Current Account Charges - Why I have no sympathy

Wyndham

Phatmouse wrote:

Yes, I can see that it can! And there is a buzz from knowing that I am legally getting money that it could morally be argued I shouldn't have! However, I'm working on the proviso that the banks would take money from me if they could, so I may as well take my share.

This made me chuckle, on looking at who thanked Copperplate for putting me in my place I found this quote from Wyndham previous posts.

Depend on which way the wind blows does it?

You do relise this lot would hang you as soon as look at you for a quote like that at least be consistent people.

Hey, don't bring me into this! It was a completely different subject (stoozing).

I've kept a vague eye on this thread, but got fed up with the back biting a long time ago. Time to close it, I'm sure.

And just because you read posts which are - shall we say - not complementary to people, doesn't mean you have to join in.

inmypocketnottheirs

The whole point is, these acharges are unlawful.

Anyone who argues the point clearly has not grasped the key facts.

I am not going to spell it out here again, but why not visit the site https://www.consumeractiongroup.com where you can read up and educate yourselves on why these charges will not stand up in court.

Then, when you have understood the legality of the situation, you could come back here and make some constructive posts, rather than just spouting 'banking rhetoric'.

Read and learn I say, I say read and learn.

MPH80

inmypocketnottheirs wrote:

The whole point is, these acharges are unlawful.

NO - any organisation is allowed to place a charge for breaking a contract - it is the LEVEL of the charge which is believed (and it has NOT been proved) to be illegal because the banks have not proved that the level of the charge reflects the cost to them.

Since you are encouraging people to inform themselves - I think it's important to give them the right information in the first place.

M.

inmypocketnottheirs

MPH80 wrote:

NO - any organisation is allowed to place a charge for breaking a contract - it is the LEVEL of the charge which is believed (and it has NOT been proved) to be illegal because the banks have not proved that the level of the charge reflects the cost to them.

Since you are encouraging people to inform themselves - I think it's important to give them the right information in the first place.

M.

That is the whole point, the fact that the fees levied by banks are punitive, because they do not reflect the true or actual loss (i.e. liquidated losses).

Please inform yourself the difference between unlawful and illegal.

Therefore, I stand by my comments.

YorkshireBoy

I don't want to get into any name calling or 'spitting venom', but would it be more accurate to say that...

inmypocketnottheirs wrote:

That is the whole point, the fact that the fees levied by banks are thought to be punitive, because they [strike]do not[/strike] are thought not to reflect the true or actual loss (i.e. liquidated losses) since no such specific case as yet been heard by a court.

inmypocketnottheirs

YorkshireBoy wrote:

I don't want to get into any name calling or 'spitting venom', but would it be more accurate to say that...

Again, not quite correct.

There are several instances where punitive fines have not been held up in English courts. The fact that it has not been proven or disproven by bank is irrelevant. Until such time that a bank turns up at court, and either defends it's case and wins, or sues a customer for these punitive fees and wins, then the banks actions are unlawful. Or, of course, a when a customer loses action against a bank.

Here, again, are the cases where punitive fines have not been upheld in court:

Murray v Leisureplay (2004)

Dunlop Tyre Company v New Garage and Motor Co. (1915)

Bridge v. Campbell Discount Co. Ltd. (1962)

MPH80

The fact that it has not been proven or disproven by bank is irrelevant. Until such time that a bank turns up at court, and either defends it's case and wins, or sues a customer for these punitive fees and wins, then the banks actions are unlawful.

Ok - so other organisations have had punative fines not upheld - this does not prove, in any way, that the bank charges are punitive. You have to get them to court for that.

Until that time - you do not know, for a fact, that the charges are unlawful. You believe they are and, especially at the new level, there's some possible justification for the charges (as shown by YB).

M.

YorkshireBoy

inmypocketnottheirs wrote:

Again, not quite correct.

I have to disagree. I've re-read my post again and I think it's very correct, for the following reasons...

There are several instances where punitive fines have not been held up in English courts.

With respect, these are not banking related (note that I used the word 'specific' in my previous post).

The fact that it has not been proven or disproven by bank is irrelevant.

...but surely until such 'default fees' are defended (and won or lost as the case may be) then they can only be thought to be unlawful and challenged as such.

You can only draw parallels up to a point, and a judge will take the final decision on 'specific' banking claims - and presumably he'd have to sit on many cases since not all banks will have the same operating costs. Up until that point, they can only be thought to be unlawful.

then the banks actions are unlawful.

There you go again. With respect, you are not qualified to make such an assertion. You may 'think' they are unlawful - a judge will decide whether banks' 'default charges' are actually unlawful.

digp

i think you will find that they are

inmypocketnottheirs

YorkshireBoy wrote:

I have to disagree. I've re-read my post again and I think it's very correct, for the following reasons...With respect, these are not banking related (note that I used the word 'specific' in my previous post)....but surely until such 'default fees' are defended (and won or lost as the case may be) then they can only be thought to be unlawful and challenged as such.

You can only draw parallels up to a point, and a judge will take the final decision on 'specific' banking claims - and presumably he'd have to sit on many cases since not all banks will have the same operating costs. Up until that point, they can only be thought to be unlawful.There you go again. With respect, you are not qualified to make such an assertion. You may 'think' they are unlawful - a judge will decide whether banks' 'default charges' are actually unlawful.

Likewise, until a judge finds upholds them, you may 'think' they are lawful. If the banks were of course agreeing with your view, then why would they be settling these claims??