Current Account Charges - Why I have no sympathy

Graham_Devon

Tim and Dchurch.

Do you honestly, really believe that your employers would turn round and say 'so sue me'. Do you think it would get that far? If so, along with nasty banks, you got yerself some quite nasty employers too.

All this about laws and this and that, it comes down to you took the easiest route. To grab some money basically.

You STILL both haven't grasped the need for a small emergency fund for these situations and no matter how many times I say it, and others say it, it doesnt seem to get through.

Therefore, both of you carry on, finding loopholes, finding ways of extracting money. I wish you all the best of luck.

I personally, will carry on having my own small emergency fund and getting myself out of given situations such as this.

Quite frankly, Im proud after reading all this to have taken me own pre-cautions to look atfer myself. I don't have a problem with bank charges purely from the fact that I have prepared myself for most given situations.

Something you can do, just like myself, but decide not to.

In this world, if you prepare yourself, if you look after yourself, you'll be a whole let better off, in any given circumstance.

Keep battering on about unlawful stuff people, forget your responsibilities to yourselves. Make the UK a harder place to live in for those who actually do take their own responsibilities seriously.

Tim_L

Graham, I have an cash emergency fund of several hundred thousand pounds. I also have a five figure monthly income. I think I can manage, but thanks for your concern.

Again, you haven't engaged with the point but chosen to attack those making them - known as an ad-hominem attack. There is no principle in English law that makes the employer in this case responsible for an unlawful charge made by a third party, even if this was a consequence of a breach of contract. All they are responsible for is the reasonable costs stemming from their breach of contract. The court decides what is reasonable.

DChurch did the right thing, assuming the penalty charges were the main cost he incurred. As he says, anything else would have been thrown out of court.

This is not a loophole, but a fundamental principle of contract law: one party to a contract is not permitted to fine another, because this is the job of the courts.

dchurch24

Keep battering on about unlawful stuff people, forget your responsibilities to yourselves. Make the UK a harder place to live in for those who actually do take their own responsibilities seriously.

Ha ha ha!! Yeah, that's right - and we're the ones looking for a scapegoat and and easy target. That's just sheer lazyness - you should look further afield and blame the people who are really to blame for it, or maybe that would that just take some bottle.

You STILL both haven't grasped the need for a small emergency fund for these situations and no matter how many times I say it, and others say it, it doesnt seem to get through.

Yeah, quite right. Nice to have that luxury - as that's exactly what it is. A luxury. Not everyone is in the fortunate position that you are. The case where the woman was eating cereal (which you all thought was very funny to take the p*ss out of - I'm sure her kids thought it hilarious too), should have just put some money aside from? - a lodger, you say..I doubt where she was living actually belonged to her, so that wouldn't have been an option. Maybe she should have gone out to work, but that wouldn't have made much difference either would it - have you any idea how much childcare during the day for 2 children is? No - I doubt you would have researched that either if it didn't affect you directly.

You need to look around you - stop reading The Sun or The Mail and actually do some research for yourselves and stop believing everything you read.

Graham_Devon

Look guy's, I've had it, put my argument in, but its getting petty now, from both sides.

It seems to ahave come back to the cereal situation again, where we were 4 pages ago.

I will continue looking after myself and learning by the charges, Dchurch can continue blaming others and claiming he has no responsibility for anything.

Dchurch, I have explained several times how you could have got yourself an emergency fund. You keep time and time ignoring it and giving me 'why should I'. So soon, you will find yourself in a pickle again, being charged for going over your limit but also being charged monthly! Happy days!

I aint gonna waste my typing any longer on people who seem to lack respect for themselves, let alone anyone else.

dchurch24

I'm not talking about me having an emergency fund (I had one, but I have suffered a major loss recently and have had to use that money for a REAL emergency).

I was asking about the example given. Where would someone like that get an emergency fund from?

Tootsie_Roll

Graham_Devon wrote:

Look guy's, I've had it, put my argument in, but its getting petty now, from both sides.

It seems to ahave come back to the cereal situation again, where we were 4 pages ago.

I will continue looking after myself and learning by the charges, Dchurch can continue blaming others and claiming he has no responsibility for anything.

Dchurch, I have explained several times how you could have got yourself an emergency fund. You keep time and time ignoring it and giving me 'why should I'. So soon, you will find yourself in a pickle again, being charged for going over your limit but also being charged monthly! Happy days!

I aint gonna waste my typing any longer on people who seem to lack respect for themselves, let alone anyone else.

Well done Graham. Don't waste any more of your time with these morons, they will never learn.

Hereward

Tim_L wrote:

That's hardly a precedent, is it? It is an Inland Revenue (sic) 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.

To prove reasonable costs all you need to do is demonstrate that you have incurred a cost as a direct result of another parties actions, for example your bank charges if you employer pays you late. These costs can be easily proved as you will receive a letter informing you of the charges and their cost (or if this is not available then your statements showing the costs will do). The court can not ask you to prove that the level of these costs is reasonable as you do not have any power over in the making the decision of what they are.As you right the state that Paul_Herring quoted the opinion of HM Revenue and Customs. What you have failed to notice is that it is the Office of Fair Trading’s opinion that late payment charges are unlawful as this has not yet been proved in court (by your own admission the banks, and building societies, pay out before the case reach the courts).

Graham_Devon

dchurch24 wrote:

I'm not talking about me having an emergency fund (I had one, but I have suffered a major loss recently and have had to use that money for a REAL emergency).

I was asking about the example given. Where would someone like that get an emergency fund from?

Good god, get a grip.

This IS my last post here. Cannot be bothered, it's like 'talk to the hand cus the face aint listening'.

I must have gone over this about 5 times in the last 5 pages.

Shall I give a few examples so that you can tell me how wrong I am and find flaws?

1. Overdraft
2. Low rate personal loan
3. Credit card, which they pay off once the matter is dealt with.

If the person in question can not get any of those, then they have more issues to deal with. LIFE ISSUES. You cannot blame the bank for that person having bills to pay and not having the money to do so. That is up to the individual to sort out. Not the bank, not the employer, the individual.

And now I will go over what you would have come back at me with on the above financial products.

1. The overdraft needs to be taken before you are in difficulty. Not when your in it. Financial planning that is called. Note that one down.

2. Low rate personal loan, will take financial planning, if they cannot get a loan, or are refused, they need to take a step back and look at their WHOLE life. The personal loan will get their head above water. No doubt though that these people will see say a grand in their accounts and go spend it, taking them back to square one. This again takes financial planning, which hopefully you have noted down from paragraph 1 above.

3. Same as above. In this scenario though, you pay the credit card off once you have sorted yourself out. If you would have had the money if the bank hadnt charged you, then when you get the money, you pay the credit card off. Now, this takes......yes you guessed it, gold star for you.

In the above situations, if you know you have a problem, you can ring up the places that you have direct debits with and they will be more than happy to take alternative payment or delay a payment if you have a good record. It just takes yourself, going out of your way and explaining this situation. They would rather get payment, than get a declined transaction, they pay for those declined transactions.

The above, again, is a case of financial planning. Knowing that your going to have a problem and either saying 'hey, can you take it from this card, or this account this month (rainy day account), or delay it for me. They will do that for you, unless of course you abuse it.

Please don't come whinging to me saying your bank will not help you out. My bank will help me out. Now, your going to say 'great for you'. No, not great for me. I treat my bank with respect, I go in and see my manager, I sort things out with them. If I make a mistake, I pay the price.

It's highly unlikely now that your bank will be willing to help you. You will now have a note on your account stating the reclaimed charges. You think now that after that your bank is going to say 'yer sure, we'll lend you some money'.

Therefore, you probably will now not get an overdraft or help from the bank. You have screwed them, so why should they help you?

You've said 'whoopie for you' when I said I have an overdraft limit of £1500. I simply went to the bank manager, laid my case on the table and he granted it. I talked with me bank. I didnt sit there on my heals doing nothing about a situation I was in at the time.

Tim_L

The OFT have no such opinion - all they have said is that the charges are excessive at current levels. They've said nothing about whether they believe the charges to be unlawful or not.

Whether or not it would be possible to sue an employer for loss would depend on the conditions of employment, but leaving that aside, if you believe a third party charge to be unlawful then you can't reasonably ask the employer to pay it. And the court absolutely and specifically does have the power to make a decision as to what is a reasonable cost and what isn't.

Dammam

It would appear that I'm a moron :-(
12 years in the forces, 1 Falklands detachment, 2 Saudi detachments. Left, got a job, suffered bereavement, made redundant, couldn't pay my outgoings for the first time in my life, got charges of up to £300 in a single month for the bank NOT to pay my outgoings, once those charges were taken out, I couldn't afford the NEXT months outgoings.

And then, when I've at last sorted myself out I find that I and others like me am branded a moron with no ability to financially plan.

I WILL agree that all this was down to me and my own circumstances and it was up to me to sort out, which I did. I don't understand why the Bank felt entitled to punish me for my problems and in doing so exaccerbate them.
As it turned out, they WEREN'T entitled to do that at all - would have saved me so many problems if they had just acted reasonably and within the law.