Charges legal Ruling

natweststaffmember

Try typical consumer in legal terms, the mind boggles even more

cjellwood

ok so the banks have won the right not to be judged by the OFT thanks to section 6.2(b) .

But they may have shot themselves in the foot. Check out section 5(1)...

Unfair Terms
5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

So who cares about the OFT having the right to say what is fair and not fair? We are clever 'natural persons' and can decide what is fair or not for ourselves and seek the law to support our claims individually.

Chris

natweststaffmember

cjellwood wrote: »

ok so the banks have won the right not to be judged by the OFT thanks to section 6.2(b) .

But they may have shot themselves in the foot. Check out section 5(1)...

Unfair Terms
5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

So who cares about the OFT having the right to say what is fair and not fair? We are clever 'natural persons' and can decide what is fair or not for ourselves and seek the law to support our claims individually.

Chris

Remember though that price is out of that equation but the grey list gives clauses that seem to suggest that price IS included. The OFT HAVE to go again to the courts and to be honest a referral to the ECJ reference reg 5(1) grey list part (e).

cjellwood

sorry I am thinking with 2 minds here. I have 2 quarrels with the banks regarding charges

1. The charges themselves
2. The legality regarding the way they just take the charges from the account

section 5(1) would be nice to use against the banks so they were required to bill a customer for charges at least. The way the terms and conditions are written for this gives impression that they are treading on thin ice there anyway because there is no waiver of the right to remedy.

oh how i wish i had time to be a lawyer and get all this stuff right

Chris

natweststaffmember

On 1, you can't use price so that kinda leaves a gap. However, on 2 imbalance contrary to good faith in the way the payments are considered COULD be one way to pursue it.

cjellwood

Section 6.2 of the Barclays terms and conditions.

6.2 We add interest we owe you to your account (or another
account we agree with you) and take interest and charges you
owe us out of your account (or another account we agree
with you). We will tell you in our rates and charges leaflets
when these will be taken from or added to your account.

To me this seems to be the logical place to start when combatting stupid charges. The banks would be forced to lower the charges if the customer was properly billed for the charges. The impact of the charges would be more apparent.

Not to mention the fact that the banks regularly debit charges from accounts that are already in debit! It is crazy that a bank can return a debit card payment or direct debit because there is no funds in the account yet they are happy to charge the account while in that state.:rotfl:

Barclays have been trying to charge me reserve fees and guaranteed transaction fees over the past few weeks but I have been replying to their notification letters with a 'no thanks, bill me properly' letter. So far no charges have come out of my account but also no communication from them?

Chris

natweststaffmember

cjellwood wrote: »

Section 6.2 of the Barclays terms and conditions.

6.2 We add interest we owe you to your account (or another
account we agree with you) and take interest and charges you
owe us out of your account (or another account we agree
with you). We will tell you in our rates and charges leaflets
when these will be taken from or added to your account.

To me this seems to be the logical place to start when combatting stupid charges. The banks would be forced to lower the charges if the customer was properly billed for the charges. The impact of the charges would be more apparent.

Not to mention the fact that the banks regularly debit charges from accounts that are already in debit! It is crazy that a bank can return a debit card payment or direct debit because there is no funds in the account yet they are happy to charge the account while in that state.:rotfl:

Barclays have been trying to charge me reserve fees and guaranteed transaction fees over the past few weeks but I have been replying to their notification letters with a 'no thanks, bill me properly' letter. So far no charges have come out of my account but also no communication from them?

Chris

You can OPT OUT of the personal reserve btw since their newer terms are more fairer than their historic ones, as strange as that might seem.

cjellwood

yes i did cancel the reserve limit as you said but that left my account -£250 in debit. Then the guaranteed transaction fees started coming.

It is interesting that when they last charged my account £144 it took my reserve limit to its max (£250). So they used my reserve limit to pay the charge lol

I told a barclays rep that charging that amount to the account had left me with no money for the week therefore no nappies and food for my children. He said he was sorry but there was not even the chance of refunding £10 to keep the customer and his children alive for the week.

Nice. Is this babylon i am dealing with by any chance?

natweststaffmember

cjellwood wrote: »

yes i did cancel the reserve limit as you said but that left my account -£250 in debit. Then the guaranteed transaction fees started coming.

It is interesting that when they last charged my account £144 it took my reserve limit to its max (£250). So they used my reserve limit to pay the charge lol

I told a barclays rep that charging that amount to the account had left me with no money for the week therefore no nappies and food for my children. He said he was sorry but there was not even the chance of refunding £10 to keep the customer and his children alive for the week.

Nice. Is this babylon i am dealing with by any chance?

If this was recently, I am not entirely sure that is not something that is being sympathetic towards customers who could be in financial hardship which is BCOBS rules and furthermore, I am surprised they didn't look at hardship based on The Lending Code section 9. Hmmmm, banks don't seem to hire people who necessarily have a brain cell that is functional