Bank charges

dchurch24

Hardly waffle. Unless the people that wrote these laws in the first place (see Lord Dunedin 1915 ruling) are waffling too. You can have as much access to inacurate information as you like - it won't help. It doesn't help in as much as the figures will be different depending on which method you choose, and it doesn't help that people are skint.

The marketing job that you claim is easy, probably is - the brainwashing machine has gotten to you and you think it's fair for banks to screw people into the ground. Why? Because they have told you so.

I have read your posts, and the point I was putting to bed is that the banks will not be able to charge a monthly fee for each account they offer. So you can rest assured that although the least able of society will no longer be paying for your 'free' banking (let's not forget that we lend our money to these people for next to nothing) you will not have to pay a monthly fee.

...and to answer Yorkshireboys post - yes, I would continue to campaign for transparency - At no point did the OFT say that 12 quid is a fair charge. They merely said that a charge over 12 quid is the point at which they would step in legally. They also said that a charge over 12 quid MAY be lawful, and a charge of less than 12 quid MAY not be lawful depending on the existing age old case law, and that it is for the individual to take action through the courts if they believe a charge is not a true reflection of costs. A court cannot refuse to hear that claim - and it's ubsurd to suggest that they could or indeed, would.

If a case goes to court (and I sincerely hope one does) then the bank will have to put their cards on the table. If they can convince a judge that it costs £11.99 to bounce a direct debit, then fair enough. They are no longer breaking the law.

The whole process is automated - we know this to be fact. Despite the BBA's assurances that the process takes 2 members of staff to NOT pay a direct debit!!!

The lies don't help their cause very much - especially when they are as ridiculous as that one! They also deflect the question onto the question of European banks charging fees. Yes, some do, some don't - I'd simple choose the ones that don't - like any other competitive market. In Holland, most banks charge for a set amount of DD's to be paid. It's around £1.30 per month to pay 15 DD's. Fair - yes, probably. Forcing people into unbearable debt. Not really. But, if you would rather have an extra £15 in your pocket each year and let people commit suicide over debts then it's you that has to live with that.

Sure, the systems have to be paid for - but at an estimates 4 billion quid each year, I would say that unless the banks had huge warehouses full of gold covered, diamond encrusted, Cray supercomputers with platinum buttons and they hire Bill Gates and Larry Ellison to switch them on every day so that they can spew out a few letters each every day, then their costs have been recovered.

moonrakerz

dchurch24 - if I were you I'd give up.

There is a poster on this site who has this on the bottom of each post

"Never argue with an idiot, he'll drag you down to his level and beat you on experience"

They are well represented on this thread !!

See you on a more sensible discussion.

dchurch24

Ivanopinion wrote:

Maybe it is time that people who obviously can not be trusted to run a simple account had that privilege taken away from them. Let them go back to keeping cash under their mattresses until they prove they can run an account in a sensible manner.

Thank you - that is exactly what I'm campaigning for.

I would love to have that option - and believe me, I would keep it in a shoebox (albeit a small one ;-) ) under my bed and take my chances with the honest thieves.

What amazes me even more is that people are stupid enough to select a product that obviously does not meet their needs, they are stupid enough (or dishonest?) to agree in writing to pay a level of charges

Ok, so I know I'm wasting my time, but I actually enjoy arguments that I can only win.

Since 1984 the employees right to choose how they were paid was taken away and given to the employer. Most employers, rather than pay a security firm to bring lots of money to a work place, would rather pay BACS. This means that I have no choice but to have a bank account. ALL banks make these unlawful charges (maybe a case for price fixing - they all claim it's for a "service" after all).

So tell me. Where is the 'selection' that you talk of? Where is the choice? Nowhere.

The sheer fact that they ALL make these charges makes it illegal under the Unfair Terms (contracts) Act of 1977. There is nowhere to go that does not do this.

(arguably there hasnt even been a case to see if these are penalty clauses or simply handling fees)

Well sort of. There was a case recently (well two actually) where judgment was obtained by default. In both instances there was quite a lot of media interest and so the bank had to be seen to take the 'hard-line'.

They applied for an overturning hearing and got one (on the grounds that they didn't receive the court papers - hmmmm...yeah, ok then.).

At the hearing, the judge had no choice but to overturn the default - although in both cases he made it clear that he did not believe that the banks didn't receive the documents. A judge can (and usually does) make a judgement on whether the case would succeed in a new hearing. This goes on record - it's not just a thing the judge happens to say.

In both cases, the judge ruled that although one of them (the first case) claimed that the charges were for a service, he believed that they were using an age old legal technique called 'cloaking a penalty' and that in a re-hearing the banks would lose as the charges are clearly penalties.

Subsiquent cases can (and should) make reference to these cases.



If I had the choice - believe me, I would keep it far, far away from a bank.

Their primary objective is to make money - on that we agree. I would rather they did it with your money than mine, but alas, I have not got that choice.



Personally, I don't think that the banks are going to drop their charges because of the OFT announcement. What I think they'll do is claim that there was no proper investigation (true, of sorts) and will fight it in the courts for about the next 2-3 years.

That would net them about 12 billion quid - surely it's worth them spending a few million on lawyers and stalling tactics for the next 2-3 then ;-) ?

Astaroth

I am amazed at how many articulate people here are being brainwashed with words like illegal by the tabloid papers and dont even realise it.

A question to the brainwashed (the ones that say what the banks do are wrong and people shouldnt have to be responsible for your actions in case you still dont realise that the tabloids dont make stories out of nothing)

My recent new account stated (and I paraphrase):
If you attempt to pay a DD when you have insufficient funds you will have to pay a 25% fee
If you transfer a balance to the card you will pay a 3% fee

Now, why do you believe that the £25 fee for my mismanagement of my funds is "illegal" (correct to unenforcable if you want to use the correct term) but the 3% transfer "fee" (or penalty as another way of looking at it) is perfectly legal? If I transfer a balance of £10,000 it does not cost my bank £300 but you think this is ok? Likewise if I had a loan and settled the loan early I may have to pay 2 months interest in fees/ early redemption penalty - how is this different?




dchurch24 - if you say you have a very good wage but have to use a credit card to buy petrol to get to work then it would strongly suggest that you are living beyond your means. That is your choice and I have no issues with that but it is your choice. 5 years ago I and my partner earned £12k each a year (certainly not what I would consider even a good wage let alone your very good - obviously no benefits coming in either before anyone suggests that) and we had no credit at all and were able to put money away each month into savings. Again this is not criticism of you but you cannot blame a bank for your choice to spend more money than you have coming in - take responsibility?

dchurch24

Ok, I'll bite.

Illegal - yes, under the 1977 regs it would be "obtaining a pucuniary advantage by deception" - A criminal offence (however proceedings would have to bought against a person for this to work).

The 1915 Lord Dunnedin ruling is in case law - therefore, unlawful.

You are almost correct in what you say regarding that wording.

However, you are quite correct - I am living beyond my means.

I wasn't - my wage was good. Now, my mortgage has gone up (due to unlawful activities of my broker, but that's a different story - there are two bits of paper, the one I have and was signed by me, and oddly another similar bit of paper that they have, strangly a photocopy of one signed by me that say slightly different things, but I digress).

My council tax has risen more than anyone elses in the country 3 years on the trot (you should be able to work out where I live from that one).

Petrol has risen at a devastating rate.

...and bank charges have risen on average 37.5% in the last 3 years.

So, is it my fault that I am now living beyond my means? I certainly wasn't - I was living well within my means.

My employer cannot afford to raise wages to meet it simply because their rates/charges etc.. have also risen.

Is this circumstance or something that I have done?

It's largly circumstance - I am not extravagent, and I'm prepared to take most of it on the chin. I WILL NOT have someone profiteering from my misfortune, and luckily there are laws to stop that from happening. I have invoked those laws and publicised them so that no-one else has to be penalised because of circumstance.

The OFT were/are there to protect us from unfair trading - it wasn't until our protest outside their fleet street HQ that they actually got off their back-side and made a statement.

I publicised it here - and I also went on national tv several times and wrote articles for the Guardian and the Mail's website in the hope of reaching as many people as possible.

I think I've done a pretty good job so far.

Now, why do you believe that the £25 fee for my mismanagement of my funds is "illegal" (correct to unenforcable if you want to use the correct term) but the 3% transfer "fee" (or penalty as another way of looking at it) is perfectly legal? If I transfer a balance of £10,000 it does not cost my bank £300 but you think this is ok? Likewise if I had a loan and settled the loan early I may have to pay 2 months interest in fees/ early redemption penalty - how is this different?

No offence but the question shows that you do not understand - no problem.

The transfer fee is for a service - it's agreed up front and it may well cost the bank something along those lines - not that this matters, it is for a service - you are not being penalised for a breach of contract.

If you settle a loan early, you will have to pay interest up to a point that your breach will have cost the company - they will have lost your interest payments for you terminating the contract - perfectly fair and legal (or lawful if you like).

There is a subtle difference, but a difference nethertheless.

Astaroth

The problem of case law against statute is that case law is much more open to interpritation and after 4 years of claims handling I am well aware that for each piece of case law you can typically find half a dozen cases which have a different conclusion.

At the end of the day the current arguements over bank charges have not been defended/ appeal to a higher court and therefore ultimately people are simply speculating on what the conclusion would be or simply their own opinion/ the opinion they have been given.

The one thing I do agree about the MSE website on bank charges is that the banks will typically not want to go to court (at least not at the moment where contests to the charges are a fairly small proportion). Whilst this does mean that the current cases are being "won" by the customers it is on the grounds of no contest rather than a meaningful court case.

You state that a transfer is a service which you agree to the fee upfront for... is not the lending you £50 (hyperthetically) to cover a cheque that you didnt have funds to cover a service too? and your signing the contract stating you will pay a £25 fee for going over your overdraft limit also you agreeing to it?

Of cause writting a cheque when you know you dont have the funds to cover it is fraud so if they were to give you the choice... £25 to get an "emergency overdraft extention" (a service) or you refuse this and we bounce the cheque at cost (as you state that it should be done) then by choosing for it to bounce you would be putting yourself in a dangerous place.


As I say, I was not judging your situation as I didnt know anything about it but I would be surprised if it is a banks fault in the first place - if it is then that is what the FOS is there to rectify but there are many here who seem to think if their husbands leave them or their house burns down the banks owe them unauthorised borrowing which I stongly disagree with. Yes a bank may worsen it by applying fees but people know the consequences and banks are not a charity, the majority are PLC companies which have shareholders demanding profits.

dchurch24

moonrakerz wrote:

dchurch24 - if I were you I'd give up.

There is a poster on this site who has this on the bottom of each post

"Never argue with an idiot, he'll drag you down to his level and beat you on experience"

They are well represented on this thread !!

See you on a more sensible discussion.

I see that you were correct. I should have heeded your advice.

I give up - some people will never be able to grasp the distinction - thank God they are not lawyers.

bookworm1363

Funny how none of the pro-bank lobby has picked up on what I said earlier, so I'll say it again, because it's the simplest and easiest to understand:

Fact: The "wronged" party (in this instance, the bank) is BY LAW not allowed to make a profit of your breach (going over your limit). They are BY LAW entitled to recover their genuine costs incurred by your breach of their T&Cs, and that's all.
It's really that simple.

So, when you say:

Yes a bank may worsen it by applying fees but people know the consequences and banks are not a charity, the majority are PLC companies which have shareholders demanding profits.

and also:

I would be surprised if it is a banks fault in the first place

Do you want to rethink that?

lizzie47

Well...Having come back to reply to Ivan seems im to late..never mind
So..Thankyou .Bookworm.Dchurch24.Ali82.Loop.moonrakerz..Very well put.

Ivan..Astaroth..I rest my case .was not going to continue for to long on this thread. as im busy claiming back the STOLEN so called fees
p.s well done Elsie
see all you thanked people on consumer site

Pip Pip Lizzie x
Whoops nearly forgot An adjective "informed" ivan.
Thanks to above "thanked "people.:T :T :T :T :T :T :T

lizzie47

Any one wanting to be further informed or claim back your charges should click on Bookworms link on the bottom of the posts and join the brilliant "Consumer action group"also try "Bankchargeshell"and "penaltycharges" there you will find support

Lizzie