Bank charges

ali82

Astaroth, why are the banks settling then, if their charges are not unlawful why don't they defend them and explain how they are worked out so they can put an end to the matter?

RichyRich

Astaroth wrote:

Having just checked my Chartered Institute of Insurers Legal Manual - they do catagorical state that a nominal amount can be charged. Now unless a book that is used world wide to teach people in insurance/ universities etc about english law is wrong then I have no reason to disbelieve them.

I am not stating that you can only charge a nominal amount where you have liquidated losses that are greater but where the actual losses are 0 or basically 0 (the example they quote is ordering an item from store A who breaches the contract and you then have to order it from store B which charges the identical price - your actual loss is what? 30 seconds to cancel the order with A and 30 seconds to order with B but a breach of contract has occured) that a nominal award can be made.

Please can you cite some legal authority for this? An Act of Parliament or Case - not some handbook. The handbook should state the authority if it says that. If it doesn't, it's not worth the paper it's written on.

IvanOpinion

dchurch24 wrote:

Wow. You really have no idea how the law works at all have you?

I don't need to care because there seems to be one born every minute willing to hand over vast sums of money due to their own incompetence. There are enough ambulance chasers out there pretending they care.

The simple fact remains that the banks are in breach of basic contract law (as well as a whole host of other laws).

.. but only because their customers have breached their side of the deal.

Their breaches of the law have the effect of hurting the least well off more than anyone else, therefore, also very unfair and not very civilised. We, apparently, live in a civilised society.

It is better than it used to be were people were left with no choice but to run into the arms of loan sharks.

You mention that ...

Lets take your figures 24 billion IT over 6 years with 20 million customers. That works out at £200 per customer per year and that is before building, heating, lighting, printing, staff and other costs are taken into account. I am guessing your definition of pennies and my differs significantly (maybe thats why you have problems with your bank balances ). I should also mention that customers are generally counted as 'accounts' (not sure in this case) but, assuming so, if you have a current account, a savings account, a credit card, a mortgage and an ISA that could be £1000 per customer per year to purely to cover IT costs.

We live in a society where competition exists - do you really think that rates are going to go up across the board? Grow up!

I like the 'grow up' bit .. you still haven't figured out that I KNOW what at least one bank is doing and what some others are planning. I also KNOW what certain other companies are doing ... its is all smoke and mirrors, they will give with one hand and take it straight back with the other (e.g. the simplest example I have seen (and that I can state outside of non-disclosure agreements) is they reduce mortgage rates but slap on massive 'booking fees') ... if you can not understand that simple concept then

The 'bigger picture' as you put it, is that peoples lives are being destroyed because of banks' greed.

This is the flaw in the argument. Their lives are not being destroyed by the banks they are being destroyed due to their own lack of money management skills .. maybe the banks should turn them away at the door (but that would be a real step back in time). As is usual in this society we will try to find somebody else to blame for our own mistakes ... adults have to at some point take responsibility for their actions or lack of them.

FACT: You cannot get accurate balances out of the 'many' means 'available' to customers. Abbey admit that their Internet banking does not update from Friday through to Monday morning is just one example.

FACT: everybody has a brain that is capable of subtracting a couple of numbers.

Just like any other business. I shouldn't be forced to buy paint from Homebase if I don't need or want it. So, if I don't want or need 'services' from a bank, why should I be forced into buying them?

However I notice you skirted around my queries
1. What is the difference between a bank fine and a police fine? Apart from you never signed the T&C for the police
2. Who is offering the best money saving advice? The person saying handle your finance whatever way you like or the person saying to choose the best product. Just crossed my mind, maybe you are a lawyer, so it could be quite a lucrative revenue stream for you ...mmmmm :think: )

I don't know why you think there isn't choice out there .. maybe you should do a bit of research instead of giving advice that makes the hole that some people are in even bigger.

Ivan

stugib

IvanOpinion wrote:

However I notice you skirted around my queries
1. What is the difference between a bank fine and a police fine? Apart from you never signed the T&C for the police

Ummm, one has the power to impose fines as laid out by parliament to act as a deterrent against behaviour harmful to society. The other has no power to impose 'fines' or punish people other than what they make up in the contract with the motive of maximising profits. Those charges have been shown to be unfair which is why people are claiming them back.

I still don't understand your logic of 'banks want to make profit therefore they are entitled to charge whatever they like'. Other industries have been curbed when their profiteering goes too far, and they can be too.

The banks aren't doing too badly for all this outlay on IT are they?

IvanOpinion wrote:

Just crossed my mind, maybe you are a lawyer, so it could be quite a lucrative revenue stream for you ...mmmmm

Let's not get into ulterior motives when you've been rattling off how much banks are spending on IT and you've said you're indirectly involved in banking IT!

Astaroth

ali82 wrote:

Astaroth, why are the banks settling then, if their charges are not unlawful why don't they defend them and explain how they are worked out so they can put an end to the matter?

Well for 1 - these claims are going through the small track of the courts and therefore solicitors fees cannot be claimed....

You may well be happy to represent yourself in court but a bank will use a barrister - how much a day do you think a barrister costs? More than the average £200 of fees people are claiming? (I dont know the average amount but I suspect it is less than the couple of thousand a day barristers charge)

It is very simple maths - the cost of defending the claim is greater than the cost of just paying it. The volume of cases proportionally is tiny and therefore not worth a significant investment to win a test case. Even if a test case was won then they would still have to pay the a barrister to go to court to simply say "as per Irresponsible -v- HBOS Plc the charges are legal" - but even this minor work is probably more than most cases are worth.

Whilst you may do things out of principle banks run on the basis of business risk and profitability.

ali82

I can see the very simple math's, it doesn't take a genius to work that out. It still doesn't change the fact that bank charges are not legally enforceable if they are penalties. Penalty clauses in contracts in English (and Scottish) law for breach of contract are not legal if the penalty exceeds the actual cost of the breach of either party... so all penalties should be in line with cost.

They don't want to go to court because they are scared that they will lose which they most probably will. Simple

ali82

:rotfl: 'Strategy Manager (Bank/ Insurer) ' should have guessed!

Astaroth

You would first of all have to prove they are a penalty clause and not a simple fee.

"we pay a cheque that you dont have funds to cover (aka we give you some non-preauthorised borrowing) and we will charge you £25 for this" - you decide to write a cheque that there is insufficient funds to cover either through ignorance, honest mistake or intentionally (as I know I did as a student more than once) and you get charged the fee that you signed up for.

A clause that costs money is not automatically a penalty clause - a cash withdrawl on a credit card also carries both a significant up front charge which is disproportionate to the cost to the bank and also an ongoing charge (APR) which is again disproportionate to the cost of the lending of money. People through ignorance, mistake and deliberate action also withdraw money from an ATM on their credit card not knowing of the charge (but they did sign up to it in the terms and conditions as you do with the unauthorised credit on any bank product) and yet people arent crying out that this is illegal.

Personally I cannot see the difference between these 2 examples and therefore do not agree that one of them is legal/ enforcable/ OTT and the other is not legal/ enforcable.

Astaroth

ali82 wrote:

'Strategy Manager (Bank/ Insurer) ' should have guessed!

I do not hide what my career is nor which sector I work in. I choose not to name my employers as I purely represent myself here and not my employers.

If you look through my posts you will note that I support banks/ insurers on some topics and criticise them on others. I am here to help people and to express my personal opinion and not to "tow the company line" - to be perfectly honest, I have no idea of what our companies possition is on this topic as I have for the last few years been working almost exclusively with our insurance brands :A

The only thing I will not do is answer questions like "who is the best insurance company?" or "what do you think of X Insurance?" as my opinion would almost certainly be accused of being biased. :A

Would you prefer that I didnt state that I worked for a banking group and then promote my employers services left right and centre?

ali82

No need to hide your career path; it just explains a few things now that I know you work within that industry.

Question: Does it cost a bank £39 to not authorise my transaction of £2 if I am up to my £50 O/D limit?