Bank charges reclaiming - a fairer way?

tru

I agree with those who have reclaimed, and those who say 'tough, you should manage your money better'.

So I was wondering, has anyone claimed partial charges back? Say, for example, the ombudsman (or whoever it is) states that £10 is a fair charge and a bank charges £35, is it fair to claim a £25 refund?

I think it is, what do you reckon?

westernpromise

Not really; if the earlier charges gave rise to some or all of the later ones, then none of those should have been applied, and so all should be refunded.

Wyndham

I'm not sure that even if we get a court ruling on this, that it will still be illegal to do rolling charges, the amounts would just be less.

But troo raises an interesting point - wanting to pay your way but not wanting to be exploited, so I'd be interested to know if anyone has done it this way?

dixie_dean_2

Who thinks that the OFT (from here on referred to as "The establishment") have the interests of the public ("the rats") at heart or are kinda quite pally with the banks (the establishment")? If I thought £10 was fair for being over my limit briefly and them posting me a letter, I'd consider letting them keep the tenner. Then, after consideration, I'd deem that as I would not be financing death with it, that it was better, from a purely utilitarian point of view, for me to keep it.

dchurch24

Some people have. Although I maintain that if they have held your money unlawfully for some time, then the money they have gained from being in possession of it will more than compensate them for their losses due to a breach of contract.

However, seeing as no bank ever has shown the true costs (including refusing to do so to the tresurary select committee), then we can only assume that it costs nothing - therefore claim everything back.

If they actually showed proof that it costs, say, £1, then I would have only claimed back every charge over a quid. Seeing as they don't I can only draw my own conclusions.

Incidentily, I have never claimed back the interest on the charges

a. because it's too bloody difficult to work out, and
b) because they ARE entitled to claim back their liquidated losses and I see a higher interest rate on the 'unauthorised'* overdraft a fair way of recouping their losses).

* There is a train of thought through my brain that as it happened, THEY MUST have authorised it - thus no such thing as an 'unauthorised' overdraft exists. Secondly, I believe that to 'bounce' an item, costs nothing. The IT costs and infrastructure have been paid for many. many times over - by us, by way of us lending them our money for virtually nothing.

Mark7799

dchurch24 wrote:

* There is a train of thought through my brain that as it happened, THEY MUST have authorised it - thus no such thing as an 'unauthorised' overdraft exists. Secondly, I believe that to 'bounce' an item, costs nothing. The IT costs and infrastructure have been paid for many. many times over - by us, by way of us lending them our money for virtually nothing.

If the overdraft was caused by cheques written within the cheque card scheme then this would be an unauthorised overdraft as the Bank would be obliged to pay these amounts.

Tootsie_Roll

dchurch24 wrote:

* There is a train of thought through my brain

An oxymoron ?

MinniMe_2

troo, I think you have raised a valid point, I too think along teh same lines as you and think that claiming back the different would be a fair way to do it

Paul_Herring

dchurch24 wrote:

However, seeing as no bank ever has shown the true costs (including refusing to do so to the tresurary select committee), then we can only assume that it costs nothing...

I find that a highly dubious assumption. Almost as dubious as "it costs exactly how much they charged" you. Both are equally valid.

dixie_dean_2

I don't think DC is saying that unless they say otherwise he thinks it costs nothing. More that, why don't they come out and explain the charges? And seeings as they are unwilling to because they know it would make a mockery of the whole system, lets all just assume it costs nothing. But thats just my interpretation of it.

dchurch24

Paul_Herring wrote:

I find that a highly dubious assumption. Almost as dubious as "it costs exactly how much they charged" you. Both are equally valid.

But to assume it costs £1 is just as fivoulous, unless the banks show exactly how much it really does cost.

We have no point of reference as to work out the difference.