Current Account Charges - Why I have no sympathy

dchurch24

Graham - you are unbelieveable!

Truly, I have never come across someone so brainwashed and holier-than-thou.

Quite a lot of people live on the breadline in this country, and what you are saying is pretty much that if that's the case, then the bank should be allowed to make it worse for them.

Some days people astound me with their selfless generousity, other days, it's the complete opposite.

Hereward

Tim_L wrote:

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.

Exactly, the OFT stated an opinion that charges are excessive, and parties interested in claming back these excessive charges began to claim that they are unlawful because of the OFT opinion (the closest I can find of the OFT website is about Credit Card charges, but I do recall they said they were investigating similar claims about bank charges [the press release is here]).
I agree that the courts will decide what a reasonable cost is, but the will only do it in the light of what the claimant can reasonably control. If you then decided to claim back your charges from your account provider, then your employer has every right to reclaim any monies paid to you in regards to those charges.

dchurch24

The OFT said that under the case law mentioned before, that if a credit card default payment (note: not current accounts) exceeded £12 then they would step in legally, as that is the point at which they know they would win and would make it worthwhile.

At no point did they say £12 is a fair charge (despite the mis-reportings of the Daily Mail) and at no point did they state an opinion. They said that based on their research it does not cost a credit card company £20-£30 for a missed or late payment. They even declared in the white-paper that £12 should not be considered a fair charge and it was up to the individual to take their own legal action if they believed that £12 or over (or less) was not a true reflection of costs for their breach of contract.

Research it's called. I keep bleating on about it, but you people seem to speak with authority on things you clearly haven't even read.

...and because there a millions of people living on the breadline and cannot afford the luxury of a 'rainy day' fund, I have to get a grip?

Truly unbelieveable.

Hereward

Opps, I missed of the hyperlink: http://www.oft.gov.uk/Search_CLick.asp

Mark7799

Something I've wondered a few times on this topic and as there are some of the chief posters involved (and according to the board on-line right now) could they give us opinions. I'm trying to raise what I think is a valid point without name calling or accusations.

Supposing (I know this is a 'suppose' but please stick with me for a moment) it is proven or set down in law that there is a fair and reasonable charge for these fees e.g. £2, £3.50, will those who are vociferous then start encouraging people how to manage accounts properly? After all, only five fees @ £2 each can quickly mount up to £10 per month/£120 per annum a figure which other posters have said is too expensive for them to wish to maintain an account with First Direct.

As I said, no name-calling (sad that some people have resorted to that) but I would be interested to hear views on it.

Tim_L

I'm certainly not saying that people should not manage finances responsibly, nor that actual and reasonable costs incurred because they do not should not be reclaimable by the banks.

The problem is that the banks won't indicate what the costs are. They can't really, because if they turn out to be lower than their penalties, they immediately become liable to repay the difference to everyone for the entire period the charges have existed. So what they are doing is repaying the lot.

Bear in mind that many of the people this is affecting are already paying interest on their overdrafts, in many cases at poor rates. No-one would argue that this is unfair, and a fair way of discouraging transgressions remains a tiered system of interest rates when a limit is breached.

The crux of the argument from this side of the house is however that large automatic fixed charges make a marginal situation far worse - Dammam's case is a good example of how charges one month can cause knock-on problems in subsequent months.

dixie_dean_2

I think everybody would agree that a reasonable sum to recompense the banks for their losses is ok. If people continually transgress then maybe an invitation to discuss their finances would be a good idea, rather than rampant profiteering.

Mark7799

Tim,

I'm not sure if you were responsing to my post #277 but if you were your second paragraph obscures the issue (unreserved apologies if you weren't) My point is IF (and I accept there is a big IF) a charge could be legally proven as fair and reasonable, what attitude will then be taken by those who are campaigning against the level of these charges now in respect of encouraging money management?

dchurch24

Personally (through the hundreds of so-called 'headline grabbing stories I have recieved through the CAG site), I think the two are seperate issues.

I have never encouraged bad money management, I have merely encouraged taking back what is yours from an institution that made matters worse when they were already bad to line their coffers in a way that I believed to be unlawful.

I will encourage businesses to act responsibly and fairly when the bank charge issue is won. For e.g. extended warranties on things that do not need them, i.e. Fridges that break down 366 days after you have bought it, and the manufacturer claiming that it's out of warranty, when in law (SOGA), it must last a reasonable time. Other things like that.

Target it at the source I say ;-)

Mark7799

dchurch24 wrote:

Personally (through the hundreds of so-called 'headline grabbing stories I have recieved through the CAG site), I think the two are seperate issues.

I have never encouraged bad money management, I have merely encouraged taking back what is yours from an institution that made matters worse when they were already bad to line their coffers in a way that I believed to be unlawful.

I will encourage businesses to act responsibly and fairly when the bank charge issue is won. For e.g. extended warranties on things that do not need them, i.e. Fridges that break down 366 days after you have bought it, and the manufacturer claiming that it's out of warranty, when in law (SOGA), it must last a reasonable time. Other things like that.

Target it at the source I say ;-)

Points taken:T Whilst you have never encouraged bad money management, would you encourage good money management if/when the charges issue is resolved in law?