How will reclaiming bank charges impact banking discussion

IvanOpinion

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

I simply don't understand you. The people who can just balance the book ARE being hit the hardest. Your 3 percent savings rate cut is an example of it moving the other way and invalidates any point you had.

You are missing my point ... people who are just about balancing the books do not have savings but often have loans that they pay off which, at the end of the month leaves them back to square one. Changes in the savings rate do not affect them. However if they lose free banking (which is a possibility) then they can no longer balance the books taking them over drawn and into the clutches of new 'legal' and 'fair' charging. if they lose access to credit (which is another possibility) then were will that leave them?

Ivan

IvanOpinion

Can I suggest one other thing that we should be campaigning for, namely a £10-£20 authorised overdraft on all current accounts. Yes it will attract interest but should not incur any charges (nor should the banks be obliged to send out any warnings if someone drifts into this 'buffer').

Ivan

IvanOpinion

Smasher wrote: »

Really, like his little conspiracy theory? :laugh:

I have made no secret of the fact that I am an IT worker that has in the past worked for several banks. I have read the feasibility studies, business justifications and done quite a bit of analysis work on various products. While much of what is happening is simply 'new products', 'business-as-usual' when you do such work you find out the real reasons as to why certain decisions are being taken (not the fluff fed to the media).

And you are a lawyer? Honestly?

You don;t need to be a lawyer for that (just some common sense) until something is declared unlawful/illegal then it can not be deemed to be unlawful/illegal. That is why Martin refers to them as 'unfair'.

ivan

Smasher

Ivan, Your remarks, whilst they make sense, have absolutely nothing to what you are quoting.

IvanOpinion wrote: »

You don;t need to be a lawyer for that (just some common sense) until something is declared unlawful/illegal then it can not be deemed to be unlawful/illegal. That is why Martin refers to them as 'unfair'.

Wrong again, (now watch how I respond to what I am quoting).
Martin refers to them as unlawful.
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/?utm_source=forumhome1&utm_medium=tabs&utm_campaign=tabtest

IvanOpinion

Smasher wrote: »

Ivan, Your remarks, whilst they make sense, have absolutely nothing to what you are quoting.

I am quite happy to wait to see who is right and who is wrong ... I have been posting on various boards about things going on in relation to reclaiming charges even before Martin jumped on the bandwagon ... so far many of the things I have suggested will happen have come aboout .. I would love to be much more precise but I am subject to non-disclosure and commercial confidentiality agreements.

Wrong again, (now watch how I respond to what I am quoting).
Martin refers to them as unlawful.
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/?utm_source=forumhome1&utm_medium=tabs&utm_campaign=tabtest

Sadly he does now seem to be using the word 'unlawful' however it just goes to show that he can be wrong ... he used to use 'unfair'. A court may ulitmately rule them to be 'unlawful' but until then that is just media spin (unless you believe the media sets the laws in this country).

Now learn from a professional who prefers to use unbiased sources try here or here or how about from the 'office of fair trading. Note the case it is not about 'lawful'/'unlawful' it is about 'fair/'unfair'. [EDIT] I guess it just goes to prove the point that the media can always make the naive believe what they want. it reminds me of many of these situations .. abuse the system as much as you like and then when it comes to the bottom line pretend you are thick-as-two-short-planks to get what you want.

Ivan

Smasher

IvanOpinion wrote: »

Sadly he does now seem to be using the word 'unlawful' however it just goes to show that he can be wrong ... he used to use 'unfair'. A court may ulitmately rule them to be 'unlawful' but until then that is just media spin (unless you believe the media sets the laws in this country).

No I don't. However, I do believe that bank charges are penalty charges. The actions of the banks during litigation only serves to convince me & hundreds of thousands of others that we must be right. Either that, or it really does make better commercial sense to pay out hundreds of £millions in settlements than to defend a claim that has no merit. :laugh:
I do know that penalty charges are unlawful.

IvanOpinion

Smasher wrote: »

I do know that penalty charges are unlawful.

:rotfl: :rotfl: I just had to thank you for giving me a good laugh ...you 'KNOW' it then WHY is that not the subject of the case or do you KNOW better than the lawyers arguing this.

ivan

Mark7799

Smasher wrote: »

Ivan, Your remarks, whilst they make sense, have absolutely nothing to what you are quoting.

Wrong again, (now watch how I respond to what I am quoting).
Martin refers to them as unlawful.
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/?utm_source=forumhome1&utm_medium=tabs&utm_campaign=tabtest

Actually, his phraseology is
"All penalty charges for exceeding your overdrafts, bounced direct debits and cheque’s are commonly believed to be unlawful" not THEY ARE unlawful

Smasher

IvanOpinion wrote: »

:rotfl: :rotfl: I just had to thank you for giving me a good laugh ...you 'KNOW' it then WHY is that not the subject of the case or do you KNOW better than the lawyers arguing this.

Oh how could I have a hope in hell in an argument against such almighty wit! :rolleyes:

I'm a little puzzled. You say you've been following this far longer than since Martin jumped on the band wagon, yet you seem to have missed the whole point of why people started reclaiming. Just like your buddy Tozer, you fix on the defence arguments put forward by banks during the OFT test case. Arguments that did not exist until the test case started. And arguments that did not exist in the vast majority of claims to date.
So as you clearly missed what was going on, here's a brief outline..

Banks claimed that charges were to cover costs.
Claimants believed that their costs were nowhere near as much as they were charging.
This would make them a penalty charge.
Penalty charges are unlawful.

Its a simple concept. Even the ordinary bloke in the street could understand it enough to confidently take a bank to court. And he did didn't he, in hundreds of thousands..

The reason why this is not the subject of the case is because banks all changed their T&Cs and stopped claiming that charges are to cover costs. Tell me, why do you think that is?

I don't think I'm going to waste any more time arguing with people who defeat themselves with their own answers. :T

Smasher

Mark7799 wrote: »

Actually, his phraseology is
"All penalty charges for exceeding your overdrafts, bounced direct debits and cheque’s are commonly believed to be unlawful" not THEY ARE unlawful

Actually, if we're splitting hairs. Here is the actual wording from the homepage.. "Bank Charges: Reclaim them, they’re unlawful, includes free template letters"

Although I do agree that they are believed to be unlawful because as yet, there has been no legal examination of their costs Vs charges, and there is not likely to be since they have given up on trying to argue that charges are to cover costs.