Nick Clegg & David Cameron reply to Bank Charges open letter

Brightness

richwoo wrote: »

Some bank charges may have resulted from an odd accidental overdraft system, but in fact most banks would wave such charges against a customer who regulated their account properly as a rule. The people who have had charges adding up to considerable sums have regularly deliberatly overdrawn. Mr Clegg- "money they so unfairly took from customers."!!!!! What about the money the customers took from the banks without permission - that's theft. I think its quite right that they should pay a penalty and think themselves lucky that they were not prosecuted.

OK then richwoo, would you say that removing monies from a persons bank account to pay direct debits a week before they were due & then 'losing them in the system' was theft too?

That's what happened to me. If my bank had taken them on the the day they were due there would have been ample monies in the account to pay them - even my bank manager was disgusted and annoyed that he no longer has control to refund charges. I have been a customer with this particular bank for over 20 years with no previous problems.

However, this incident then started a spiralling of bank charges as I couldn't keep enough money in the account to pay everything on time. I am also unable to do overtime at work or get a second job as I once would have as I was left disabled by a non fault road accident and am now unable to work - so yeah I hold my hands up to 'stealing from a bank' but they 'stole from me' first and therefore they should put it all right!

I sincerely hope that you are never in a position to be charged a whole month's money in bank charges and wonder where the money to feed your family is coming from :mad:

Brightness

PS: well done on getting the Lib dems on side, Martin. Though I do wonder how they'd actually behave once in power. I think all political parties have a tendency to say what they think we want to hear and then do as they please once in power. Yep, I'm an old cynic LOL

Would be good if Nick Clegg does get something done though :j

glossyhair

Respect to Nick Clegg. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating of course . . . but at least he bothered to answer Martin's letter!!! BTW, why is it such a ridiculous notion that a senior politician would subscribe to the MSE email? I wish more of them would . . . they might pick up a few good policy ideas :-)

Nathan_Spleen

ProfessorX wrote: »

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...... 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..

Non-individually negotiated contracts are not automatically subject to UTCCR. There are various exemptions, in this particular case, 6.2b, which the banks argue apply and it is this legal point the OFT and the courts have to clarify before they are in a position to uphold the law.

natweststaffmember

richwoo wrote: »

Some bank charges may have resulted from an odd accidental overdraft system, but in fact most banks would wave such charges against a customer who regulated their account properly as a rule. The people who have had charges adding up to considerable sums have regularly deliberatly overdrawn. Mr Clegg- "money they so unfairly took from customers."!!!!! What about the money the customers took from the banks without permission - that's theft. I think its quite right that they should pay a penalty and think themselves lucky that they were not prosecuted.

Rich, they might waive the charge for the first occasion but if you make two mistakes they won't even if the amount is as small as 1p, which could come out with best case sceario £30.00 charge and worst case scenario if you do not check your account for a few days would be £94.00.
I don't agree with you synopsis that people deliberately go overdrawn. Nobody deliberately opens a bank account with a view to "misuse and abuse" an account.

thainstone

Hi Martin
I also wrote to the prime minister re-bank charges about 2 months ago and got a reply from his office saying he cannot reply to all letters he receives but that it had been forwarded to the relevent dept.
I got a reply about 3 weeks ago saying charges were on hold until House of Lords makes it's discission in Oct.(Blady,blady blah).
I actually wrote asking why it is that Banks are still allowed to have reclaiming on hold but that they are still allowed to carry on charging us meantime.
Would it not have been fairer to put the charging of these charges on hold aswell so that the people who are claiming are benefiting from it aswell afterall it is tax payers money that is bailing out the banks but we are still struggling financially because of them.
I alone have had another £140.00 of bank charges this month and i am trying through Hardship to get my money back but Halifax are still using the same old it's your fault you have been charged,not ours but we will get our management team to contact you to see if they can help you.If they haven't been able to help me for the past 6 years,what makes them think it will suddenly be different now that i am claiming Hardship.And they obviously didn't read my letter because they suggest getting money help from Citizen's Advise,Debt Management Plans or even PayPlan.......eh hello i told you i'm with PayPlan already.
They just don't care and the Goverment is so scared they will make the banks worse that they keep delaying it.
Why don't the banks repay us with some of their bonuses.........Yeah right,or better still why don't the Goverment set up a payment scheme for us through the Taxpayers(like what they have for the banks)but instead give it back to us as we are all in Hardship now because of them.
Sorry to rant on so but it makes me so so mad.:mad:

natweststaffmember

ProfessorX wrote: »

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.
This is a very good point. The only thing I would add is that the penalty for a breach of UTCCR 1999 is the term does not exist however it is for local national courts to decide how far back that you can reclaim. It may not be that you can go back to 1995 on charges and the court may take the view that you can only go back to Limitations Act(6 years in England/Wales/Northern Ireland and 5 years in Scotland).
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:.

In fact the OFT report on credit card charges OFT 842 states in 1.14 of the report that ONLY a court can decide a fair charge so the £12.00 charge is in itself irrelevant until tested in a court.

Woodsmoke

It's one thing to obtain a refund of illegal bank charges.
It's even better to recover interest charges.
No one seems to have mentioned the recovery of 'compound' interest charges. i.e. the recovery of charges based upon interest upon interest.
These charges are in many cases considerable and should be recoverable.
Please, Martin, keep up the good work.

MrLeeLee

Very interesting reply from Mr Clegg, and has got me all hopeful that i might one day receive a refund of my unlawful bank charges.

natweststaffmember

Woodsmoke wrote: »

It's one thing to obtain a refund of illegal bank charges.
It's even better to recover interest charges.
No one seems to have mentioned the recovery of 'compound' interest charges. i.e. the recovery of charges based upon interest upon interest.
These charges are in many cases considerable and should be recoverable.
Please, Martin, keep up the good work.

There are lots of issues that will be part of the secondary part of the OFT test case. The current House of Lords Apeal by the Banks' is about whether their terms can be assessed for fairness, and the second part of the case still to happen is whether the specific terms are fair.
I think no one has mentioned contractual interest simply because of the KISS principal.