MSE News: Bank charges update: the phoenix from the flames + full Q&A

Stephenbw

PadiP wrote: »

And they do through court costs and administration fees etc, as so they should, but they only claim their costs, and don't seek to profit from it.

No, they don't; they only claim a fixed amount in costs for Council Tax summonses which does not take into account additional costs incurred in dealing with bounced cheques.
The majority of RD cheques are nothing to do with Council Tax payments, do not go to court and the associated costs have to be paid by all taxpayers.

jos004

ALIBOBSY wrote: »

From another forum it is form N244 to amend the POC, but I believ you have to pay a fee as well. Someone on the other forum rang the court regarding this and was told to get any amendment in ASAP before a judge strikes it out.

Worth a call to your court.

Can't see them getting courts legal fees for a county court case, you just lose your own fee.

ali x

It is indeed form N244. Although, prior to completing one of these forms, you could have written to your bank and asked permission to amend your POC. I wrote to HSBC in October asking to do this, but they passed it onto their legal team.

Anyway, before any of us can complete form N244 we need to know the exact legal wording to include on the form. In the time it takes for that to occur, our local county courts may have struck out our claims.

NB I see the template letters over on the Consumer Action Group's website, based their arguments on clause 5, not 6.

A_fiend_for_life

SnargleFlip wrote: »

I think you'll find that the banks 'care' very much about this sort of customer, as they generate an awful lot more revenue for the bank than do the careful customers who stay in credit.

If the charges as to 'cover costs' why is the term 'revenue' used? No reflection on yourself SnargleFlip Radio 4's 6 o clock news used the same term. ie bank charges provide a revenue of £2 billion a year. Do the banks openly call it a revenue or is that not the done thing now?

dotstar24

MrGunner wrote: »

Ok fine how did i spend money i didnt have? did the bank pay the direct debit for me .... no! all they did was send me a letter and tell the originator of my direct debit that i couldnt pay!

Same here! :rolleyes:

gjs1701

Eric_Jones wrote: »

It is wrong to (in many cases repeatedly) take (spend) money that is not yours. Which is essentially what we are talking about. To then complain its illegal for you to be charged a (relatively small) fee for taking whats not yours ,

If it is wrong, why is it allowed? Why do the banks allow us to take that money?

No-one is complaining it is illegal, just that the fee be proportionate.

And if £30 is 'relatively small', can you spare a bob or two. :rotfl:

Centium5000

iantresman wrote: »

This issue was not about whether the banks CAN charge, it is about HOW they make an unauthorised charge.

At NO time, does the bank contact me and ask whether I would like (a) continue with by bank payment and go further overdrawn, and be charged (b) whether I would like to make funds available, and then continue with a bank payment, and not go further overdrawn.

I want to be notified if my bank payment would incur extra charges, and I want 7 days to manage a solution.

Nicely put, Ian.

Well, that's what the OFT should have been arguing rather than some convoluted Regulation 6(2) codswallop!

Now we know that all these charges are not penalties but for 'services', perhaps all those black marks on our credit scores will have to be removed. After all, the Supreme Court has ruled that we're just making use of contractually available services like anyone else.

Centium5000

A_fiend_for_life wrote: »

If the charges as to 'cover costs' why is the term 'revenue' used? No reflection on yourself SnargleFlip Radio 4's 6 o clock news used the same term. ie bank charges provide a revenue of £2 billion a year. Do the banks openly call it a revenue or is that not the done thing now?

Ahhh, that's where we had it wrong!

The banks have actually argued that these charges aren't to cover costs - they are part of the total price of using their package of services, completely unrelated to their costs for any particular service.

They were successful too, showing that these charges amouted to 30% of all revenue from current account customers. In other words, "we're happy that you keep bouncing cheques / running over your overdraft - it's making us rich!".

That's why the Supreme Court supported the lower courts' ruling that these aren't penalty (default) charges - they are too desirable to the banks to be that. They become 'service charges' on the basis that the bank has to make a decision (even an automated one) even if they reject a request for payment.

Very clever stuff.

The next challenge to contractual fairness won't be on price / proportionality, but on fairness of rights.

For example, the banks can choose to decline to provide an unauthorized overdraft on a per payment basis, but we can't choose not to have an unauthorized overdraft. They use their power to make autocratic decisions that we have to pay for, which contravenes our Article 5(1) rights.

Don't worry, we'll show that these are unfair eventually. It's just common sense - except for those who are being subsidised by these unfair charges.

"The emptiest vessels make the loudest noise".

Paul_J

MillaJoJo wrote: »

There we have it, from the horse's mouth. Paul does not like the possibility of having to pay for other's banking services, but is happy for others to pay for his.

I feel quite honoured to be compared to a horse. Thank you, Milla.

musashi10

Is it possible to get clarification please as to whether new claims can be made against credit card companies after this ruling?

Thank you very much.

robberrob

Why not stop this campaign
A majority of your users DONT PAY BANK CHARGES but WILL have to if you keep on with this campaign.
I knew what I was signing up for - go overdrawn (over agreed limit) and I would pay for it!
I've paid once - I made a mistake with my ballance - But unlike most I ADMIT it was my fault.
BUT just look at the alternative - Do you want the bank to bounce any payment that takes you 'just a bit' over your limit ---They used to.
Do you want to pay even if you dont go over your limit - just to cover the people who do??? I Dont

If you use a service you have to pay for it , and remember if you dont go overdrawn you dont pay.