I can't believe banks can get away with this...

davidcampbell

cgnao wrote:

As far as the ethos is concerned, one question. Is it ethical that our free banking is subsidised by poor people in financial distress?

and ill say it again ....... is it ethical that someone uses someone elses money without permission and expects not to be punished?

DC

bargains83

Abbey have now updated their T&C's and from 1st July will no longer be automatically be refunding the first charge if you overdraw without an overdraft or go over limit.

Presumably this is to stop the confusion over people being charged sometimes and not others. I can't say I blame them, if you think you'll overdraw you should get a small overdraft to help you out or stick to a budget.

And more importantly if more people registered for ebanking instead of wasting time complaining about being charged on here you would be able to manage your finances a lot better. Thats not a cheap dig but ebanking gives you the ability to check your balances daily, hourly or every 5 minutes if you so desire so you can see exactly whats going on.

cgnao

MarkyMarkD wrote:

OK then, taking clause (d) in your court case quotation, I don't see how £23.50 or whatever is "extravagant or unconsciable in comparison with the greatest loss that could be perceived" as the greatest loss that could be perceived is that the funds taken without permission are never repaid. Unless the unauthorised overdraft is less than the unauthorised overdraft/rejected payment charge, that charge doesn't seem to exceed the maximum possible loss in my view.

The amount borrowed is not a loss because you still owe it to the bank. Consider also that the bank could have stopped payment if it did not want to take the risk.

The only liquidated damages the bank can legally claim are 1) interest 2) notification costs. 1) is usually charged at a higher rate, 2) is the actual cost of mailing an automated letter, which is clearly less than £23.50.

Anything else is a penalty and therefore legally unenforceable.

And by the way

- I use internet banking and have never gone over any of my authorised credit limits.
- I enjoy free banking but regret that it is at the expense of financially distressed or naive people.
- I would not mind paying a small fee if banks operated fairly. The sad truth is, even institutions that define themselves ethical are greedy and keep preying on people in debt.

Let me guess, you instead either hold shares in or work for a bank....

MarkyMarkD

cgnao wrote:

The amount borrowed is not a loss because you still owe it to the bank. Consider also that the bank could have stopped payment if it did not want to take the risk.

It's a potential loss, as you may default and never pay it back. Hence "the greatest possible loss that could be perceived".

cgnao wrote:

The only liquidated damages the bank can legally claim are 1) interest 2) notification costs. 1) is usually charged at a higher rate, 2) is the actual cost of mailing an automated letter, which is clearly less than £23.50.

Anything else is a penalty and therefore legally unenforceable.

Like I've said before, I don't believe liquidated damages come into this at all.

cgnao wrote:

Let me guess, you ... hold shares in ... a bank....

Several, actually.