Interesting bank charges case...

davidgmmafan

Haven't spotted this anywhere apologies if it has already been posted. Don't get me wrong she probably won more because of the false imprisonment but still a good read.

Check it out...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14046113


PS
"I hope this will encourage other people to try to get their charges back if the bank has breached its contractual obligation to handle an account with care and professional skill"

Interesing point, I wonder if telling people your charges only exist to cover your costs then modifying that too actually we make shedloads out of them, would be seen as acting with due care and professional skill.

Common_Sense_2

the imprisonment bit is obviously shocking but a few other points from this article that should be highlighted:

"Josephine Lewis' brief detention at the HSBC branch was just one of many related complaints about her debts to HSBC which she took to the county court.

Not all the complaints were upheld"

"Judge Cronin also found that at one point the bank had failed to obey an instruction from Miss Lewis to freeze her overdrawn account, allowing more payments to be made [by her presumably], which increased her debt."

Stephen Hone, of the campaign website penaltycharges.co.uk, which helped Miss Lewis, said: "The case shows we need legislation to stop unlawful [somebody missed the bank charges test case that said they weren't] bank charges, as all parties promised before the last election."

davidgmmafan

Oh I agree, I've thought for a long time the way the charges are handled is almost as bad (if not worse) than the amount. One charge doesn't always cause a problem, but when it snowballs a lot of people would be hard pressed to stop it.

The solution is simple, they're service charges right? The banks position not mine, so have them invoice separately for them. No debt spiral, no snowball, less revenue for the banks perhaps boo hoo.

I'm still a little stumped as to have you can have a service charge which isn't optional, which you didn't know was a service charge at the time, but hey that's been discussed before I expect.

The fact remains in my view the line in most banks leaflets saying contact us and we'll be sympathetic was an outright lie, maybe its changed a bit with the recession I don't know, but there were just too many examples of people saying look I can't pay enough to stop this and the banks saying tough.

That's the problem once you get stuck in a snowball they have you over a barrel. I really don't see how it benefits the banks to have such debts on thier balance sheet when they know the chances of being paid are slim to none.

the_insider

I wonder how many calls were actually made. Let's assume that 'several hundred' means three hundred, that's fewer than 3 calls a week over the two years she's claiming. I don't think that's unreasonable, considering the amount she owed. Maybe if she'd spoken to them in the first place and made an arrangement to repay their money they wouldn't have needed to call all the time? Or is that just me?

davidgmmafan

"Maybe if she'd spoken to them in the first place and made an arrangement to repay their money they wouldn't have needed to call all the time? Or is that just me?"

Or maybe they'd absolutely nothing to help like they used to in the past? We won't know without a time machine.

Any idea why they didn't stop adding to it when she asked? Anyone? Seriously I want to know as I'm confused.

Alpine_Star

davidgmmafan wrote: »

I'm still a little stumped as to have you can have a service charge which isn't optional, which you didn't know was a service charge at the time, but hey that's been discussed before I expect.

The Supreme Court defined the charges as being in exchange for the general package of banking services even though they are only triggered in the event that a payment instruction is presented when insufficient funds are available.

tifo

Alpine_Star wrote: »

the charges as being in exchange for the general package of banking services even though they are only triggered in the event that a payment instruction is presented when insufficient funds are available.

That's not what the banks told us.

All my letters said the charge was for declining to make the DD payment.

None of my letters ever said the charge was for the 'general package'.

In any case, no historic terms and conditions were assessed (from when most people got charged) and we know why the banks changed the terms and conditions during the test case.

The terms and conditions from the time of each charge did not say anything about a package service charge.

Alpine_Star

tifo wrote: »

That's not what the banks told us.

All my letters said the charge was for declining to make the DD payment.

None of my letters ever said the charge was for the 'general package'.

In any case, no historic terms and conditions were assessed (from when most people got charged) and we know why the banks changed the terms and conditions during the test case.

The terms and conditions from the time of each charge did not say anything about a package service charge.

''Whatever may have been the position in the past, the Banks now rely on the Relevant Charges as an important part of the revenue that they generate from the current account services.''

http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/uksc_2009_0070_judgmentV3.pdf

tifo

Alpine_Star wrote: »

''Whatever may have been the position in the past, the Banks now rely on the Relevant Charges as an important part of the revenue that they generate from the current account services.''

They relied on these charges in the past, not from 'now' [at the time of the judgement]. And these were never a 'service' in the past or are now.

Just because they were renamed 'service charge' in the revised [for the case] terms and conditions doesn't mean they were such in the past.

We cannot be forced to agree to future terms and conditions [as revised]. Otherwise no-one would know what's coming [like the test case].

Alpine_Star

It's not what the charges were named or renamed as that counts - it's what they are in exchange for that matters.