Variation of Terms and Conditions

tom188

By the way, this thread was sparked off by HBSC announcing they were to differentiate between 'formal' and 'informal' overdrafts, with a £25 'arrangement fee' for 'informal' ones, applied monthly.

Overdrafts are generally repayable on demand. Would you suggest it would be better for HSBC to call in its overdrafts (which it is entitled to do under the terms and conditions you sign when you apply for one) and required all customers to reapply under the new terms and conditions? I dont think many people would thank them for doing that, a notice of variation seems more sensible doesn't it.

JohnPeard

It is my understanding that, in order to negate the argument that the charges applied for 'unauthorized overdrafts' (not agreed ones) are 'penalties', HBSC have introduced the notion of an 'informal overdraft' - i.e. one that you have not agreed, but the bank has 'allowed'. These, according to the new T&Cs are subject to a £25 'arrangement fee', applied each time.

So it is not a question of the bank 'calling in' an overdraft, which we agree it can do at any time, but whether the new 'fee' is enforceable (and lawful) because the new term has not been agreed by the customer.

oldwiring

If the customer refused to close the account, I think the bank would still have the final word. After the thirty day notice had been sent to the customer it'd be would be within their right to send a bankers draft for any remaining funds and close the account futher formality. Use of the chequebook or any card beyond that time would be a criminal act- theft, decpetion for example. Were the account in debit, the bank would issue formal demand for payment for the sum outstnding after set-off of any savings balances, give notice to any guarantors etc etc. Mr Cocky Iwontcloseit would get stitched up. Personally, serve him right!

gt94sss2

JohnPeard wrote:

If one party writes to the other to state a variation of the T&Cs, a non-reply by the other does not constitute an agreement to amend the contract, or consent.

From my own very limited understanding of contractual law and IANAL, I suspect that continued use of an account after a variation of the T&Cs has been given legally signifies acceptance, unless you have otherwise informed them.

Regards
Sunil

JohnPeard

oldwiring wrote:

Mr Cocky Iwontcloseit would get stitched up. Personally, serve him right!

I think you may be missing my point, oldwiring.

At the moment the banking industry is one complete shambles. There are customers making claims in the small claims court in the shed loads, banks are repaying charges without defending etc. etc.

Why? Because it turns out what everybody thought was lawful may not be the case. What a mess!

So let me give you a prediction. In order to protect themselves, banks will change their terms and conditions, but without the customers' written consent. Not only is this daft, it is also b****y arrogant.

In six years time (or so) customers will be able to claim back all their charges (again) on the grounds that the terms were varied without their consent, and thus the charges are unlawful.

To paraphase your comment:

Mr Cocky Banks would get stitched up. Personally, serves them right!