Free banking 'will be axed'

CopperPlate_2

M_Thomson wrote:

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.

But please, that's all that is important, surely? One interpretation of it is all that matters - just as long as it's the right interpretation.

JoseChungsDoomsday

CopperPlate wrote:

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.

Couldn't agree more i've been dodging dchurch24 for the last few months. His irresponsible preaching of 'get a charge? sue!' has grown very tire some

CopperPlate_2

Yep. Fair enough to create a site for it - no problem there at all, I'm all for consumer power and a site dedicated to their cause is fine. But let's just keep the over-zealousness to the original site, eh? and let MSE'ers follow their own path, without being badgered, harassed and pilloried along for not being fanatical about the same subject which, to be honest, is as dull as ditchwater to the majority of us.

dchurch24

and...

OFT wrote:

It has been put to us that to require charges not to exceed recoverable costs might encourage a tendency for banks to 'gold plate' their operations for handling defaults, in order to increase costs and thus justify higher charges in order to deter defaults. We believe that charges set so as to match recoverable costs that are higher than they need to be would be open to challenge for unfairness, and we would expect to take action accordingly. Taking what a court would order under the common law as a comparable yardstick, it is normal in the assessment of damages for the injured party to be expected to mitigate his loss, and thus to be awarded compensation only for such costs as he could not reasonably avoid incurring.

It seems research is the key, once again.

M_Thomson

I must remember to sue Tesco this week as my weekly shop today came to £30.

dchurch24

Once again - questions avoided.

Is this not a discussion thread about the reasons why free banking is supposedly coming to an end?

CopperPlate_2

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

CopperPlate_2

dchurch24 wrote:

Once again - questions avoided.

Is this not a discussion thread about the reasons why free banking is supposedly coming to an end?

Is it???!!! Goodness, I thought I'd stumbled onto a one man site which detailed the legality of bank charges! Must be a virus on my computer that's caused it.

M_Thomson

dchurch24 wrote:

Once again - questions avoided.

You didn't answer mine. What is a fair level of charges in your opinion?

dchurch24

M_Thomson wrote:

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??!??!

A fair charge would be one that represents the true cost of the breach.

To answer your question:

Abbey 3 times - once for me, twice for my partner.
Smile once.
Barclays and Barclaycard - it didn't come to legal action as they paid up in full before it got to that stage.

The reason my partner sued twice, before you bang on about irresponsibility, was that after she successfully sued and got her money back, the closed the account - not a big deal, there's plenty of competition - only they didn't. All they did was, on the date that the account was supposed to be closed was to remove the very small overdraft facility without informing her. Then charged her for being over her limit, despite the last statement showing the account in credit. Then they made more charges on those charges until the account was about 1000 quid 'over limit'.