Reclaim Unfair Bank Charges Discussion Area

nickmack

Al_Mac wrote:

I thought penalty charges were allowed, so long as they reflected the true cost to those leveling the charge.

Yes, true Al Mac, I've wrote the same thing over and over about penalty charges so many times, I've started to autopilot and I think it crashed that time!! I should have added 'so long as they reflected the true cost'.

nickmack

ceebeeby wrote:

Bank accounts - I believe there is a bank account (I think bankrupts can apply for this particular type of account) which does not allow any form of debt.

I'm sure there is, and this would be suitable for some people who have trouble managing their finances.

Penalty fee payment - going round in circles. If they hadn't "taken" the money from the bank in the first place, they wouldn't have received a penalty ...

Quite, but the banks don't always allow the customer to 'take' the money. The transaction is refused and the customer is charged a fee. Nothing is 'taken' by the customer in this case.

Penalty fees not allowable under consumer law - accepted on point of law, however, does not negate those that the customer agreed too (which they did by agreeing to T&C's)

T&C's: I'm just not convinced by the lack of knowledge relating to T&C's. If your point were to be accepted regarding laymen, then surely this would apply to virtually every transaction that takes place, and those that now find themselves claiming not to understand the legality or otherwise of the T&C's must surely feel compelled into further education on the matter (to prevent a similar occurence in the future).

It only serves to protect the consumer if the clause in the T&C's is found to be unlawful. If the T&C's are fair and lawful but the consumer doesn't understand, as you say, they may need further education on the matter.

krisskross

I believe that nothing will be decided until the OFT rule on the charges. Then I reckon once a 'reasonable' charge has been decided on that the banks will send a copy of their new T&Cs to all their customers. This to be signed as agreed within 30 days otherwise the account will be deemed to be closed. Any reason why they can't do this?

Then all the customers who can't be bothered to send it back, much in the same way as they can't be bothered to run their accounts properly will no longer have an account and no further reasons to moan at the bank.

So nickmack did I read you saying that even if the OFT decide that say £10 is a reasonable charge for a transgression that the banks will still not be able to enforce it? That they will still be expected to open their accounts to prove that this is reasonable?

nickmack

krisskross wrote:

This to be signed as agreed within 30 days otherwise the account will be deemed to be closed. Any reason why they can't do this?

Then all the customers who can't be bothered to send it back, much in the same way as they can't be bothered to run their accounts properly will no longer have an account and no further reasons to moan at the bank.

It would be an administrative nightmare! If new T&C's are required usually banks just inform customers and they're deemed to have accepted unless the bank is notified otherwise.

So nickmack did I read you saying that even if the OFT decide that say £10 is a reasonable charge for a transgression that the banks will still not be able to enforce it? That they will still be expected to open their accounts to prove that this is reasonable?

The OFT will make recommendations. They don't know the actual cost. They're guessing at an absolute maximum possible cost based on their investigation. Only the banks know for sure the actual cost. The banks won't be 'enforcing' anything based on the OFT review.

It will most likely be very similar to the Credit Card ruling, where a less than £12 charge will not attract action from the OFT. This will still leave banks open to claims though unless the actual cost is shown.

As far as I see, nothing will be resolved, but we'll know soon enough.

System

Just had some thoughts.....

The original jist of this thread was that people challenging bank charges and/or their potential reduction in value by the OFT will bring about fees for everyday banking. Why should this be??

Surely the majority of people think that bank charges should not be a profit making excercise, rather one of cost covering? So why should the banks seek to make up the 'lost' charges revenue from any other source? Apart from pure greed of course.

If a bank wants to control irresponsible customers (as I fully agree they should) there are plenty of ways of doing so: remove the facilities being abused, warn people to improve the conduct of the account, if you don't heed the warning you get shut down.

Also.... all those in this thread who berate people who manage their finances badly, just remember that by your logic these people have been paying for your free banking for years!!

Regards
UNDERGROUND

Greggie

Hi,

Can anyone enlighten me. I've asked for Statements from Cap One as both my husband and I both had accounts with 200 limits and then got into trouble!!

If we have been charged 12 pound a time can I still claim back the charges as this meets with the Oft regulations?

Help!:mad:

CazW_2

consnmattsmom wrote:

They dont seem to be providing a very good service.

Did they ever provide a good service?? lol

I closed my account last summer and still have a fair few statements.. i only had the card for 2 1/2 years and it only had a £500 limit and from the statements i have there are almost £400 of charges!! many months from my payment goint through a day or two late which they put a charge on for which then tipped it over its limit adding another charge.. £24 EACH!!
... I asked them on a few occasions to move my payment date back a few days so it would come further past payday to give the standing order time to get there but they never moved it... i had just had my second child and money was a bit tight so i basicly said... this is what i can afford (£35pm) and thats what i will pay...but given they were adding £48 per month that didn't help...eventually they did accknowlage i was trying to pay it off and stopped the charges and let me set up a payment plan... but not befor they had about £400 in charges out of me and over £700 oweing on the card!! B******S!!

I will take great pleasure in getting my money back... no matter how long it takes!!

pigsmightfly

Greggie wrote:

Hi,

Can anyone enlighten me. I've asked for Statements from Cap One as both my husband and I both had accounts with 200 limits and then got into trouble!!

If we have been charged 12 pound a time can I still claim back the charges as this meets with the Oft regulations?

Help!:mad:

Yes - £12 still isn't a fee they can justify.

YorkshireBoy

UNDERGROUND wrote:

Surely the majority of people think that bank charges should not be a profit making excercise, rather one of cost covering?

Actually, I think they'll be allowed to have both - ie a profit on the actual cost incurred. The 'professors of banking' and ex bank executive used by Martin in his original Tonight programme calculated/established that the true cost of infringement was around £4.50. Therefore, the banks will simply apply a, say, 40% mark up on the £4.50 making a £6.30 charge. Furthermore, as I said earlier in this thread, they'll remove the 'maximum 3/6 per month' limit they have now meaning they still have the equivalent of a £12 charge WHICH CANNOT BE RECLAIMED.

The shortfall (£25/30/39 - £12) will be made up from unauthorised overdraft interest rates in the 35-39% (and above) region, and increases in other areas such as loan and credit card APR's.

So why should the banks seek to make up the 'lost' charges revenue from any other source? Apart from pure greed of course.

It's greed that's got the revenue to where it is now. The need to maintain profits will take over now (at least in the short term), with shareholders (the biggest being the pension funds) unwilling to accept any reduction in profits/share price/returns.

If a bank wants to control irresponsible customers (as I fully agree they should) there are plenty of ways of doing so: remove the facilities being abused, warn people to improve the conduct of the account, if you don't heed the warning you get shut down.

They won't close accounts down though - other than in very exceptional circumstances. They want customers on the very edge, ie the so-called 'revolvers' - those that are struggling, but still generating revenue.

System

Thanks Yorkshireboy, good points