Banks trying to reclaim bank charges

zppp

rdm2007 wrote: »

So they have been mis-sold they are not as described.

How is it being missold - their business model is free banking if in credit. Sending statements and managing the accounts of those customers means that this is passed on through charges and thus is a cross subsidy. Charges are set out in the t's and c's so are transparent from the outset. Misselling is stating that a product will do something it doesn't, i.e PPI covering someone working 10 hours a week or requiring you take PPI for a credit card.

rdm2007

zppp wrote: »

How is it being missold - their business model is free banking if in credit. Sending statements and managing the accounts of those customers means that this is passed on through charges and thus is a cross subsidy. Charges are set out in the t's and c's so are transparent from the outset. Misselling is stating that a product will do something it doesn't, i.e PPI covering someone working 10 hours a week or requiring you take PPI for a credit card.

You are supposed to be able to make an "informed decision" how can you do that when you have been told that something is one thing when it is another.

As stated in the previous post the T&C's state that the charges are administrative costs they do not state that they are a cross subsidy.

Before the charges came about we could get free banking by keeping £100 minimum in the account. If you went below this figure you would pay a SMALL fee for transactions. So the words "free banking" do not automatically mean cross subsidy charges.

Mis-selling is not just saying something will do something it does not - it is also stating that something is what it is not, and forcing you to have something that you do not want or need.

e.g. you go to DFS, see a sofa that you like but it is red and you want green. The assistant says green is available so you enter a verbal agreement to purchase it. When it is delivered it is red.

Are you saying that because it does exactly what it is supposed to do you must keep it?

Alpine_Star

rdm2007 wrote: »

Not according to the UTCCR. A governing body/council may also make that decision but it has to be for the right reason.

UTCCR does not say this.

Although certain bodies (ie OFT) can take legal action on behalf of consumers to prevent the use of an unfair term, only a court can decide whether a term is unfair.

Common_Sense_2

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 - what would have happened if the bank had not let you go overdrawn (or over your overdraft limit)? the people / companies that the direct debits that would then have failed (because the bank did not allow them) would then have charged you / stopped services and then you would probably complain that the bank is being too harsh.

The bank helped you at the time by allowing you an unarranged overdraft, their fees woudl have been clearly set out in the terms and conditions of the account when you signed up for the account and the fees reflect the administration of the unarranged OD (not just a letter).

You say that you only went a couple of pounds overdrawn - but at the end of the day it was your decision to spend your money to take you over the limit.

Some financial statements I've seen in my work are amazing - people suggest that they can only pay their creditors £10 per month, but you see that on the bank statements that they have sky TV and go to the pub every week.

I'm not saying that you do this, but there must have been something back then that you could have removed from your life to reduce your monthly outgoings to prevent you from getting those charges.

You say "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." How would this have helped the bank? It is not the banks' duty to manage your spending - it is yours.

You also say "proper and right priciples of how people should deal with one another" - by that statement are you also saying that people shouldn't borrow money from someone without asking first? because that is what in effect you did when you had an unarranged overdraft.

Bit harsh I know, but that's the way i see it and i'm nobodies puppy!

woof woof

rdm2007

Alpine_Star wrote: »

UTCCR does not say this.

Although certain bodies (ie OFT) can take legal action on behalf of consumers to prevent the use of an unfair term, only a court can decide whether a term is unfair.

UTCCR

11.—(1) If a qualifying body specified in Part One of Schedule 1 notifies the Director that it agrees to consider a complaint that any contract term drawn up for general use is unfair, it shall be under a duty to consider that complaint.

(2) Regulation 10(2) and (3) shall apply to a qualifying body which is under a duty to consider a complaint as they apply to the Director.

rdm2007

viking1976 wrote: »

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.

Google unlawful charges there may be another website where people do not imply that you are avoiding debt for having a different opinion After all this is supposed to be a website designed to help people fight against what they believe to be wrong.

Alpine_Star

rdm2007 wrote: »

UTCCR

11.—(1) If a qualifying body specified in Part One of Schedule 1 notifies the Director that it agrees to consider a complaint that any contract term drawn up for general use is unfair, it shall be under a duty to consider that complaint.

(2) Regulation 10(2) and (3) shall apply to a qualifying body which is under a duty to consider a complaint as they apply to the Director.

Considering a complaint does not include making a legal judgment on whether a term is unfair

I don't know how many ways I can say this, so I'll let the OFT say it for me:


OFT seeks court order against letting agent Foxtons
only a court can decide whether a term is unfair. ...
25 February 08

OFT welcomes Court of Appeal Judgment in Foxtons case on Unfair terms
Ultimately, only a court can decide whether a term is unfair. Back to: Press releases. ...
02 April 09


OFT welcomes high court ruling on Foxtons' use of unfair terms
Ultimately, only a court can decide whether
10 July 09


OFT secures final high court order against Foxtons
Ultimately, only a court can decide whether a term is unfair. ...
22 February 10


Property investor gives undertakings to court
Ultimately, only a court can decide whether a term
is unfair.
24 May 06


OFT advises on protection for consumers buying home improvements
An unfair term in a contract covered by the UTCCRs is not binding on the consumer. Ultimately, only a court can decide whether a term is unfair. ...
28 July 06




Tenants and new home buyers protected from unfair contract terms
Ultimately, only a court can decide whether a term is unfair. ...
24 February 04


Tenants have unfair contract terms protection
Ultimately, only a court can decide whether a term is unfair. ...
21 October 03


OFT stops misleading claims from Devon travel company
Ultimately,only a court can decide whether a term is unfair. ...
02 September 05

rdm2007

Alpine_Star wrote: »

Considering a complaint does not include making a legal judgment on whether a term is unfair

I don't know how many ways I can say this, so I'll let the OFT say it for me:

OK ill let you have that one

Premier_2

rdm2007 wrote: »

...Sharp v RBS...

Ah yes, the claim everyone was hoping would open the floodgates for everyone to claim when it was to be won in June this year.

http://govanlc.blogspot.com/2010/06/bank-charges-update-from-glc.html

Unfortunately reality then struck. Even the GLC later said it wouldn't have set any legal precedent if the matter had actually have been heard at the time. But as I understand it, it hasn't even been heard yet as it was transferred away from the small claims court at the request of the bank.

It's all gone very quiet with the GLC saying they are considering if other claims would possibly have a better chance of success.


Anyway, why am I not surprised you appear to have have just come over here (after many months absence) from CAG . Unfortunately, now you've posted in manner that confirms to me you probably are a member there, I unfortunately cannot respond to you further, sorry. Bye.

antrobus

A rather entertaining if rather meandering thread. Mind you, I'm struggling to understand what any of this has to do with David Cameron. Given that the dispute relates to something that happened in 2007, shouldn't we all be blaming Gordon Brown?

As far as I can see the dispute relates to the operation of an Alliance and Leicester (now Santander) bank account, and the fact that the bank levied the traditional 'penalty' charges when the account holder went overdrawn without prior authorisation. Given that the OFT have failed in their attempt to get their 'class action' off the ground, and that the charges were levied in accordance with the account T&Cs, I would have thought that what you have here is a legally enforceable debt. I wouldn't have thought that Santander would be wasting anyone's time in demanding the £1,016, and for that sort of money it would be worth their while going legal.

So what can you do? You can either make it an issue of principle and prepare yourself for your day in court; bearing in mind that you might (of course) lose, and end up paying them £1,016 plus costs. Or you could make them an offer.