How will reclaiming bank charges impact banking discussion

MSE_Martin

As I see ther eare a couple of these threads ongoing (and always have been, bank charges can be a polemic issues) then I will refer you to my last blog on the subject (i have written a good few notes on it over the past few years) which gives my opinion.

http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2008/01/22/why-a-bank-charges-win-doesn%e2%80%99t-mean-the-end-of-%e2%80%98free-banking%e2%80%99/

Martin

Smasher

alexjohnson wrote: »

You're still confused. No breach, no penalty. It doesn't matter whether they call it a plain English "penalty", in law (I would argue, have argued, and the judge certainly seems to be leaning that way too) what banks were levying were not penalties for breach of contract. I just don't see how that is even possible when they have told you, in advance, what those "penalties" would be.

You are talking abou the test case again. Most claims were made before the charges were dressed up as service fees, it is you who is confused.

alexjohnson wrote: »

Put it this way: in what sense do you feel that by providing you money at a tariff about which you had been pre-advised and to which you either expressly agreed, or tacitly ("constructively") agreed, any contract was breached? We can worry about all the stuff that flows from a breach when you prove that there was one. I don't think there was. And your problem is the judge appears to agree with me, not you. Not over till it's over, of course, but your odds are looking slim from where I'm sitting.

My bank told me and a court of law that what they charged me was purely to cover their administration costs. That is the only thing I was contesting. My T&Cs stated that I must not go overdrawn, that is where I believe I had breached my terms, as did many tens of thousands of other claimants.

I see you ducked my last question conveniently didn't you.. If I post a random link that contradicts your point of view, would you accept it as "evidence"? If not, what was the purpose of that link you posted? Do you at least agree that it is a very poorly researched article considering the factual errors it contains?

IvanOpinion

Smasher wrote: »

Yeah yeah, you've posted that bit of info countless times, it really doesn't mean anything. I doubt anyone anyone called Ivan Opinion works for a bank anyway..

:rotfl: A bit of news for you .. promise you won't tell anybody else .. Ivan Opinion isn't my real name.:eek:

Rubbish! They were already paying out in the millions a couple of years ago. They are only defending now because they have managed to (rather shabbily) fiddle the T&Cs, and not even that has quite worked out. If they wanted to defend sooner, they would have had to defend on the principle that charges were purely to cover their administration costs for breach of terms, as is the principle for the vast majority of claims made.
Given that they are now telling us that the charges are a "service" and are admitting that they make considerable revenue from them, it would follow that to defend on the original principle would have been impossible. You can't have it both ways..

besides that there are more important people to respond to

Ivan

IvanOpinion

MSE_Martin wrote: »

As I see ther eare a couple of these threads ongoing (and always have been, bank charges can be a polemic issues) then I will refer you to my last blog on the subject (i have written a good few notes on it over the past few years) which gives my opinion.

http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2008/01/22/why-a-bank-charges-win-doesn%e2%80%99t-mean-the-end-of-%e2%80%98free-banking%e2%80%99/

Martin

having carefully read it, there are some very interesting points and a lot of spin (it doesn't surprise me that even before this case has been settled you have felt the need to start publishing 'back covering' editorial ) ... I am glad you have presented it as your 'opinion' / 'off the cuff response' and not as fact (because that is where we all are at the minute .. until we see exactly where the banks are going to go with this).

It is good that towards the end you mention that 'WE need to manage OUR money better' and it is a great shame that you do not put more emphasis on this because ultimately that is where the responsibility lies ... any failure is of our own making. Yes I Know charges can snowball which I believe is where the problem was .. not the charges themselves.

I know you try to be the big friendly cuddly journalistic type but sometimes a bit of 'tough love' is necessary which is where I think your weakness is ... you glossed over a very important point about 'learning from experience' ... I have heard various stories quoting your site that 'it doesn't matter if we go over again because we will just make another claim'. On your own boards there are various threads about 'I have already claimed, can I claim again' ... that is the point were people should either be referred to a debt councillor or told they are basically unfit to have credit .. on a second claim banks should be shutting down credit facilities and black marking their credit records.

Ivan

Nathan_Spleen

If I could respond

alexjohnson wrote: »

You're still confused. No breach, no penalty. It doesn't matter whether they call it a plain English "penalty", in law (I would argue, have argued, and the judge certainly seems to be leaning that way too) what banks were levying were not penalties for breach of contract

You know as well as I do ALL the banks changed the wording of their terms
to circumvent the penalty argument for the test case. Historical T&Cs have not been considered in the test case proccess as yet and so to say to the judge has ruled they are not penatalties without qualifiing that this only applies to the recently changed terms is very misleading.

I just don't see how that is even possible when they have told you, in advance, what those "penalties" would be.

How many times? Just becuase it's written into a contract does not deem it lawful.

Put it this way: in what sense do you feel that by providing you money at a tariff about which you had been pre-advised and to which you either expressly agreed, or tacitly ("constructively") agreed, any contract was breached? We can worry about all the stuff that flows from a breach when you prove that there was one. I don't think there was. And your problem is the judge appears to agree with me, not you. Not over till it's over, of course, but your odds are looking slim from where I'm sitting.

But not slim enough to put your money where your mouth is.

Smasher

IvanOpinion wrote: »

:rotfl: A bit of news for you .. promise you won't tell anybody else .. Ivan Opinion isn't my real name.:eek:

besides that there are more important people to respond to

Ivan

How childish. :rolleyes:

IvanOpinion

Smasher wrote: »

How childish. :rolleyes:

Smasher wrote:

I doubt anyone anyone called Ivan Opinion works for a bank anyway..

:think: :think:

Ivan

Smasher

Yes Ivan, there was a valid point I was making there. You come on here calling yourself "Ivan Opinion" and bang on about how you got all the inside information therefore you know better, but conveniently, you're legally bound by some non-disclosure clause.

True to form, when you run out of anything relevant to say, you resort posting remarks out of pure spite..

IvanOpinion

Smasher wrote: »

Yes Ivan, there was a valid point I was making there. You come on here calling yourself "Ivan Opinion" and bang on about how you got all the inside information therefore you know better, but conveniently, you're legally bound by some non-disclosure clause.

I don;t have 'all the inside information', nor have I ever claimed to have. What I have said is that in some products I know the business justificaiton behind them. I have also made it clear that I think that is all purely academic now since I beieve the credit crunch is going to be blamed BY BOTH SIDES for all sorts of things.

True to form, when you run out of anything relevant to say, you resort posting remarks out of pure spite..

You obviously got oiut of bed on the wrong side this morning. I have not made any posts out of 'pure spite' ... is that your motivation? Maybe if you would try reading them and discussing their content instead of making silly assumptions.:rolleyes:

Ivan

TANZARELLI

alexjohnson wrote: »

What's to get? That you can summarise someone else's work passably? You've got no claim to any expert knowledge, and particularly not to start a post with a sigh, as if it's all so tedious to have to explain this again.

Who is claiming expert knowlegde? I'm not! just common sense mate, something you seem to be lacking in your posts. You and the "we're whiter than white, lets all have a pop at anyone who believes that the banks are ripping off their customers, aren't they naughty people to reclaim unlawful penalties" brigade really don't understand that what we have here is bit of positive action from the consumer who has been subjected to rip off charges for a number of years which has funded our so called "free banking" LMAO well thats a joke in itself.


How kind of you. OFT: it's OK, we don't need you. A poster on MSE has already made the determination of what your charges should be. Hooray! He's come up with the prices he's happy to pay. Next time I go to Tesco, remind me to call you so you can give me a sense of whether the prices are "proportionate." I'm sure your opinion will be valuable. I'll just let the check-out staff know what I'm prepared to pay when I get there.

Are you for real? How pethetic your pointless posts are getting. Totally unbelievable. You really are clutching at straws aren't you. I know banks are there to make profit and I agree they should, what I don't agree with is that they should profit from penalties.

Did I tell you that they are penalties?? Yes, oh though as much.

No, it isn't a "fact." It's an opinion, and one I happen to believe is very unlikely to be shared by the court, and as has been observed many times already, with teams of solicitors from HM Government and the largest law firms in the country as well as from memory at least eight QC's I think it's pretty obvious that the questions aren't as easy as your wishful thinking might suggest. In "fact" it's someone else's opinion, which you've copied out. It's called breach of contract. And you really should know all this before wading is as the expert who "gets it."

Q: So why didn't the banks choose to disclose this and save you all the heartache?

A: Because they didn't want to be proved wrong.


As for copying out someone elses opinion, the words "POT KETTLE & BLACK" spring to my mind when I read your posts. I have researched this area I have read thousands of posts/opinions and looked through masses of caselaw judgements to get the knowledge I have, I don't profess to be an expert in any way shape or form. However your knowledge seems to be gained from a few posts here on MSE. Well researched mate..:T


We will see what happens with regards to older historical T&Cs at some point in the future and you will be eating your words no doubt. Even then you will try to come up with a lame arguement to disagree with the outcome though wont you?

:money: LMAO