Banks trying to reclaim bank charges

viking1976

In 2007 we had an online account with Allience and Lester. We did not use the acount very long as we got a demand for £1016. I ordered statments and found they had taken far more than this in bank charges meaning that this demand was made up entirely of bank charges. We went through the bank and debt collection agency threats while we demanded our bank charges refunded. We finaly got a letter saying the account had been closed and they were not paying out untill the test case, followed by a letter saying the test case meant they were not paying out.

Yesterday years after the enitial wrangling ceased we got a letter from Santander agian demanding the £1016 made up entirly of bank charges.

What can we do? I did tell them to not waste our time and theirs and take us to court but they are set to go through the entire cycle of threats and collection agencies again.

rdm2007

"And I want to help try and build a more responsible society here in Britain. One where we don't just ask what are my entitlements, but what are my responsibilities." - David Cameron, 11th May 2010.

Sounds too much like JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" 20th Jan 1961, but that would responsibly put credit where it is due.

Just an observation ....

Premier_2

rdm2007 wrote: »

Ouch - you two.

If it is entirely made up of unfair bank charges - then perhaps it is not a debt......

But what evidence have you that the bank charges are unfair?

In fact last year the Supreme Court ruled the bank charges couldn't even be assessed as such when the OFT tried to do so. Whilst there were some other opportunities, the OFT felt there was little likelihood of of them ever succeeding, so they gave up.

There is an argument that by some that perhaps individuals may have a better chance of success in proving them to be unfair ... but it's almost a year now and despite the best efforts of Martin and the barrister he employed, it should be said that not one person has yet reported any success in court following that guide.

Premier_2

rdm2007 wrote: »

"And I want to help try and build a more responsible society here in Britain. One where we don't just ask what are my entitlements, but what are my responsibilities." - David Cameron, 11th May 2010.

Sounds too much like JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" 20th Jan 1961, but that would responsibly put credit where it is due.

Just an observation ....

You are free to observe it any way you like.

However, now he's got the job, he was prepared to be a bit more direct when speaking yesterday.

He spoke of calling time on those "sitting on the sofas waiting for benefits to arrive”.

He went on:
“If you really can’t work, we’ll look after you. But if you can work but refuse to work, we will not let you live off the hard work of others.”

He wrapped up with:
“This is your country. It’s time to step up and own it."


I may not agree with many of his policies, but if he can at least deliver that, maybe the GBP were right to grant him power (although admittedly there wasn't much to choose from)


One other snippet he said yesterday was:

“Fairness means giving people what they deserve, and what people deserve depends on how they behave."

which oddly works on so many levels in reference to this particular thread.

rdm2007

How long did it take to come to that decision (about three years) so what makes you think that an opposing view will be any quicker ?.

Schedule 2 Of the UTCCR is a non exhaustive list of terms which may already be considered as unfair and D states: - “permitting the seller or supplier to retain sums paid by the consumer where the latter decides not to conclude or perform the contract, without providing for the consumer to receive compensation of an equivalent amount from the seller or supplier where the latter is the party cancelling the contract;”.

As there is no provision in the banks T&C's to allow the consumer to make a charge when the bank has failed in some way (i.e. crediting a deposit to a wrong account resulting in a refusal of a D/D) then this should already be deemed unfair by virtue of the above.

rdm2007

Premier wrote: »

You are free to observe it any way you like.

However, now he's got the job, he was prepared to be a bit more direct when speaking yesterday.

He spoke of calling time on those "sitting on the sofas waiting for benefits to arrive”.

He went on:
“If you really can’t work, we’ll look after you. But if you can work but refuse to work, we will not let you live off the hard work of others.”

He wrapped up with:
“This is your country. It’s time to step up and own it."


I may not agree with many of his policies, but if he can at least deliver that, maybe the GBP were right to grant him power (although admittedly there wasn't much to choose from)


One other snippet he said yesterday was:

“Fairness means giving people what they deserve, and what people deserve depends on how they behave."

which oddly works on so many levels in reference to this particular thread.

The principles are fine if applied correctly.

He could have stated that it was a variation of JFK's statement, but he didn't, which, makes a farce of the other statement you quote.

“Fairness means giving people what they deserve, and what people deserve depends on how they behave."

perhaps a display of dual standards, but that will remain to be seen.

Premier_2

rdm2007 wrote: »

How long did it take to come to that decision (about three years) so what makes you think that an opposing view will be any quicker ?....

The decision made was based on the OFT's claim, it didn't establish fairness or unfairness. The decision was whether the fees could even be considered for fairness. The Supreme Court ruled thay couldn't (at least on the basis the OFT had intended)

As I said, the OFT had considered alternative approaches, but have already concluded in view of the defeat they already suffered that the likelihood of success by them using any other approach was also not worth even trying.

As for individuals trying, well I don't know of anyone here who has even got to the courthouse yet, but I have heard some people have simply had their claims struck out.
The decision by the Supreme Court took 3 years, not for them alone to decide, but because it went through many lower courts first.


Only a court can decide what is fair/unfair. At the moment, there isn't even an agreement that bank charges can be assessed by the court for such. That's what the OFT tried to do, but failed and gave up with alternatives.

viking1976

At the time we were struggling to stay above water. I went overdrawn by litterly a couple of pounds each time and was charged tens of pounds for each time. At the begining of the next month we were still struggling to stay above water but also were starting the month at minus amount of money because of extorsionate charges. It is clear the bank were taking advantage of someone in a vunerable position and trying to push them in a hole they would find it hard to get out of.

I dont owe any debt as they helped themselves to well over £1400 before we knew what they were doing. They recouped the money I went overdrawn by + the cost of the letter + a nice profit in charges. The £1016 is my money they want because they thought that nice little profit was not big enough.

I thought the maths invoved in this equation were simple. But then it does depend on Premier and his puppy (sorry Common Sense 2) beliving that people should deal with others respectfully and honestly and that taking advantage and extorting and trying to pull others down is wrong.

I owe the bank nothing I am simply standing up for myself and proper and right priciples of how people should deal with one another.

zppp

viking1976 wrote: »

At the time we were struggling to stay above water. I went overdrawn by litterly a couple of pounds each time and was charged tens of pounds for each time. At the begining of the next month we were still struggling to stay above water but also were starting the month at minus amount of money because of extorsionate charges. It is clear the bank were taking advantage of someone in a vunerable position and trying to push them in a hole they would find it hard to get out of.

I dont owe any debt as they helped themselves to well over £1400 before we knew what they were doing. They recouped the money I went overdrawn by + the cost of the letter + a nice profit in charges. The £1016 is my money they want because they thought that nice little profit was not big enough.

I thought the maths invoved in this equation were simple. But then it does depend on Premier and his puppy (sorry Common Sense 2) beliving that people should deal with others respectfully and honestly and that taking advantage and extorting and trying to pull others down is wrong.

I owe the bank nothing I am simply standing up for myself and proper and right priciples of how people should deal with one another.

Viking, I understand what you have said, and I imagine that Premier did in your original post.

Your arguement as to 'extortion' or the amount of charges is irrelevant, this is the practice the courts have taken since the conclusion of the OFT court case.

It doesn't change the fact that at the moment there is no case as precidence to get charges removed from your account, unless they have been applied in error, or you are deemed to be in financial harship - and even that is hit and miss.

If you feel you are in harship, have a look at the sticky at the top of the charges board, and they may remove some of the charges.

viking1976

rdm2007 you have a knowladge and understanding of how the issue currently stands that I do not. If you have any advise on how to go about defending my family from the quite dispicable greed of the bank I would be very greatfull. Partly because I have no desire to part with my money and partly because it is important to fight back and not simply let them get it without a fight.

For the information of Premier bank charges have been a thing of the past for us for years now wich is why I am very annoyed to be dealing with it again.

rdm2007

Premier wrote: »

The decision made was based on the OFT's claim, it didn't establish fairness or unfairness. The decision was whether the fees could even be considered for fairness. The Supreme Court ruled thay couldn't (at least on the basis the OFT had intended)
They ruled that the level/price could not be challenged and went on to say that they could still be unfair for other reasons.


As I said, the OFT had considered alternative approaches, but have already concluded in view of the defeat they already suffered that the likelihood of success by them using any other approach was also not worth even trying.

As for individuals trying, well I don't know of anyone here who has even got to the courthouse yet, but I have heard some people have simply had their claims struck out.
Sharp v RBS

The decision by the Supreme Court took 3 years, not for them alone to decide, but because it went through many lower courts first.


Only a court can decide what is fair/unfair. Not according to the UTCCR. A governing body/council may also make that decision but it has to be for the right reason.

At the moment, there isn't even an agreement that bank charges can be assessed by the court for such That's what the OFT tried to do, but failed and gave up with alternatives.

Why would you need an agreement to take someone to court? The use of a court (for civil purposes) is because people can not reach an agreement.

Also using the quote

“Fairness means giving people what they deserve, and what people deserve depends on how they behave."

The banks have sold this overall package (as they call it) to us stating that the charges were admin costs (look at your terms and conditions it is there in black and white) yet they revealed at supreme court that this was not true, as they were a cross subsidy for free if in credit banking. So they have been mis-sold they are not as described.

Do you think this behaviour is deserving?