Isn't it important that the banks lied?

davidgmmafan

Much has been made of the fact that customers who exceed thier limit are dishonest, thieves even (even though this argument doesn't work for UNPAID itemts, but that's a whole other issue). Yet nobody seems bothered by the fact that the banks admitted, for the first time, that most of them had lied in the past on the issue of charges.

At the outset the banks maintained, much like other companies do now in relation to late payment fees, that when a person goes over thier limit they incur costs and the charges are to cover those costs. Yet in the Supreme Court they got away with it because they admitted that charges do make a lot of money and there is a cross-subsidy using this money to pay, in part for free banking.

How come there hasn't been widespread coverage in the media of the bankis admitting that they blatantely lied? Any why is this permitted by law?

What message does this send out - lie cheat and steal, but hire a high priced lawyet and you'll he'll sort it all out?

natweststaffmember

davidgmmafan wrote: »

Much has been made of the fact that customers who exceed thier limit are dishonest, thieves even (even though this argument doesn't work for UNPAID itemts, but that's a whole other issue). Yet nobody seems bothered by the fact that the banks admitted, for the first time, that most of them had lied in the past on the issue of charges.

At the outset the banks maintained, much like other companies do now in relation to late payment fees, that when a person goes over thier limit they incur costs and the charges are to cover those costs. Yet in the Supreme Court they got away with it because they admitted that charges do make a lot of money and there is a cross-subsidy using this money to pay, in part for free banking.
I personally do not believe that the cross subsidy argument has much on it. I will explain. The Supreme Court information was that it was part of the payments that are taken to administer the current account market. The fact that the banks stated it was for administration costs to cover the costs of the breach, I don't think is that far from saying that it is to cover costs to administer the current account market. The fact that it is understood by you to be one thing when it isn't may not necessarily be strong enough to argue the case.
How come there hasn't been widespread coverage in the media of the bankis admitting that they blatantely lied? Any why is this permitted by law?

What message does this send out - lie cheat and steal, but hire a high priced lawyet and you'll he'll sort it all out?

I don't think we need to bark "cross subsidy" with too much vigour because you take your argument away from fairness and into price/level of the charge which is excluded by the Supreme Court judgement.

Premier_2

davidgmmafan wrote: »

Much has been made of the fact that customers who exceed thier limit are dishonest, thieves even ...

:eek:

Where? By whom? :huh:

davidgmmafan

Premier wrote: »

:eek:

Where? By whom? :huh:

You are joking right? Most hard line anti-charges brigade folk who express thier views here and on this is money. They say in France to authorize a payment which is returned is a crime.

davidgmmafan

natweststaffmember wrote: »

I don't think we need to bark "cross subsidy" with too much vigour because you take your argument away from fairness and into price/level of the charge which is excluded by the Supreme Court judgement.

You know I respect your views even when we differ. I can agree to an extend when you say cross-subsidy could mean administration.

However I can't understand why there hasn't been more made of the fact that the way banks decribe thier charges now is TOTALLY different to the way they described charges before. At best they were incompetant at worse they mis-led thier customers.

esmerellda

What detrimental affect did the misleading have on consumers ?

If they had said up front these charges are just part of the price for the package of services, what different might have happened ?

davidgmmafan

"What detrimental affect did the misleading have on consumers ?"

Well on the whole I thought it was desirable for businesses to tell the truth. Perhaps I was mistaken?

Customers were unable to challenge the charges because of the way there were presented. It is my view that if the charges were accurately described more people would've said 'on your bike' at the outset, more complaints generally and they would've been challenged sooner.

And for once the banks would've been honest. A difficult concept I know...

Alpine_Star

It may be desirable for businesses to tell the truth but the test in law is 'is it unlawful'.

Customers were able to challenge the charges. Hold on, they did! - regardless of how they were presented - and still are.

Esmerellda is right. You would have to prove genuine detriment in order to make a legal challenge. In a response to the misrep argument made by a complainant to the FOS they said ''......nor does she explain what, if anything, she did in reliance on any such representation. So I do not see that this argument could succeed''.

Proving your state of mind at the point you signed the contract would be utterly hopeless.

the_insider

davidgmmafan wrote: »

"What detrimental affect did the misleading have on consumers ?"

Well on the whole I thought it was desirable for businesses to tell the truth. Perhaps I was mistaken?

Customers were unable to challenge the charges because of the way there were presented. It is my view that if the charges were accurately described more people would've said 'on your bike' at the outset, more complaints generally and they would've been challenged sooner.

And for once the banks would've been honest. A difficult concept I know...

Are you suggesting that if people thought that the charges were to cover the costs of the general 'current account package' rather than the actual cost of using an unauthorised overdraft they would not authorise the transactions that would cause those charges. My understanding is that people have been charged because they had no alternative, they are just unhappy with how much they have been charged. I don't see how what they are for makes a difference.

natweststaffmember

the_insider wrote: »

Are you suggesting that if people thought that the charges were to cover the costs of the general 'current account package' rather than the actual cost of using an unauthorised overdraft they would not authorise the transactions that would cause those charges. My understanding is that people have been charged because they had no alternative, they are just unhappy with how much they have been charged. I don't see how what they are for makes a difference.

With regards to reclaiming bank charges some have stated that using an argument about misrepresentation would help that cause, ie that when charges were challenged that they were told that the amount corresponded directly to the cost of the breach. Personally, I'm not so sure that it presents itself as that good an argument to be honest. If you need a reference, Misrepresentation Act 1967 is your reference. Forget about banking for one instance and think contract law which is realistically what this about. I don't subscribe currently to that argument of Misrepresentation whatsoever as it stands.

davidgmmafan

Perhaps it wouldn't have been different...

What I find interesting right now is the banks told customers and in some cases swore as part of thier defence that the charges WERE in fact to cover the costs. Aren't they therefore guilty of some kind of contempt of court?