Halifax Extortionate Bank Charge! Please Help

DOLPHIN_2

It's actually just happened to me too. I exceeded my overdraft (not by much as it happens) I've had three letters and the've not paid 4 direct debits and for each one unpaid they've charged me £35.00 each making a total of £140.00. I've actually had a refund from the purchase that put me over the limit. i'm waiting to see what happens as I can ill afford to lose £140.00

TJKNMack

I too had an Halifax E-mail this morning...

I've got £100 overdraft which I had to stop 2 months ago being increased to £800 without my permission

On 22nd I'm £13-99 into my overdraft leaving £86-01 available
There's nothing outstanding or payable until 28th when I pay my Orange mobile contract at £15-00
Due to personal reasons I've gone over my minutes & Orange 'shaft me' £86-25, leaving me 24 PENCE over my £100 overdraft limit...
Yep, £35 for going over & £28 for the 'honour' of them lending me 24 pence !!

In 18+ years of banking with them I've had 1 charge which after digging my heals in I managed to get deleted
Speaking to them there's no way they can remove this charge
I'm well miffed as you can imagine £63 for 24 pence is beyond extortion !!

My argument is...
Ok, I'll accept I went over my limit & I'll pay the £35 (not happy obviously)
But...
WHO (I didn't) gave them permission to pay the DD knowing it would cost me £28 for 24 pence ?
I've asked this & the excuses are "You have a direct debit contract to Orange & you must be sure you have the funds", "it's a service we provide to people who do this regularly" & "It's at our discreation as to the amount we'll pay over your overdraft limit"
I wasn't contacted asking if I wanted 24p for £28 ?
I've explained I'd have liked the option of paying Orange 'over the counter' in stead of being charged but it falls on deaf ears

Incidently I now (2 days later) have over £200 in there with the futher £100 OD if I need it

Anyone know how I stand about the £28 for 24p considering I set my limit at £100 & THEY chose to break it ?

Advice appreciated

Blakey1982

TJKN - i agree with you. For a company that boasts about being better for the customer with interest rates etc to have these charges so high and for such a small offence is ridiculous.

I mean thats quite literally putting its customers in financial hardship!!!

As soon as the test case goes a little further i'm going to be requesting all the fines and charges that have been applied to get refunded to me. I'm trying to keep track of what is going on but there is a lot of jargon involved.

I wish someone could say - if the test case is proved to favour the customer then you will get X refunded, otherwise it stays as it is now - i dont really understand what will happen.

Will banks automatically refund charges or do you have to apply - or will the case just abolish future charges??

jambosans

TJKNMack wrote: »

I too had an Halifax E-mail this morning...

I've got £100 overdraft which I had to stop 2 months ago being increased to £800 without my permission

If you had allowed the increase you wouldn't have been charged.

TJKNMack wrote: »

In 18+ years of banking with them I've had 1 charge which after digging my heals in I managed to get deleted
Speaking to them there's no way they can remove this charge
I'm well miffed as you can imagine £63 for 24 pence is beyond extortion !!

They would waive the charge as goodwill if you haven't previously had goodwill on that account. Seeing they are refusing to do so, this means, you've had charges back before.

TJKNMack wrote: »

My argument is...
Ok, I'll accept I went over my limit & I'll pay the £35 (not happy obviously)
But...
WHO (I didn't) gave them permission to pay the DD knowing it would cost me £28 for 24 pence ?

You did give permission, through your agreement (signing) of the terms and conditions. If you have a Direct Debit setup on your account, that is an instruction to pay on demand to Orange. If there are insufficient funds in the account and the amount will take you over, Halifax will treat this payment as an informal request for an overdraft. Just like an arranged overdraft Halifax will either accept or decline the use of an unauthorised overdraft. In this instance they have allowed you to go overdrawn, which costs you £28 per month (regardless of the amount).

TJKNMack wrote: »

I wasn't contacted asking if I wanted 24p for £28 ?

This would be completely impractical, considering the automation of Direct Debits etc. Just to quote your terms and conditions:-

4. You may make an informal request for an Unarranged Overdraft, by instructing us to make a payment which, if we chose to comply with it, would make your account exceed (or further exceed) its overdraft limit or, if you have no Arranged Overdraft, cause your account to be overdrawn (or further overdrawn). (Unless we have guaranteed to a third party that we will make the payment, we do not have to comply with an informal request for an Unarranged Overdraft.)

Having the Direct Debit mandate setup on your account is an instruction to pay. So as far as Halifax are concerned, they do have your permission to allow the account to go over in to an unauthorised overdraft.

TJKNMack wrote: »

Anyone know how I stand about the £28 for 24p considering I set my limit at £100 & THEY chose to break it ?

Just to clarify, you chose to "break it", not Halifax. The Direct Debit to Orange is an instruction from you to pay on demand. So if Halifax are willing (which is not up to you, as you have already requested it paid) they will allow the account to go into an unauthorised overdraft.

Like I've said before, you can ask them to waive the charges if this is a first time offence, but if Halifax have refused, this suggests you've had charges back before.

The only other option is to go down the Reclaims.

On a final note, I'm not arguing that charging for going £0.24 overdrawn is fair, this is another issue. I'm merely pointing out to you the position of Halifax as stipulated in your terms and conditions.

jambosans

Blakey1982 wrote: »

I wish someone could say - if the test case is proved to favour the customer then you will get X refunded, otherwise it stays as it is now - i dont really understand what will happen.

This will not happen. The Test Case is to decided whether or not the Office of Fair Trading can assess the fairness of charges under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations. It is widely accepted that if the O.F.T. are able to do this, then they will assess bank charges to be unfair. This would mean that all previous charges are void under these regulations and should be refunded.

Blakey1982 wrote: »

Will banks automatically refund charges or do you have to apply - or will the case just abolish future charges??

I don't think banks will automatically refund charges (I personally can see any O.F.T. decision ending up in court also), and would imagine you have to claim them back. However claiming may be made easier as if the O.F.T. have judged them unfair then the banks will not want matters going as far as court.

Finally, it will not abolish future charges. Banks will have to adjust their charges, but they will still exist in one form or another. They certainly won't be as much that's for sure.

natweststaffmember

jambosans wrote: »

This will not happen. The Test Case is to decided whether or not the Office of Fair Trading can access the fairness of charges under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations. It is widely accepted that if the O.F.T. are able to do this, then they will access bank charges to be unfair. This would mean that all previous charges are void under these regulations and should be refunded.



I don't think banks will automatically refund charges (I personally can see any O.F.T. decision ending up in court also), and would imagine you have to claim them back. However claiming may be made easier as if the O.F.T. have judged them unfair then the banks will not want matters going as far as court.

Finally, it will not abolish future charges. Banks will have to adjust their charges, but they will still exist in one form or another. They certainly won't be as much that's for sure.

Quite bizarre I spotted the penultimate paragraph:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8284405.stm
For the FOI request you can read it here:
http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?p=130458#post130458

jambosans

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Quite bizarre I spotted the penultimate paragraph:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8284405.stm
For the FOI request you can read it here:
http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?p=130458#post130458

Apologies, I'm not sure if you are picking me up on something, or just pointing me to an interesting read (thanks BTW).

If you are referring to my penultimate paragraph which I stated:- "I don't think banks will automatically refund charges (I personally can see any O.F.T. decision ending up in court also)," This was based on the assumption (as stated) that any decision the O.F.T. make on the fairness of charges will end up back in court, so the Test Case result doesn't necessarily indicate an automatic refund. The BBC article also seems to suggest this:-

If the OFT's authority is upheld, it could lead to a second round of court hearings about the actual level of fees that might be regarded as fair.

natweststaffmember

jambosans wrote: »

Apologies, I'm not sure if you are picking me up on something, or just pointing me to an interesting read (thanks BTW).

If you are referring to my penultimate paragraph which I stated:- "I don't think banks will automatically refund charges (I personally can see any O.F.T. decision ending up in court also)," This was based on the assumption (as stated) that any decision the O.F.T. make on the fairness of charges will end up back in court, so the Test Case result doesn't necessarily indicate an automatic refund. The BBC article also seems to suggest this:-

Definitely not picking you up on something but that the BBC article is drawn from a Legal Beagles freedom of information request which means that automatic payback will already have been discussed with the banks by the OFT(as obviously all banks have to have plans for all eventualities of the OFT test case issues). I should emphasise that in my posts I always use the word OFT Test Case issues since as I think we both know the current part of the litigation is only the 50% part of the case and it is the next piece of litigation(if needed) that will dictate refunds, how far back. which terms are unfair/fair, and furthermore how much can be charged.
If the Banks' lose the current litigation issue on assessment of terms the consequences of secondary litigation is mind blowing.

Blakey1982

Anyone got an idea on a timeline for this and if we should claim now or wait??

natweststaffmember

Blakey1982 wrote: »

Anyone got an idea on a timeline for this and if we should claim now or wait??

Always claim now and get the claims in now regardless of whether a bank reduces charges or not because the cost is not the issue at the moment but the term that brings charges.