How will reclaiming bank charges impact banking discussion

borgbaiter

hi

the banks are and have been the architects of their own misfortunes for acting unlawfully.

whatever the end result i dont feel you "should" blame the victims for the reactions of there tormentors.


borgbaiter

krisskross

I don't think any amount of court cases to decide what is or is not unfair charges or whether they are penalties will in the end make a scrap of difference to the financially inept. They may well get some charges back now but I would bet money on them having even more unreclaimable charges in a couple of years time.

The banks are going to tie their terms and conditions up so tight there will be no possibilty of avoiding any charges levied. I also think there will be a lot of embarrassed angry people at supermarket check outs when their cards are declined for lack of funds. Now the supermarkets no longer take cheques as payment it won't be possible to write a cheque to gain a bit of breathing space either.

susanmarie

What if it was your cash? When Peter is robbed to pay Paul - Paul seldom objects!

Graham_Devon

When are my posts going to stop being deleted from this thread?

Whats the point in this thread asking how it's going to effect banking if you delete posts which take a different stance?

Someone states its the banks own misfortune, I relate that to being the same as getting charged time and time again and it get's pulled.

tru

Graham, you should know by now that you can post any opinion you like, as long as it agrees with everyone else's

Nathan_Spleen

The banks WERE charging penalties until they changed their T&Cs for the service charge argument, which failed.

krisskross

I also think that a lot of people will find themselves without a 'proper' bank account.

The banks will decide that people who cannot adhere to fairly simple terms (basically do not spend money you haven't got) are not the sort of customers they want. They are too much trouble.

Nathan_Spleen

Of course they were penalties for breach of contract and even banks called them penatiies. If the banks didn't think they were penalties they would have contested the isusue in court, rather than dodge it and pay up. And the banks would not have changed their T&Cs to remove the breach of contract terms for the test case otherwise.

If it looks like an elephant, walks like an elephant...

IvanOpinion

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

If it looks like an elephant, walks like an elephant...

.. then it is Pavarotti

ivan

Smasher

alexjohnson wrote: »

They might have been called "penalties" but they were not penalties for breach of contract and therefore the whole issue of reasonableness, and of "unlawfulness", was irrelevant. No breach, no penalty. That's not to say that UTCCA isn't relevant.

You clearly haven't been following this for very long. The vast majority of claims were on the grounds of breach of terms and penalties. The "service fees" thing is simply an unimaginative attempt to circumnavigate the law. The OFT already outlawed such practices in their credit card report in 2006 under the heading "Disguised Penalties" S.4.2.1.

My banking T&Cs stated that I must stay in credit, and that if I strayed, I would have to pay a charge to cover their administration costs. Even in their written defence, the bank pleaded that the charges were equal to their costs. Either they were lying, or £700m+ in settlements really does make better commercial sense.:rolleyes:

alexjohnson wrote: »

If the terms and conditions set out what the charges / penalties / tribute in gold are, and you agree to those conditions, where then is the breach of contract? There isn't one.

Wrong, you don't even understand the very first principle of this situation. It has been explained many many times here and on lots of other sites. Have a read around