Reclaim Unfair Bank Charges Discussion Area

nickmack

mustrum_ridcully wrote:

IIRC the OFT said they believe the charges to be unlawful - there has been no judgement made in a court of law as to whether they are lawful or unlawful.

Innocent until proven guilty anyone?

They did indeed say this, but I think you're clutching at straws here.

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regs. 1999
The Unfair Contracts Terms Act 1977

If you are in any doubt about how or whether these apply to penalty charges, I suggest you have a think about why banks have not successfully defended in court that these terms do not apply to save themselves from the torrent of claims.

Hereward

nickmack wrote:

They did indeed say this, but I think you're clutching at straws here.

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regs. 1999
The Unfair Contracts Terms Act 1977

If you are in any doubt about how or whether these apply to penalty charges, I suggest you have a think about why banks have not successfully defended in court that these terms do not apply to save themselves from the torrent of claims.

Banks, and Building Societies, are not fighting these claims as it’s not in their best interest to do so. In order to fight these claims the account providers need to disclose their cost base for providing their accounts, and competitor would then instantly know what the profit margin for the account in question was.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Just because account providers aren't fighting in court does not mean that the charges are penalty charges, and hence unlawful. You also have to look into the costs involved for defending these charges. As most claimants are using the small claims courts, then the costs involved for the account providers are often more than the size of the charges being reclaimed, so from a financial point of view it is cheaper to repay the charges than mount a robust defence of them.

nickmack

Hereward wrote:

Banks, and Building Societies, are not fighting these claims as it’s not in their best interest to do so. In order to fight these claims the account providers need to disclose their cost base for providing their accounts, and competitor would then instantly know what the profit margin for the account in question was.

Of course it's not in their best interest to do so. But I don't believe for the reason you specified. If the cost was revealed and a ruling made in a higher court, all banks would be forced to charge a maximum anyway.

The point about knowing competitors profit margins doesn't wash. With regard to these penalty charges, the figures are likely to be very similar for all main institutions. It's no big secret, just an excuse.

Just because account providers aren't fighting in court does not mean that the charges are penalty charges, and hence unlawful.

It doesn't but please tell me seriously, do you believe they are lawful from your knowledge?

You also have to look into the costs involved for defending these charges. As most claimants are using the small claims courts, then the costs involved for the account providers are often more than the size of the charges being reclaimed, so from a financial point of view it is cheaper to repay the charges than mount a robust defence of them.

I completely disagree. Millions have been repaid in bank charges as 'gestures of good will'. Are you telling me it would have cost this to construct one 'robust defence' to prove their case and stop the claims completely?

krisskross

It will be interesting to see what happens when there is a ruling on what is a 'reasonable' charge for infringing the T&Cs of your bank account. Will the banks stop paying out the totals at present being claimed and pay just the difference between 'reasonable' and penalty charges? Looking at the avalanche of claims I bet the banks are hoping the ruling is sooner than later. Not only will they be able to cut down on the amounts repaid as goodwill gestures, they still will get to charge quite a bit for infringements PLUS they will be charging for services that were previously free. Reckon the banks know they are on track for a win win situation. Why should they rock the boat by contesting any of these claims?

Think bank customers may have shot themselves in the foot with this one, but we shall see. All I am convinced of is that the banks will not just roll over. They will recoup all the money plus more.

CazW_2

trademark wrote:

So those of us who adhere to our banks terms and conditions and build a good working relationship with our banks over a prolonged period will now have to carry those who dont.

And you all know the truth ...yes the banks make billions, but they have targets and they will keep them .... how ? by reducing or delaying interest, providing less attractive incentives ....... cutting staffing levels, or their availbility on the customer front line.

Those who spend and basically steal the banks money without permission ... and yes it is theft, will not get their money back ...and who will pay for it.

you guessed it ... as always ...those of us with the money, hard earned money i might add.

I agree that those who are few pounds overdrawn at the end of the month should not be rewarded with a £35 letter, and in most cases the bank ignore a few pounds so no problem, but thousands of pounds in charges are caused by those who ignore the banks, take from them and then disregard their advice.

martin you are no better than carol vorderman, i wonder how big your house and bank balance are, brilliant website but you've lost it this time.

Right.. I must admit i have not read the 450+ replies to this but here's my view

Why should thoes who live on the breadline and make the odd mistake here and there and get stupid charges for it be the ones to pay for the 0% interest rates and high interest savings accounts.

I really don't feel your personal dig at Martin was called for at all... yes mabee he does have a large house and it's nobodies business how much he has in the bank..... the point is... he has helped alot of ppl out of dept in one way or another and that is what matters.

sorry if this has all been said already but i wanted to get it off my chest
Caz

Hereward

nickmack wrote:

Of course it's not in their best interest to do so. But I don't believe for the reason you specified. If the cost was revealed and a ruling made in a higher court, all banks would be forced to charge a maximum anyway.

The point about knowing competitors profit margins doesn't wash. With regard to these penalty charges, the figures are likely to be very similar for all main institutions. It's no big secret, just an excuse.

If I knew my competitors Profit margin, then I could target their customers by undercutting the cost base, if my just happened to be smaller. In turn my profits would increase.

It doesn't but please tell me seriously, do you believe they are lawful from your knowledge?

Unfortunately, my knowledge does not allow me to make such a judgement, as I am not is possession of enough facts. If I am push, however, I would say that the level of the charges is, on balance of probabilities, unlawful.

I completely disagree. Millions have been repaid in bank charges as 'gestures of good will'. Are you telling me it would have cost this to construct one 'robust defence' to prove their case and stop the claims completely?

Each account provider would have to contest all claims as the small claims court cannot set a precedent; therefore, each claim would have its own cost that is likely to exceed the value of the charges being claimed. Even if a precedent, by a higher court, is set, it would only effect the account holders of that provider, as the cost base is different for each account provider. If on the other hand, the account provider won, it would not be able to claim its defence costs back as the adverse publicity would make its customers leave the "big, bad bank".<O:p</O:p

nickmack

krisskross wrote:

It will be interesting to see what happens when there is a ruling on what is a 'reasonable' charge for infringing the T&Cs of your bank account. Will the banks stop paying out the totals at present being claimed and pay just the difference between 'reasonable' and penalty charges? Looking at the avalanche of claims I bet the banks are hoping the ruling is sooner than later.

I suspect the ruling will be very similar to credit cards and this being the case, it will make no difference to claims. Banks will still pay the full amount unless they prove their costs.

Not only will they be able to cut down on the amounts repaid as goodwill gestures, they still will get to charge quite a bit for infringements PLUS they will be charging for services that were previously free. Reckon the banks know they are on track for a win win situation. Why should they rock the boat by contesting any of these claims?

There's only one reason to my mind why the claims are not contested. They know they would lose. I refuse to believe any bank would allow thousands of customers to take them to court and then settle before following through with a defence, if they could prevent the claims by proving their case once in a higher court.

Think bank customers may have shot themselves in the foot with this one, but we shall see. All I am convinced of is that the banks will not just roll over. They will recoup all the money plus more.

Maybe, maybe not. Banks will always be looking for ways to boost their profits no matter what. As long as they do it morally and lawfully, that's fine by me.

rockinjules

YorkshireBoy wrote:

I agree we are where we are because of the banks' greed, but......would you agree that you did (or attempted to do) the same to them to initiate the charges in the first place?

I see where you're coming from!

But No I wouldn't agree - because at the end of the day the bank wants you to take the money from them so that they CAN charge you!

anyway, I admit I was wrong and I can sit here and make up excuses all day long, but the bottom line is if they hadn't overcharged me I could have easily gotten myself out of it.

They don't do anything to help you, they just make it a whole lot worse.

trademark

Cazw ... with respect you are covering old ground

Because as you have already said, you have not read the whole thread and are therefore not qualified to comment on a subject i and others have already covered.

Please read the thread and you will see that we all understand that there are honest deserving cases for a refund and there are not.

System

Just a thought, for every one who claims his/her bank charges back, there will probably be a 100 that wont. The banks are still quids in.