Bank Charges already paid and setting a precedent

wendycook

The banks have already paid back many claims for bank charges. Does this not mean that they have accepted that customers have been overcharged and does this not set a precedent for the remainder of us who had our cases put on hold?

real1314

No, it doesn't.

natweststaffmember

wendycook wrote: »

The banks have already paid back many claims for bank charges. Does this not mean that they have accepted that customers have been overcharged and does this not set a precedent for the remainder of us who had our cases put on hold?

The banks paid out as a gesture of goodwill and not admitted liability so the basic answer is nope.

111222

wendycook wrote: »

The banks have already paid back many claims for bank charges. Does this not mean that they have accepted that customers have been overcharged and does this not set a precedent for the remainder of us who had our cases put on hold?

No it doesn't as before the test case the legal argument was that the charges were unfair. This has been ruled not the case by the supreme court and therefore you have no basis to take the bank to court over bank charges. As the banks were receiving so many cases it would have cost them more to go to court than to pay back the fees etc... So they had no choice in the matter.