Current Account Charges - Why I have no sympathy

Graham_Devon

dchurch24 wrote:

So the poor should be punished some more. Wow. If I weren't sitting at a 20th century invention, I would have believed we were in the 16th century.

:::sigh:::

Look mate. If someone is that poor that they cannot pay their bills, they need help. This comes in various ways:

- Get a lodger
- Get a job
- Get a second job
- Look at benefits
- Look at your spending patterns, it's obvious your living beyond your means

Oh I nearly forgot...you shouldnt have to do that, afterall, it's not up to you to make money so that you can pay your bills?! :rolleyes:

Paul_Herring

There appears to be a precident where employers should (at leat morally) reimburse employees:

http://www.taxationweb.co.uk/news/news.php?id=96

2) Bank charges for employees paid late

Most employees are paid regularly on a certain day each week or month. If paid late by the employer, the employee’s bank account may become overdrawn as a result and the bank may charge a penalty or interest. Employers may decide to compensate by paying the employee’s bank charges. In such cases, the employer’s payment will not normally be liable to tax and NICs. However, if the employer pays an employee's bank charges for any other reason, that sum will normally be liable to tax and NICs.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/bulletins/tb65.htm#g

Employer Reimbursement Of Employees' Bank Charges

[normal charges are taxable, but...]

Exceptionally, the bank charges may arise solely as a result of a failure by the employer. For example, most employees are entitled to expect that they will be paid on or around a particular day each month. That entitlement may be recorded in a written agreement or it may be established by custom and practice. If the employer fails to pay the employees’ salary at the proper time the employees may incur unforeseen bank charges. In that case, a payment by the employer to reimburse bank charges arising solely as a result of the employer's failure will not be liable to tax or NICs.

Graham_Devon

Paul, we all knew that was the case.

The fact here is, that DChurch knows full well that hitting his employer will hurt him, in terms of employment there. So all he's done is gone after someone else, the innocent party and blamed them, instead of blaming the guilty.

Basically, the guilty could come back and bite his butt. The innocent won't.

Which is easier?

But which is right?

Tim_L

Graham, it's a matter of simple fact that penalty charges are unlawful under English contract law. One party to a contract isn't allowed to fine another: all they can do is recover costs.

Parking (and other motoring offences) is another issue. Usually by agreeing to a charge you are paying a charge to avoid being taken to court under parking by-laws, where you face a potentially larger fine.

I have to say that I don't think you've grasped the basics of this situation. This is not moneygrabbing, it is people claiming their own money back since it should never have been taken in the first place. Now you may well argue that the banks have a good case to levy charges, but the problem for your position is the banks and their lawyers don't seem to agree.

dchurch24

All this talk of parking on double-yellow lines and how it's not up to me to find the money to pay my bills shows your complete and utter lack of understanding.

Where are you getting the idea from that you would have to proove that it cost your bank say £30!? All you have to do is prove it cost you that!

Can you show me the research you have backing this up, because quite simply if you were to read just the simplist of law books regarding civil law, you would see just who it is who is talking 'drivel'.

Your beyond it mate, you've gone past help, you actually do believe all your thoughts on the process!

Thankfully, so does the law.

dchurch24

The links you have given are not 'precident', they are simply the HM Revenue depts. opinion.

If you attempted to enforce that in a county court, it would most likely be thrown out without hearing.

You seem to think I should have gone after my employer, lost in court, and then be out of a job simply to allow a bank to continue to levy unlwaful charges.

Utter madness, and clearly their propaganda has done wonders.

Andy_L

Indeed the next paragraph:
"The reason is that there has been a breach of contract on the part of the employer (the failure to pay at the proper time) which has resulted in a loss on the part of the employee (the bank charges). Potentially, the employee can sue the employer for compensation. "

or
http://www.direct.gov.uk/Employment/Employees/Pay/PayArticles/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=10027228&chk=%2BjJLLe
You can also try and reclaim money you've lost (including the extra losses caused by you not receiving the money on time, for example, bank charges) by making a breach of contract claim.

Tim_L

That's hardly a precedent, is it? It is an Inland Revenue guideline on the taxation of refunds due to late payment.

There is no principle in English law where a third party (the employer) should be held responsible for unlawful charges made by someone else (i.e. the bank in this case). This would be quite ridiculous.

All the employer is responsible for is actual reasonable costs incurred for their breaking whatever conditions exist in the contract of employment relating to late payments, which would presumably be interest charges principally.

Unlawful charges must be reclaimed from the party making them. Why is this so difficult to understand? Here, the bank is the guilty party for making the unlawful charges, not the employer. Dchurch is going after precisely the right target.

dchurch24

Potentially, the employee can sue the employer for compensation.

Indeed they can. I could sue you for it if I felt like it - that is my right. I doubt however that I would win.

The employer would quite rightly defend claiming penalties v liquidated damages - therefore, I would lose as I couldn't possibly prove that it cost that much because of my inadvertant breach.

The terms you need to research are 'causality' and 'locus standi'

dchurch24

A quick search through google will not yeald the results you need.

If you were to go to court with that level of research, then I'm afraid you would get what is coming to you.

If you research things properly in the first place, you can often avoid costly and lenghty court processes by going after the wrong target.

As indeed, it seems most of the posters on this subject would do.