of 'good will' because I always pay my bills off on time and in full. They tried saying that this was despite the fact that the charges were 'lawful' although I had given them reasons why I felt they were 'unfair' and so unlawful, one of which was that it was disproportionate for a start. The 'fine' was over 20% of the bill, however I explained that I had posted the cheque to them on the Thurs 11th June, by 1st class mail and it was they who didn't 'process the cheque' until Mon the 15th. I asked if they could prove when they got my cheque as I felt they should have had it on the Friday.

    Why should they get penalties and interest when they set 'payment deadlines' on non-working days? Isn't that unfair?

    The point is that even £12 isn't a fair charge as it's arbitrary and they can and do claim interest on the 'debt' even if the payment were made late. They should never have been allowed to have your cake and eaten it as well as their own. Don't you agree? People who give in all the time just make me mad, like this :mad:.
  • berniesv
    Options
    I agree with JD Power! Blatant opportunism on the part of the LibDems. They have jumped on the band wagon on a few issues lately and are good at telling the public the xxxxxxxx obvious and they are very unlikely to ever have to make the decision. Pure opportunism in my view. In any case I dont think party leaders should get personally involved in in this type of forum. They could get dragged into all sorts of issues some of which would descend into minutii. Then the first time a reply is not forthcoming they will get criticised for not answering the question. The time involved would be enormous too. However, I think this forum does a fantastic job in measuring consumer attitudes and sometimes getting things done.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.7K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 450K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.3K Life & Family
  • 248.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards