Isn't it important that the banks lied?

natweststaffmember

davidgmmafan wrote: »

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?

The costs of administering the breach/account which from what we have already been told in the Supreme Court, the banks have done. Whether the way the consumer understood the terms used is another matter but PIL is excluded by the Supreme Court so I would suspect is Misrepresentation. The fact that the charges DID cover the cost and generically was stated does not present an argument for the fact that there were charges since the level of them is out under UTCCR 1999.

jon-48

It has occurred to me that if a bank makes a payment that puts an account over its overdraft limit, then to charge a unautherised overdraft fee is inappropriate as by the act of making that payment it has been authorised.