MSE News: Bank charges result next week

TBeckett100

personally, i would expect the banks to take action with the result and draw a line under it. as banks owe the taxpayer and gvt a bob or two, i expect policitical pressure and the banks to shake off the last of this to start a fresh

natweststaffmember

TBeckett100 wrote: »

personally, i would expect the banks to take action with the result and draw a line under it. as banks owe the taxpayer and gvt a bob or two, i expect policitical pressure and the banks to shake off the last of this to start a fresh

can I ask what action they should take if the terms are assessable under UTCCR 1999 for fairness?

berkshirelady

but having read loads of posts on here, I'm convinced that the big banks are ignoring customers in hardship and whacking on loads of charges in an attempt to boost the coffers for as long as possible prior to the court judgement.

Personally, I favour political intervention! (and not of the kind where Alistair Darling pleads with the banks to sort themselves out, and they ignore him too). We elect politicians to make laws, not just say stuff on telly. If I'm right, the nub of this argument is whether banks have been charging the true admin costs of administering unauthorised overdrafts, or making an unholy profit out of it. So I have no problem if the government passes a law that say banks must report on the admin costs involved, and then charge accordingly, to cover their costs and nothing more. If this court shennanigans is based on existing law, then somebody made that law in the first place. So, get in there and change the law!!

adam.lapworth

Hi all,

Just joined this forum but have been checking it for since 2007.

I was just like to make a point which really baffles me is why the banks can have a waiver for not paying back bank charges but the customer doesnt have a waiver for not being charged these excessive bank charges. It's like one rule for one and a rule for everybody else.

Another point I would like to make is that I dont understand why the courts have not just said in the test cases that ' the banks already look guilty because of them already paying out a certain amount of people'.
Surely they can't pay out a few people and then not everyone, that is really disgraceful, it should never have got to court because now the banks have got time to still charge people these huge amounts of bank charges which while in a recession must be 10x more for them and make as much money as possible. What about if the banks win, what happens to the people who have had there charges reclaimed have they got to pay it back to the bank?

It is a total joke how this process is going on especially over such a long period of time.

The economy is down as they say so these bank charges will boost the economy by people buying again so business' will thrive.

Enough of my whinging but it is getting pretty annoying now!!

natweststaffmember

berkshirelady wrote: »

but having read loads of posts on here, I'm convinced that the big banks are ignoring customers in hardship and whacking on loads of charges in an attempt to boost the coffers for as long as possible prior to the court judgement.
I gotta say RBS Group reducing their charges kinda blows that argument out of the water as does Barclays changing their charging structure. Furthermore, charges are the conseuquence of an action and not the catalyst for things going wrong.
Personally, I favour political intervention! (and not of the kind where Alistair Darling pleads with the banks to sort themselves out, and they ignore him too). We elect politicians to make laws, not just say stuff on telly. If I'm right, the nub of this argument is whether banks have been charging the true admin costs of administering unauthorised overdrafts, or making an unholy profit out of it.
The argument you are using is "penalties in law" and that has already gone as a result of the OFT test case already.
So I have no problem if the government passes a law that say banks must report on the admin costs involved, and then charge accordingly, to cover their costs and nothing more. If this court shennanigans is based on existing law, then somebody made that law in the first place. So, get in there and change the law!!

If the Government use legislation only aimed at banks then what about loan companies, catalogue firms. You cannot simply discriminate one business from another. Politicians should keep their noses out of the legal process.

natweststaffmember

adam.lapworth wrote: »

Hi all,

Just joined this forum but have been checking it for since 2007.

I was just like to make a point which really baffles me is why the banks can have a waiver for not paying back bank charges but the customer doesnt have a waiver for not being charged these excessive bank charges. It's like one rule for one and a rule for everybody else.
Have you read this thread? The Supreme Court are deciding if the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 applies to bank charges terms. That means that if it does apply the OFT can apply for an injunction against the banks making charges. There is stays and a waiver because it would ridiculous to hear a case when the law involved has no certainty in law.
Another point I would like to make is that I dont understand why the courts have not just said in the test cases that ' the banks already look guilty because of them already paying out a certain amount of people'.
Not true. They are paying out under financial hardship rules since the law is not clear. There is no guilt in doing so.
Surely they can't pay out a few people and then not everyone, that is really disgraceful, it should never have got to court because now the banks have got time to still charge people these huge amounts of bank charges which while in a recession must be 10x more for them and make as much money as possible.
The OFT test case began realistically on its annoucement in July 2007 when we weren't in the throes of full scale recession.

What about if the banks win, what happens to the people who have had there charges reclaimed have they got to pay it back to the bank?
It's been covered already that the answer is no to repaying it back
It is a total joke how this process is going on especially over such a long period of time.
It's a joke that we continue to fail to explain the process in a manner that you and many others can understand because this is a legal process.
The economy is down as they say so these bank charges will boost the economy by people buying again so business' will thrive.
I don't agree with you on that. A lot of charges may well go back to the bank in terms of accounts dormant but hugely overdrawn, current account overdrawn etc, etc,. Considering some people may still have the fear of losing their job, I doubt they would spend money that may be needed later on.
Enough of my whinging but it is getting pretty annoying now!!

Thank you for not whinging.

teaboy2

natweststaffmember wrote: »

If the Government use legislation only aimed at banks then what about loan companies, catalogue firms. You cannot simply discriminate one business from another. Politicians should keep their noses out of the legal process.

so politicians should keep their noises out of the legal process, should they? Kind of hard when it is infact the politicians that made the law and decide what should be law and what should and should not be legal. All courts and judges do is simiply uphold the law. As time changes the laws sometimes need to be changed. And by the way it was the banks irresponsible lending and use of money that got us in recession more so then that of loan companies which by the way happened to be financed by... Yep you guessed it, banks. So the new laws for banks will have an overall effect on all financial companies to prevent a repeat of the banking collapse.

Also your reference to catalogue firms in the same sentence is somewhat bemusing to me, as they do not infact lend money. they simply allow you to pay a certain amount over time, which may or may not include added interest. perhaps you may want to include all the shops and utility companies that let you pay over a set period or pay in advance for your bills. Your bringing into this thread an argument that companies that do not operate in the same sector as that of the financial institutes, should also be under the same rules. well if thats your case for argument then i suppose those rules would also have to apply to any buisness that was based around the processing of money based transactions, including mine, where i provide goods to customers on a 30 day credit invoice. If that was ever to happen then a lot of harm will be done to a lot of businesses as a result. and would be far worse then the few shops closing in the highstreet that we see in the current recession. So that is why there are different rules for different sectors.

teaboy2

Originally Posted by adam.lapworth
Hi all,

Just joined this forum but have been checking it for since 2007.

I was just like to make a point which really baffles me is why the banks can have a waiver for not paying back bank charges but the customer doesnt have a waiver for not being charged these excessive bank charges. It's like one rule for one and a rule for everybody else.
Have you read this thread? The Supreme Court are deciding if the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 applies to bank charges terms. That means that if it does apply the OFT can apply for an injunction against the banks making charges. There is stays and a waiver because it would ridiculous to hear a case when the law involved has no certainty in law.
Another point I would like to make is that I dont understand why the courts have not just said in the test cases that ' the banks already look guilty because of them already paying out a certain amount of people'.
Not true. They are paying out under financial hardship rules since the law is not clear. There is no guilt in doing so.
Surely they can't pay out a few people and then not everyone, that is really disgraceful, it should never have got to court because now the banks have got time to still charge people these huge amounts of bank charges which while in a recession must be 10x more for them and make as much money as possible.
The OFT test case began realistically on its annoucement in July 2007 when we weren't in the throes of full scale recession.

What about if the banks win, what happens to the people who have had there charges reclaimed have they got to pay it back to the bank?
It's been covered already that the answer is no to repaying it back
It is a total joke how this process is going on especially over such a long period of time.
It's a joke that we continue to fail to explain the process in a manner that you and many others can understand because this is a legal process.
The economy is down as they say so these bank charges will boost the economy by people buying again so business' will thrive.
I don't agree with you on that. A lot of charges may well go back to the bank in terms of accounts dormant but hugely overdrawn, current account overdrawn etc, etc,. Considering some people may still have the fear of losing their job, I doubt they would spend money that may be needed later on.
Enough of my whinging but it is getting pretty annoying now!!

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Thank you for not whinging.

I love this bit as it shows your lack of legal knowledge

"Have you read this thread? The Supreme Court are deciding if the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 applies to bank charges terms. That means that if it does apply the OFT can apply for an injunction against the banks making charges. There is stays and a waiver because it would ridiculous to hear a case when the law involved has no certainty in law."

My point being that, no, the oft would not have to apply for an injunction at all. the reason for that is clear. from what your saying, this is a test case to decide if the legality of the banks charges under the unfair terms in consumer contract regulations 1999. Which has an always will apply to any and all UK banks as it has to all businesses and general public. in fact, it states, in law, that a claiment can only reclaim the actual costs incurred as a result of a contractual breach i.e overdrawn. So once the supreme court has ruled that it does apply to the banks aswell, then the law will have been clarified and the banks will have to either take the next legal course of action to reverse the decision or simply accept they are not above the law. As a result of it being law then the oft will have no need to apply for an injunction to stop banks making such charges as for them to make such charges would in itself be an unlawful act being in breach of consumer contract regulation laws. Or are you forgetting the the contract between the bank is a contract between a consumer and a bank, and therefore consumer law does apply to all terms in such contracts.

but this test case isnt to decide if the charges are fair the case is to decide weather the terms can be assessed for fairness. And when the supreme court rules, and if they rule in favour of the previous courts then the oft will have the power to determine what charges will be fair not the banks. and the only option left to the banks would infact be to take the OFT to court for the court to decide weather the charges actually are fair or weather the court agrees with the OFT that they are not. So basically when the court rules that they can be assessed for fairness then what the OFT says will go, no injucntion required.

Infact the law has always been clear, it has just been the banks ignorance and believe that certain laws, that did not suit them, simply did not apply to them. And that is all the banks argument is about, they are arguing that the charges are fair because it suits there business model.

noh

teaboy2 wrote

in fact, it states, in law, that a claiment can only reclaim the actual costs incurred as a result of a contractual breach i.e overdrawn. So once the supreme court has ruled that it does apply to the banks aswell, then the law will have been clarified and the banks will have to either take the next legal course of action to reverse the decision or simply accept they are not above the law

I thought the court had already decided, that under the T+Cs of most bank accounts, going overdrawn was not a contractual breach so the charges are therefore not penalty charges.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/personal-current-accounts/Bank-charge-judgement2.pdf

teaboy2

noh wrote: »

teaboy2 wrote


I thought the court had already deciced that going overdrawn was not a contractual breach so the charges are therefore not penalty charges.

I am not aware of that so will have to look into that, thanks for the heads up though. But still, it is the view that we are paying a penalty for unplanned borrowing and bounced cheques. so a charge of £30-£40 when the actual cost would to the bank is as little as £2 is hardly fair. it could also be implied, that if going over drawn was not a contractual breach, then why are we being penalised for it when we could just simply repay the cost the bank incurred? i.e. £2 on top of the overdrawn amount.

yes your right in most cases they are deemed to not be penatly charges so it depends on what your accounts terms where prior to that being decided i guess. but the main issue has always been the fairness not weather they were penatly charges or not.