Free banking 'will be axed'

dchurch24

I detest the way in which they all misquote the OFT on this issue.

The OFT believes that a charge of around £12 per slip-up is reasonable

The OFT did not say that 12 quid was reasonable. Quite the opposite. It said that 12 quid was the point at which they would step in legally and take action. They also distinctly said that does not mean that 12 quid is reasonable, and that a charge of less than 12 quid could still be considered a penalty and it was for the individual to take their own legal action through the courts.

M_Thomson

dchurch24 wrote:

I detest the way in which they all misquote the OFT on this issue.



The OFT did not say that 12 quid was reasonable. Quite the opposite. It said that 12 quid was the point at which they would step in legally and take action. They also distinctly said that does not mean that 12 quid is reasonable, and that a charge of less than 12 quid could still be considered a penalty and it was for the individual to take their own legal action through the courts.

Here we go again!

dchurch24

Imagine that! - someone stating the truth for a change.

M_Thomson

dchurch24 wrote:

Imagine that! - someone stating the truth for a change.

Even if the charges were 20p you would probably still kick up a fuss.

CopperPlate_2

:rotfl: :rotfl:

dchurch24

Oh dear. Run out of constructive reasoning? - if you ever had any to start with.

If the charges were 20p (which would be closer to being true reflection of costs, and therefore probably lawful), then there wouldn't have been any fuss in the first place.

I clearly stated how the OFT paper read, rather than a !!!!!!!ised, media and bank friendly version of it.

If that's your best answer, then I'm beginning to think it's going to be a lot easier than I thought.

If you really think that it costs £12 (or more) to send two letters (and that's if your lucky enough to actually get a letter), then you need to visit a post office.

M_Thomson

dchurch24 wrote:

I clearly stated how the OFT paper read, rather than a !!!!!!!ised, media and bank friendly version of it.

No, you quoted your interpretation of it. The truth is even if a bank paid you £30 cash every time a direct debit wasn't paid, you would probably sue them.

dchurch24

OFT wrote:

Where credit card default charges are set at more than £12, the OFT will presume that they are unfair, and is likely to challenge the charge unless there are limited, exceptional business factors in play. A default charge is not fair simply because it is below £12. Setting a threshold for intervention is a pragmatic pro-consumer action that is designed to give the industry the opportunity to change its practice without litigation.

and

OFT wrote:

A default charge should only be used to recover certain limited administrative costs. These may include postage and stationery costs.

And how else could that be interpreted?

I would say that my interpretation is pretty much the same as they have said, but in my words, not theirs.

Oh, I forgot this bit:

The OFT is not proposing that default fees should be equivalent to the threshold, and a court will certainly not consider that a default fee is fair just because it is below the threshold.

CopperPlate_2

Hmmm. Why have you come here dchurch24? No more room on CAG? Or is everyone there as fed up hearing about bank charges and the legalities of it all as we are? This is obviously another thread that's now out of bounds...oh dear....

I really can't wait until September to see if all the rumour about monthly fees and the like of FD going ahead with their 'alleged' introduction of fees.

M_Thomson

dchurch24 wrote:

and



And how else could that be interpreted?

I would say that my interpretation is pretty much the same as they have said, but in my words, not theirs.

So what is a fair charge to you? What would be the level for charges be so that you wouldn't "Sue" your bank'SSSssssssssssss. How many banks is that you have sued now??!??!