Bank charges

Astaroth

bookworm1363 wrote:

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:

and also:


Do you want to rethink that?

1) BY LAW you can claim a nominal amount for a breach of contract - given you have signed to £20-30 this to me does seem a nominal amount

2) Where has there been a breach of contract? The contract states that if we do you the service of paying a cheque where you dont have the funds to cover it we will charge you £20 for (lets call it) the emergency overdraft. That is not a breach of contract it is a service given at their discretion with the fees set upfront.


Erm... no, I would like you to explain to me why you think it would be the banks fault.... I will give you an easy example to explain it on. Day 1, open a new bank account and get a cheque guarantee limit card for £200. Day 2 deposite £100. Day 3 write a cheque for £150 covered by your card. Now we all know that when that cheque clears you will be £50 overdrawn and pay a fee for that. 3/4 of us here would pay that fee and think ourselves idiots for going over the limit/ promise ourselves we wont do it again. 1/4 of us will cry and stomp our feet and say it isnt fair, our wife has left us and we cant had no choice and so the bank shouldnt charge us. That bit is by the by but how do you add up that you writting a cheque for £50 more than you have in your account is the banks fault?

You say it is surprising that the responsible people havent picked up on 1 of your points, I say it is amazing how 1/2 my messages have been totally ignored by the News of the World/ Sun readers let alone individual points.

Astaroth

lizzie47 wrote:

. as im busy claiming back the STOLEN so called fees

Ohh... you are talking about the fees you had to pay because you had STOLEN some of their money (or attempted to) in the first place?

IvanOpinion

I am actually seeing the dollar signs flashing up in front of my face with the limited intelligence of some people on this thread. You lot are a total walk over .. a marketeers dream.

Lets look at the advice being offered
1. One group of people saying don't worry about it, you can be as incompetent and cavalier with your accounts as you like, the charges are ILLEGAL (sorry I am still laughing at the poster that mentioned 'stolen'), you can always get them back (simply because the bank do not contest them). Rather than spending 5 minutes managing your account like a mature competent adult you can spend hours of stress on the phone and through the courts to get your fines back. The fact that you still end up with no money is irrelevant because at least you didn't pay as many charges.

2, On the other hand the advice (from me) is if you have problems with your account then look around and get an account that suits your purposes. Organise an authorised overdrafts or get a block on the account at zero balance and start managing your money in a more mature and responsible manner. As people often say 'it is my money' therefore start looking after it and stop blaming everybody else that way at the end of each month you may actually have something left.

Which of these pieces of advice is more sound (although I do not have a lot of faith that some people on this thread can see the obvious when it is slapping them in the face).


Lets look at some of the arguments. Back in 1915 some wrinkly old git did something which led to a curly haired women doing somehting in 1984 ... what a load of waffle .. who cares? I am telling you what is going to happen tomorrow .. what is more important? If you want to stay buried in the past then do so .. you will eventually wake up and smell the coffee .. we are in the 21st century not 1915.

How many times have I seen the words 'I don't mind paying charges as long as they are fair' ... a merketeers dream. You have to be very carefull what you wish for because you just might get it.

I think it is fair to charge (e.g.) £100 year to allow anybody to have a current account (to cover the cost of chequebooks, cards, transaction fees, statements, inter bank transfers, computer systems, web sites, call centres, telephone banking, staff and your proportion of paying everybody elses fees that went overdrawn. And of course then it is fair to charge people to use ATMs (after all someone has to pay for equipment, to link it into the network, to develop and maintain the software, people to check and replenish the money, insurance costs for when they get robbed and transaction fees). I assume given the 'fair charges' comments you would be 100% in agreement with this.

Of course these things are less likely to happen than your mortgage rate going up from 4.25% to 4.3% (plus enormous 'booking fees'), your savings rate will drop from 5.01% to 4.9%, your loan rate will go up from 6.4% to 6.75%, you will get a lesser return on your investments and your annuities will be more expensive.

So short term gains of a refund of 50% to 100% of fees that you have incurred will actually result in a bigger long term loss. You may save £20 in fees today but find out that your pension has effectively been reduced by £1 per week for 20 years, or your mortgage actually cost you and addiotnal £1000.

One of the biggest laughable arguments I often hear is people talking about all the transactions being done automatically by computer therefore why do they cost. Just to bring them back to reality .. computers cost money (and big computers cost big money), people have to develop and maintain the software and the hardware, people have to manage the links and ensure 24hour connectivity, not to mention the massive investments in security to try to protect your money ... all this costs.


Unfortunately some people have jumped on a 'cause' and the only thing that is guaranteed when people mention the 'cause' is that common-sense has long since disappeared. Even more unfortunately they are that busy patting themselves on the back over their tiny little victories that they have totally lost site of the bigger picture. Yes they may win the victory that bank charges are reduced however at what cost? The bank will still win the war by maintaining their profits by taking the money from elsewhere .. they still have a duty to their shareholders, and we are all shareholders in some way.

Ivan
.

IvanOpinion

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"

Since I know I am addressing the person that admits to discussin nuclear physics with their daughters rabbits I think I will heed your advice ... you are are obviously much more experienced at idiocy then me.

Ivan

RichyRich

IvanOpinion wrote:

Lets look at some of the arguments. Back in 1915 some wrinkly old git did something which led to a curly haired women doing somehting in 1984 ... what a load of waffle .. who cares?

Thank you Ivan that made me laugh. I've been studying Law for the past two years and what you said then pretty much sums up the entire course so far! Unfortunately I now have to pass several exams based on my knowledge of certain wrinkly old gits and curly haired women and can imagine feeling a pressing need to p!ss myself laughing if the exam paper mentions Lord Denning MR or Philip Cox QC.

Thank you once again...I'm gonna find who the wrinkliest judge was and use your analogies to help me remember the cases.

Take care
Rich

RichyRich

Astaroth wrote:

1) BY LAW you can claim a nominal amount for a breach of contract - given you have signed to £20-30 this to me does seem a nominal amount.

By law you cannot claim a nominal amount for breach of contract. By law you can set a pre-estimate of the costs imposed on you by the breach.

Lets look at a different contract. Let's say I am a construction company and you are a big corporation, and you contract with me to have a new head office built. Offer, acceptance, intention to create legal relations, consideration, ya de ya de ya, we have a contract. I rent machinery, hire workers and generally incur a shedload of expense on the reliance of the contract. Then you changed your mind, i.e. you breached.

Now if I could only claim a nominal amount, I don't know, let's just say £2.50 for argument's sake, what would be the point if I had incurred £10,000 of expenses?

It is true that you cannot claim more than a genuine pre-estimate of the loss incurred (authority is in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company v. New Garage and Motor Company) but it is NOT the case that you can only claim a "nominal" amount for breach of contract (whatever "nominal" is).

dchurch24

Lets look at some of the arguments. Back in 1915 some wrinkly old git did something which led to a curly haired women doing somehting in 1984 ... what a load of waffle .. who cares? I am telling you what is going to happen tomorrow .. what is more important? If you want to stay buried in the past then do so .. you will eventually wake up and smell the coffee .. we are in the 21st century not 1915.

Wow. You really have no idea how the law works at all have you? Perhaps, we should allow murder, robbery and rape now. After all, those laws were set by wrinkly old gits many, many years ago.

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

You mention that the 'big' computers need 'big' money to pay for them. 4 Billion quid per year??? Wake up!! Banks (on average) replace their computer systems every 6 years (I know this as it is published in stockholders reports). 24 Billion quid then. Sure computers and infrastructure costs money - split that cost down over the 20 million bank account holders and you're talking pennies. Still if the bank must have diamond encrusted dumb-terminals with platinum buttons with teams of dancing girls on top of mainframes, then who are we to argue. Strange, but I don't think they do have that sort of 'infrastructure'.

not to mention the massive investments in security to try to protect your money

...and thus the money from penalties, if it is being spent this way, was not designed to be a true reflection of costs if they have enough left over to pay for security in another area of their business, and therefore, UNLAWFUL.

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

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

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.

(so with that in mind, I reiterate my earlier question; if I have to walk around and note down in a little notebook every penny that I spend, then what use is a bank to me?)

I think it is fair to charge (e.g.) £100 year to allow anybody to have a current account (to cover the cost of chequebooks, cards, transaction fees, statements, inter bank transfers, computer systems, web sites, call centres, telephone banking, staff and your proportion of paying everybody elses fees that went overdrawn. And of course then it is fair to charge people to use ATMs (after all someone has to pay for equipment, to link it into the network, to develop and maintain the software, people to check and replenish the money, insurance costs for when they get robbed and transaction fees). I assume given the 'fair charges' comments you would be 100% in agreement with this.

Yes, I would agree. Providing that there is an alternative. If I don't want those services (and I really don't), then I should not (and indeed under the ECHR laws, I cannot) be forced to use or pay for them.

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?

ali82

Why bother with them, some people just can't understand; they are too stuck in their ways. I will still be claiming back my money and I will be encoraging my family and friends to claim back theirs.

It's up to you if you if you wish to sit back and let the banks profit from your misfortunes, I won't infact I will be putting my £3000+ and the 8% towards clearing some bills and into a savings account.

Err my £3000 no £3000, no contest really

Astaroth

RichyRich wrote:

By law you cannot claim a nominal amount for breach of contract. By law you can set a pre-estimate of the costs imposed on you by the breach.

Lets look at a different contract. Let's say I am a construction company and you are a big corporation, and you contract with me to have a new head office built. Offer, acceptance, intention to create legal relations, consideration, ya de ya de ya, we have a contract. I rent machinery, hire workers and generally incur a shedload of expense on the reliance of the contract. Then you changed your mind, i.e. you breached.

Now if I could only claim a nominal amount, I don't know, let's just say £2.50 for argument's sake, what would be the point if I had incurred £10,000 of expenses?

It is true that you cannot claim more than a genuine pre-estimate of the loss incurred (authority is in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company v. New Garage and Motor Company) but it is NOT the case that you can only claim a "nominal" amount for breach of contract (whatever "nominal" is).

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.

Astaroth

dchurch24 wrote:

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

I am surprised that someone who complains that people dont responds to one of their posts then totally ignores a whole post of someone who does respond to it... some would almost say it was because they didnt have an adequate response to it.

The simple fact remains that it is conjecture to state either the contracts are unenforcable or if they are enforcable and legal. There has been no test on what the "correct" fee is for breach of contract and there has been no test on if what we are discussing (such as allowing a customer to spend more money than they have been given prior authorisation for) is a fee for the service ("emergency overdraft") or a penalty clause.

The banks charges hit the irresponsible/ those who cannot select an appropriate product for themselves. I agree it hits the poorest of these hardest because the more afluent (sp) can afford to simply transfer money across to pay off the charges rather than having them snow ball but the question remains, when did banks change from being a profit making organisation answerable to their shareholders into a charity?

I agree that banks could do more to suggest to people that they cant manage their money correctly so prehaps an account without any option for bank charges may be most suitable but I am sure I can count on one hand the number of people posting to this thread who would actually go for one. People like having the ability of setting up direct debits, having credit cards because even for the poor we are in a consumeristic time where people want it now, now, now - the only difference is that we are now moving into a time where people want it now, now, now but then dont want to deal with the consequences of their own actions.