Call To Boycott Alliance & Leicester

Tootsie_Roll

moonrakerz wrote:

1. I did not say the bank's Ts & Cs are unlawful. However,some of the bank's Ts & Cs are unfair in Law.

2. The charges the banks levy are unlawful. They do not refelect the loss they may have incurred.

3. The banks have already repaid vast sums of money to customers, I know legal advice is expensive but the banks could have saved a lot of money by taking ONE person to Court and fighting (and winning !!) their corner. They haven't - because they know they would lose. Just ONE victory in Court by any bank would stop all the claims dead in their tracks ! Draw your own conclusions.

4. I AM NOT saying it is OK to overdraw etc, etc, - if you had read some of my earlier posts on this subject you would see that.

5. I DO NOT end up with a free overdraft - I have never incurred a single bank charge in my life. Don't make assertions that you cannot support.

6. I obey the Law, I would just like the banks to do so as well ! Why do you seem to think it is OK for the banks not to ? If I tried to pull a fast one on them, they would be down on me like a ton of bricks !

7. You state: "Try getting stuff from any shop for free and see where it gets you!"
It gets me in Court because it is Unlawful to steal - why do you condone the banks "stealing" from their customers ? Perhaps because you think it may benefit you ?

8. I agree that the Law might need changing (a la Francais), but until it is you (and me) are stuck with it. The basic problem is that Contract Law (which is what governs your dealings with the banks) was written years ago for large contracts, not millions of day-to-day small transactions with banks.
Putting posts on this, or other websites, will not change anything - write to your MP, write to Tony Blair and tell them the Law needs changing. I have recovered money (for someone else) and am in the process of another recovery. When I am done, I intend to write to my MP and the OFT about what the banks are doing. If something happens, and the Law is changed so that a £35 (or £500!) charge for bouncing a cheque is Lawful, I don't have a problem. At least it is transparent and everyone can see what is going on.

Could I just make a comment on Grumbler's post as well -

"to get rid of customers that don't bring to the bank anything but trouble" .
If you thought about it for a minute, you would see that the banks want people who overdraw, bounce cheques etc, etc, they make billions from them. What they don't want is people who stand up for their legal rights.

A comment on surfcat's post:
"it's just A&L have had the guts to stand up for themselves first"
If A & L had guts, why haven't they appeared in Court ?, why have NONE of the banks appeared in Court. Closing people's accounts is the only Lawful thing they have done AND it is an admission of defeat.

A common thread from the posts supporting the banks is that these "sinners" who reclaim chrges are some how depriving the "honest" of something - I could be tempted to put it another way - perhaps the people who don't incur charges (Myself included !) are sponging off those who do incur charges.

A post full of contradictions - either it's breaking the law or it isn't, make your mind up.

domestic_goddess

The debate should not be around whether or not the charges are unlawful because they are without a doubt unlawful. It is unlawful to charge a penalty amount - the banks are only allowed by law to charge reasonable costs. Some banks charge up to thirty nine pound for a returned direct debit as this is way more than the charges they have incurred themselves it is classed as unlawful.

I do agree that we need to keep a better check on our finances and that if we had the funds in the bank they would have no reason to charge us but not all charges are through our own fault. What about when wages go in late? Most people have direct debits set up to go out on or around payday. So if pay is late then that could mean numerous returned direct debits.

5 returned direct debits if you banked with Halifax would cost £195. So next month when they take those charges you are down bu nearly £200. The direct debits bounce because you have paid do much in charges - The snowball effect.

People who do abuse the banks system (ie) writing out cheques they know will bounce, going over their overdraft repeatedly for no apparent reason need to have a good luck at their own finances but still even for them they should not be charged such high amounts as the charges are unlawful.

Most banks will probably follow the credit card companies and reduce their charges at some point. Who knows how they will make up for it? I would be happy to pay £10 banking fee and know that everyone is treated equally and lawfully.

---lee---

sickofhavingnomoney wrote:

What about when wages go in late?

If your employer pays you later than your contracted date, any costs incurred as a result of this with your bank should be repaid by your employer.

YorkshireBoy

---lee--- wrote:

If your employer pays you later than your contracted date, any costs incurred as a result of this with your bank should be repaid by your employer.

Your employer can't correct late payment markers on your credit report though.

My advice would be to set your DD's etc to be collected at least a week after your normal pay day. This way, at least you may have a chance to fund the account from somewhere else if your salary is late.

Aark

A post full of contradictions - either it's breaking the law or it isn't, make your mind up.

It depends on what you mean by "the law" on whether it's being broken or not.

If you shoplift, you are committing theft - a criminal offence - and can be prosecuted. Banks putting charges for unauthorised overdrafts in their Terms & Conditions are not committing a criminal offence and are not breaking criminal law.

However, in civil law there is legislation or case law which appears to make these clauses in the contract void and unenforceable. This is different and means that the individual wronged has to sue to recover their losses. I say "appears" as the Tonight programme says that no binding precedent has been set by the Courts in any actual cases, people are just working on the assumption that these charges are penalty clauses.

[Deleted User]

I have tried A +L and don`t like anything about them. I have arranged to close my three accounts and my DH is also closing his 3 accounts. We are in the process of withdrawing several £k

gingerdad

Im happy to boycott them, not because of this but because their service is crap, and have moved my account.

GD

Rafter

How do you think Alliance and Leicester are able to offer some of the best savings and loans rates around and their juicy current account offers?

1) They are prepared to sacrifice margin to build market share from the big banks in the hope that when they adjust rates in the future, inertia will mean that customers won't switch.

2) They are often at the top of the table for sharp charging policies, expensive PPI and other charges which also fund their deals.

I guess they are very scared right now. They have a smaller margin to cushion themselves if bank charges are regulated and they know if they reduce rates to protect income they will lose customers in droves.

R.

jonesMUFCforever

moonrakerz wrote:

1. I did not say the bank's Ts & Cs are unlawful. However,some of the bank's Ts & Cs are unfair in Law.

>>>>>>>What does unfair in law mean? Tesco opening a big shop forcing corner shops to close is unfair but it is not unlawful

2. The charges the banks levy are unlawful. They do not refelect the loss they may have incurred.

>>>>>>> This has yet to be tested in a court of law.There is a difference between unlawful and unenforceable.

3. The banks have already repaid vast sums of money to customers, I know legal advice is expensive but the banks could have saved a lot of money by taking ONE person to Court and fighting (and winning !!) their corner. They haven't - because they know they would lose. Just ONE victory in Court by any bank would stop all the claims dead in their tracks ! Draw your own conclusions.

>>>>>>>>>>>>I quite agree with you on this.

4. I AM NOT saying it is OK to overdraw etc, etc, - if you had read some of my earlier posts on this subject you would see that.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>Fair enough.

5. I DO NOT end up with a free overdraft - I have never incurred a single bank charge in my life. Don't make assertions that you cannot support.

>>>>>>>>>> Fine you like me follow the T&C of any accounts held - how would you feel it free banking was suddenly withdrawn because the banks had to make up the income lost due to the actions of those who don't follow the rules?

6. I obey the Law, I would just like the banks to do so as well ! Why do you seem to think it is OK for the banks not to ? If I tried to pull a fast one on them, they would be down on me like a ton of bricks !

>>>>>>>>>> What is your definition of pulling a fast one? If you open an account and you get a tariff which states that if you exceed an agreed overdraft then you will be charged £xx per items to be bounced - who is trying to pull a fast one? the customer or the bank?

7. You state: "Try getting stuff from any shop for free and see where it gets you!"
It gets me in Court because it is Unlawful to steal - why do you condone the banks "stealing" from their customers ? Perhaps because you think it may benefit you ?

>>>>>>>>>They are not stealing (well ok one banker did for £21m or so)or the police would be banging down the doors to arrest us.

8. I agree that the Law might need changing (a la Francais), but until it is you (and me) are stuck with it. The basic problem is that Contract Law (which is what governs your dealings with the banks) was written years ago for large contracts, not millions of day-to-day small transactions with banks.
Putting posts on this, or other websites, will not change anything - write to your MP, write to Tony Blair and tell them the Law needs changing. I have recovered money (for someone else) and am in the process of another recovery. When I am done, I intend to write to my MP and the OFT about what the banks are doing. If something happens, and the Law is changed so that a £35 (or £500!) charge for bouncing a cheque is Lawful, I don't have a problem. At least it is transparent and everyone can see what is going on.

>>>>>>>>>>Get an up to date tariff from your bank and you will find all the details that you require.


We will have to agree to disagree on some points.

moonrakerz

ejones999 wrote:

moonrakerz wrote:

We will have to agree to disagree on some points.

I think we will ! but I still find it hard to understand why so many people seem to condone the banks acting unlawfully.

Could I just float this past you all ?

A while ago there were major roadworks on the A303 (a fast dual-carriageway, for those who don't know the road), a 50 mph limit was imposed for everyone's safety. Speed cameras were set up and did a roaring trade with lots of fines for speeding flooding into the public coffers. 99.999995 of those "flashed" just paid their fines and decided not to drive so fast on that bit of the 303.
One person disputed the charge and after several Court hearings the Court ruled that the speed trap had not been set up correctly and that all the fines that had been imposed were "unlawful".
Now - if you were one of those people flashed what would you have done next, when you read in the press or saw on TV that if you wrote in you would get your money back ?

1. Ask for your money back, as it had been taken from you "unlawfully" (even though it was the police wot dun it !)
2. Say to yourself, "well actually, I was doing 75, so I am a reckless driver who deserves to be fined" and not ask for your own money back.

Think on that one and be honest !

Thank you and good night !