How will reclaiming bank charges impact banking discussion

rubuhoeikanaika

Hi there,

I reclaimed £500 or so last year, but I did it in the full knowledge that I didn't feel 'morally entitled' to the money back: I was given the bank's terms and conditions well in advance, and the reason I got charged was because I left my balance perilously near my OD limit, and forgot about a yearly standing order from way back, which came out when I was on holiday. I asked for the money back because it was going, and to my surprise they agreed.

Many people say that the banks's (specifically L-TSB) argument that the charges are a 'service fee' is a paper-thin fiction to disguise an illegal contractual penalty. But is that really so? I don't really see anything wrong with the following...

borrowing up to £2000 (say): we charge you 10% p.a.
borrowing money from us without even asking us first: £30 per day and 20% p.a.

What's wrong with this? Now the charges are overpriced, but that's hardly illegal. People either know them in advance, or *should* have known them in advance ("I have read, understood and agree to...")

But about people who 'live on the edge' and due to unexpected expenses "can't avoid" creeping over? I'm not completely convinced - consider a £500 OD limit. Presumably such a person will hover around -£500 as his account 'zero', occasionally slipping into the super-red. But on average it works out every month (otherwise he'd be consistently and constantly building up debt, not hovering around £500). If, initially, he hovered around £300 or even £0 the over-overdrawn risk is reduced immensely.

To those who might respond angrily to this post and attack me: I accept that I may be wrong, even fundamentally so. I welcome argument and debate, especially the heated variety - but not ad hominem attacks. But before you tear me to pieces, consider - is your refusal to engage with such arguments due to your emotional investment in getting 'your' money back?

rubuhoe

markj113

so its a case of "ive had mine back so screw the rest of you" :mad:

cnoelj

rubuhoeikanaika wrote: »

Hi there,

I reclaimed £500 or so last year, but I did it in the full knowledge that I didn't feel 'morally entitled' to the money back: I was given the bank's terms and conditions well in advance, and the reason I got charged was because I left my balance perilously near my OD limit, and forgot about a yearly standing order from way back, which came out when I was on holiday. I asked for the money back because it was going, and to my surprise they agreed.

Many people say that the banks's (specifically L-TSB) argument that the charges are a 'service fee' is a paper-thin fiction to disguise an illegal contractual penalty. But is that really so? I don't really see anything wrong with the following...

borrowing up to £2000 (say): we charge you 10% p.a.
borrowing money from us without even asking us first: £30 per day and 20% p.a.

What's wrong with this? Now the charges are overpriced, but that's hardly illegal. People either know them in advance, or *should* have known them in advance ("I have read, understood and agree to...")

But about people who 'live on the edge' and due to unexpected expenses "can't avoid" creeping over? I'm not completely convinced - consider a £500 OD limit. Presumably such a person will hover around -£500 as his account 'zero', occasionally slipping into the super-red. But on average it works out every month (otherwise he'd be consistently and constantly building up debt, not hovering around £500). If, initially, he hovered around £300 or even £0 the over-overdrawn risk is reduced immensely.

To those who might respond angrily to this post and attack me: I accept that I may be wrong, even fundamentally so. I welcome argument and debate, especially the heated variety - but not ad hominem attacks. But before you tear me to pieces, consider - is your refusal to engage with such arguments due to your emotional investment in getting 'your' money back?

rubuhoe

Its not even worth the argument

Best to ignore it and treat it with the just contempt it deserves

rubuhoeikanaika

markj113 wrote: »

so its a case of "ive had mine back so screw the rest of you" :mad:

No :mad:

I merely put my history down in the interest of full disclosure.

It's a case of:

"getting them back was due to the stupidity of the banks - they did give me (and all other claimants) the money voluntarily after all. now that stupidity is coming to an end, and the law may be clarified"

tough break to those who didn't get there in time - I see having got mine back as rather like speeding and escaping a ticket. *of course* you feel happy to have done it - but at the same time I think people shouldn't in general escape tickets for breaking the posted limits.

rubuhoe

sylvia9121

lol .....get a life!!!!

Stephen_Leak

rubuhoeikanaika wrote: »

I reclaimed £500 or so last year, but I did it in the full knowledge that I didn't feel 'morally entitled' to the money back: I was given the bank's terms and conditions well in advance, and the reason I got charged was because I left my balance perilously near my OD limit, and forgot about a yearly standing order from way back, which came out when I was on holiday.

You were morally and legally due to the money. The banks were entitled to charge in your circumstances, but only what it costs them. The T&C's are an unlawful contract, which is unenforcable.

I do agree that the law needs to be clarified. IMHO, it needs to specify what can be charged to cover the banks and CCC's legitimate costs and how much can be added to this as a "disincentive" to defaults.

rubuhoeikanaika

sylvia9121 wrote: »

lol .....get a life!!!!

I was close to reporting you for that post. Is this (frankly pathetic attempt at) childhood insult what happens when people question received wisdom around in your presence?

We've all done the childish attack online thing before - I'm trying for a reasoned debate here.

rubuhoe

mandi

forgive me for not finishing reading your thread Rubu... Its utter tosh !!!:D

rubuhoeikanaika

Stephen_Leak wrote: »

You were morally and legally due to the money. The banks were entitled to charge in your circumstances, but only what it costs them. The T&C's are an unlawful contract, which is unenforcable.

I do agree that the law needs to be clarified. IMHO, it needs to specify what can be charged to cover the banks and CCC's legitimate costs and how much can be added to this as a "disincentive" to defaults.

Morally due the money? I don't think so - I read the T+Cs when I opened the account, I knew the costs of being lazy and rolling over my overdraft, but I did it anyway through inertia. I borrowed without warning from the bank, they'd warned me in advance what would happen, so I paid the prominently posted amount. Seems fair to me - I was damn lucky to get it back.

Well as for whether I was due it legally - that rather depends on if it was a service fee or an illegal contractual penalty. I think the former, though I think we'll never agree on this point.

rubuhoeikanaika

mandi wrote: »

forgive me for not finishing reading your thread Rubu... Its utter tosh !!!:D

That's cool

As I said, attack what I wrote all you want. Not quite the reasoned argument I was hoping for though :cool:

rubuhoe