The Current "State of Play" a Question?

Chrysalis

this comment made me laugh

THE BANK BAILOUT TO THE TUNE OF £850 BILLION IS AN UNAUTHORIZED OVERDRAFT, THE BURDEN OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED UPON THE TAXPAYER.

On a more serious note here is how I see it, but the problem is getting a judge to agree.

1 - the supreme court took the view that charges were for services, to me this was gross incompetance as clearly the t&c's were recently changed during the past couple of years and the majority of claims are from banks of older accounts.
2 - my terms and conditions state the bank can change them but they must give me 45 days written notice, as I never got this notice the charges on my account are penalty fees.
3 - as my charges are penalty fees as stated by my current account contract then the supreme court ruling does not apply.

For people in a similiar scenario and lots of charges to claim back I think I would persue it but I think the main obstacle is getting a judge who understands this rather than assuming the supreme court ruling applies as a precedent.

Even without it been in a contract there is other avenues.

eg. the banks claim when charging for returned items the service is doing the check and making the decision to pay or not aka service fee. However by using the same logic the fee should also be applied to all direct debits that get paid as they all go through the same check procedures, the only difference between the 2 is returned items get a letter sent out to the customer and for everyone else the transaction is made. I would suggest doing the transaction is probably more of a service than sending out the letter but the transaction has no fee. To me that makes the fee for the letter a penalty fee. Again tho the problem is getting a judge to agree.