MSE News: Bank charges fighting on: a new legal argument

Penalty_charges

https://www.Penaltycharges.co.uk Is very pleased to confirm that we have joined forces with Money Saving Expert, Legal Beagles and the Consumer Action Group.
In a joint campaign against unlawful bank charges, Money Saving Expert has paid for Ray Cox 'QC' to draft the new Particulars of claim (POC) for all forums, which should be available for members to use within 10 days.

We stress that all sites are now working as one to bring Justice to all consumers who have been the victim(s) of Unlawful bank charges

Warm regards

Stephen Hone

jju5t

I expect nothing back from the banks regarding charges.

i will take them to court just to use up their (high cost lawers)time and cost them more than my charges are worth in defence fees.

and then i will complain to the ombersman just to cost them another £500 for the investigation.

PEACE

Fergal1982

Insomniac666 wrote: »

In a lot of cases I would imagine it's just the snowball effect of tight budget being eaten by charges, it's definately my case. When i've forseen that I may go overdrawn, I've requested an overdraft facility for just one month.. and been told not on my account because it's basic, so when I've asked to upgrade to an account that has the facility, I'm told no.

Move to a different bank. I had the same story from the BoS. I was on a basic cash account, but had some financial difficulty that resulted in a cycle of charges that made it impossible to get out of (I didnt have enough for a DD one month, so got charged, unfortunately I was living at the limits of my income, and the charge caused me to be in debt for another DD, and so on). I asked for a temporary overdraft to end the cycle and was declined as i was on a basic account. Despite banking with the BoS for years, they refused to let me move to a standard account.

I walked out of the BoS, and into Abbey, explained the situation to them. 30 mins later I had an account with an overdraft (only 300 - all I wanted was a large enough overdraft to pay my bills if they came out before my money went in), and a second without (they offered an overdraft on the second, but I declined).

*MF*

Penalty_charges wrote: »

www.Penaltycharges.co.uk Is very pleased to confirm that we have joined forces with Money Saving Expert, Legal Beagles and the Consumer Action Group.
In a joint campaign against unlawful bank charges, Money Saving Expert has paid for Ray Cox 'QC' to draft the new Particulars of claim (POC) for all forums, which should be available for members to use within 10 days.

We stress that all sites are now working as one to bring Justice to all consumers who have been the victim(s) of Unlawful bank charges

Warm regards

Stephen Hone

I was pleased to see this joint action - good news.

In that vein may I copy/paste a post I made on the Penalty Charges site today, which I hope may also be taken into account - specifically as it relates to Martin's comments near the end of his post.

Post reads:

For those who are trying to reclaim charges where an overdraft/borrowing was involved - on the face of it - perhaps read no further, but my hope is over time, there may be a chink in the armour over this issue of Basic Bank Accounts, which when opened up, may widen the net and bring everyone back on board - I don't know that, but that is what I hope may happen, we shall see.

The lead in this issue from an "official/regulatory" position has been the OFT, and my direction is to focus away from them to develop what I am looking at - there will be plenty on this forum and other forums who will be following up what response comes from the OFT based on the hints the Supreme Court gave them.

That is why I mentioned the FSA, (and the FOS) - and the essential difference between a regulatory regime for "Deposits", and that for "Credit".

So where sit the FSA just now - this from their website:

FSA begins banking regulation

We will begin regulating banks' and building societies' day-to-day contact with their customers from 1 November 2009. This new framework will deliver wide-ranging benefits for consumers.

That is my starting point, their involvement exists, they cannot escape it - but the dividing line as we stand today, takes us back to the dividing line of "Deposits" and "Credit/Borrowing".

It is well established that the FSA have promoted intensively their "Treating Customers Fairly" initiative, and many of the regulatory actions they have taken against financial firms and intermediaries have their genesis in that initiative - so the FSA lay great importance on "fairness".

Beyond the FSA lie the FOS - so a consumer in the absence of that "fairness", can raise a complaintand go to the Financial Ombudsman Service, whose assessments are also rooted in "fairness and reasonableness" (or so they say) - and as importantly they have been in print and in action establishing that they are NOT bound by the law as laid down by courts.

Where am I going with this?

Well, perhaps evidence first, staring with mine, and perhaps other posters may in time add to this - part of my reason for coming on board:

One of my Bank Accounts is a Basic Bank Account. On the 20th of April 2008, it had a credit balance (a deposit) of £37.99.

On the 21st of April, a DD was payable to British Gas of £38.00.

My balance was insufficient, so the DD was not paid.

However, the Bank did immediately levy a charge of £38.00.

Now apart from the coincidence over the amounts, was I granted an overdraft, was I borrowing that money - nope, because a Basic bank Account has explicit, clear, and intelligible criteria from the outset - it excludes overdrafts and any form of credit/borrowing.

So to whom should I refer the matter, which Regulator, the OFT, the FSA, the FOS?

Let's say no more than it is a fair question, and not one I can find has been asked before, and that is why I agreed initially with the comment that we need to step back and take stock.

Now maybe, this forum and others can lead me to evidence in greater abundance than just mine - in this area of Basic Bank Accounts - more evidence would help.

But even in the absence of such - I hope to take this question further, and as I said I have other aspects beyond this which I will touch upon later - but for now, this one area seems to me to be the one to concentrate on.

May I ask therefore, apart from any comments, whether there are other posters on this forum, who have a Basic Bank Account, with circumstances similar to the one I had?

MrLeeLee

Penalty_charges wrote: »

www.Penaltycharges.co.uk Is very pleased to confirm that we have joined forces with Money Saving Expert, Legal Beagles and the Consumer Action Group.
In a joint campaign against unlawful bank charges, Money Saving Expert has paid for Ray Cox 'QC' to draft the new Particulars of claim (POC) for all forums, which should be available for members to use within 10 days.

We stress that all sites are now working as one to bring Justice to all consumers who have been the victim(s) of Unlawful bank charges

Warm regards

Stephen Hone

This is great great news.

I'm not sure how 'together' all these Consumer Groups have been during the OFT case up until now, but now with these all totally on the same side, it's superb news for everyone.

MSE_Martin

david.l wrote: »

Nice so martin can lead us all up the garden path again and we can all be dissapointed again and the banks will win again same old story the little people........

I think this is a touch unfair.

Over a billion pounds was paid out - we were always very concerned to get the 'do it now message' out and in fact in the early days I remember being slated by some for adding urgency - being told nothing could go wrong so why rush people

I don't think i could be any cleared in everything I've said since the court case that I think we have at best a 10-20% of people getting their money back and people should plan that won't happen.

So your statement seems a strange one.

___________

As for the other campaign groups - its wonderful we're all working together

johnnyrotten_3

Celebrations in the banking world yesterday as the masters of the universe new supreeme court overuled peasents trying to claim back money that in the past they theived from them...a spokesman from the bank said that he would shoot them and let the dogs onto them rather than give them their money back, the goverment agreed and added, ive had a word with these naughty bank managers and theve promised me to be good from now on.

The banks have also added that theiving money from peasents was just one part of the operation, there is other operations like lending other peoples money to arabs, crying poverty to the goverment, trying to get paid a million a year more than my partners, seeing how far i can get before i get sussed out i have no qualifacations in banking or anything, hanging round boys clubs in london, oh and club class, helicopters.5 star hotels etc....oh and make sure i get paid and you get billed for it.

johnnyrotten_3

The oft are the goverment, the supreeme court is the goverment, the banks and gordys masters of the universe mates are the goverment, this goverment sucks, are you suprised by the results, its not martins fault....behave yourselves

have the oft ever succsesfully sued anyone for anything ?, no one takes no notice off them its all just a joke, another goverment department.

whoes the minister of the drought theses days ?

jonpnash

So Mrarma and the rest of you smug people....
You really think you are getting free banking? hey? .. not in the slightest.
It is a bit like the Ryanair philosophy of free flights... not quite so free as you think...
If you have complex finances, i.e. family and mortgage etc, even with the best will in the world this system will catch you out unless of course you have a healthy balance at all times. So only way to prevent this, is to have a buffer of cash in credit at all times. Otherwise you will get caught.... but you know this don't you.
Unless you check carefull to the nearest pence, every penny into and out of your account every day of your lives... Which is also a complete waste of money and time.. for your "free bankings"
So.... you have free banking but at a cost of a constant positive balance. Which is free?
And yes... the banks also love this. Why?
Because they massively profit from positive balances on current accounts by not paying full market rates of interest. In fact this is the main source of revenue on current accounts.

So those people who carefully manage their banking for so called free banking are not really getting 'free banking" (and are appearing on here all smug with themselves, saying that us foolish, !!!!less spenders support their free banking.. ). They are not the winners but the banks again, since they ensure healthy positive balances to capitalize on.

And the main point, is the system is not transparent and up front... it is just trying to convince us we are getting free banking.

To give an example....

I lived in Belgium for several years and never once did I get these fees. It is simple. When your account is empty it is empty. You pay for the services you use, and overall the banking system is fair, much cheaper, paid good interest and was completely transparent with regard to charges.

In contrast, while I was working in Belgium my UK account went 38 pence over limit due to a tiny change in a direct debit for my mortgage. The bank then racked up charges of over £458 over the next 22 daysf, which they Justified by the huge volume of administration needed to operate my account. Remember we are talking 38 pence. Yet there was not one email, call or secure message to indicate that my account was racking up fees.

I hear your say. Well it is a open market, why didn't I move my account to another bank. Well that is the point. All British banks were up to the same game. So there was no choice.

The system was rigged to encourage these over-overdraft payments as a source of revenue without any regard to whether they are fair or just, or even good sense.

Personally I would prefer a banking system that encourages good money management, and is honest, fair and especially completely transparent.

mramra wrote: »

I sincerely hope not. The majority of bank account holders who manage their money carefully, budget within their means, and therefore manage to avoid going into unauthorised arrears would quite like to continue with free banking thank you very much. :beer:

johnnyrotten_3

I agree, in this day and age if you have insuffitiant fund in your account the transaction should be void until authorised, but no the bloody greedy banks with no law behind them fleece you for money, and if theres insuffitiant money in your account when a direct debit or standing order tries to come out, you automatacly think its the gas or leccy thats the fault, but its not them its the bloody greedy banks ripping you off, the best way forward is to go back to the days of paying everything with cash....and stuff em