Is this a new argument reclaiming charges

rdm2007

OK my terms and conditions state

As well as charging interest for unauthorised overdrafts, we may also charge a fee to cover the cost of the administration involved (see the relevant price list)

To me this means that I have a contractual obligation to pay "administrative costs", however, the bank have now revealed that these charges were actually a "cross subsidy for free if in credit banking"

I am under no contractual obligation to pay such charges as I am only contracted to pay administrative costs.

any views please :idea:

rdm2007

Also since these services (or the account package) has been sold to me as described (In the T&C's in black and white), then do they not fall foul of the sale of goods and services act

Supply of Goods and Services Act which says they must be:

1. of satisfactory quality
2. fit for purpose
3. and as described

Alpine_Star

It is the description of the services themselves that are the subject of the Sale of Goods Act. It does not apply to any description of how renumeration in exchange for services are accounted for or how they relate to the cost of providing them.

rdm2007

Alpine_Star wrote: »

It is the description of the services themselves that are the subject of the Sale of Goods Act. It does not apply to any description of how renumeration in exchange for services are accounted for or how they relate to the cost of providing them.

I disagree - It is a description which causes you to make an Informed decision on the purchase of a product or service.

E.G. One bank falsely states that the cheque books on their accounts are made of recycled paper, any tree lovers may choose this bank over another on that basis.

This is completely irrelevant to the running of the account but it is a detail given to encourage us to choose one over another.

Alpine_Star

rdm2007 wrote: »

I disagree - It is a description which causes you to make an Informed decision on the purchase of a product or service.

I don't think a judge would accept this as plausible and even if he did you would not only need to demonstrate that it made a material difference to your decision but that you suffered tangible detriment as a result.

The misrepresentation argument was tried with the FOS and their response was:

''Miss xxx appears to be saying that Lloyds TSB disguised valid service charges as unenforceable penalty charges, which she wrongly believed she could recover. However, she does not cite any specific representation made to her about her account or about the charges she has incurred; 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.''

rdm2007

Alpine_Star wrote: »

I don't think a judge would accept this as plausible and even if he did you would not only need to demonstrate that it made a material difference to your decision but that you suffered tangible detriment as a result.

The misrepresentation argument was tried with the FOS and their response was:

''Miss xxx appears to be saying that Lloyds TSB disguised valid service charges as unenforceable penalty charges, which she wrongly believed she could recover. However, she does not cite any specific representation made to her about her account or about the charges she has incurred; 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.''

That particular argument is not a very good example.

If the truth had been told at the very beginning people could have moved their accounts to a bank which had not started to make these charges or a credit union but we have been denied that option due to the banks misrepresentation

Alpine_Star

rdm2007 wrote: »

That particular argument is not a very good example.

If the truth had been told at the very beginning people could have moved their accounts to a bank which had not started to make these charges or a credit union but we have been denied that option due to the banks misrepresentation

This is nonsense. Nobody is denying you the right to move to a credit union.

rdm2007

Alpine_Star wrote: »

This is nonsense. Nobody is denying you the right to move to a credit union.

OK perhaps a wrong choice of words we were misled into staying with that bank.

If it means nothing to say that the charges are a cross subsidy then why did they not state this in the beginning????

Alpine_Star

rdm2007 wrote: »

OK perhaps a wrong choice of words we were misled into staying with that bank.

If it means nothing to say that the charges are a cross subsidy then why did they not state this in the beginning????

Banks are not contractually or legally obliged to disclose their business model in the same way that hairdressers are not obliged to state that 'half price for OAPs' is subsidised by you paying full price for your cut.

antrobus

Alpine_Star wrote: »

Banks are not contractually or legally obliged to disclose their business model in the same way that hairdressers are not obliged to state that 'half price for OAPs' is subsidised by you paying full price for your cut.

Good point. Hence I think the answer to the question would be 'no'.