Bank charges ARE fair

Mr.Tunisia

Call it what you like but surely if you open an account with a bank and they clearly state their charging policy you can't go back and complain when you get into financial problems which are your own fault?

Am I wrong about this?

snails's_pace

* hides and waits for a stream of replies *

Mr.Tunisia

* wait, what's that in the distance? *

stargazer59

Mr.Tunisia wrote: »

Call it what you like but surely if you open an account with a bank and they clearly state their charging policy you can't go back and complain when you get into financial problems which are your own fault?

Am I wrong about this?

Yes you are wrong!!!

they are refunding the fees because they are unlawful!!!!

kate2510

I am claiming a refund of all the charges I paid during a six month period in 2005/6 because I calculate that the majority were incurred due to the punative penalties for unpaid DDs compounding the unauthorised borrowing. Furthermore the interest charged (which I am NOT claiming) on this borrowing more than covers the costs to the bank of administering my account including the refused items.
Remember, some of these refused payments also generated penalties from the DD originator. Thus £4.87 DD for GE refused = £38.00 charge for unpaid item + £28.00 charge for unauthorised borrowing to NatWest + £25.00 to GE.
If the nearest butcher charges you an exhorbitant price for sausages it's easy to take your custom to another - opening a new bank account is much more difficult and time consuming.

Twinkly

Yet another discussion on whether the charges should be returned. They are unlawful at the current level of charging so what part of that precisely is it that some people are not capable of understanding ? Its really simple and doesnt rely on analogy for explanation or justification. A charge in excess of actual loss constitutes a penalty and is therefore unlawful given the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract regulations fascilitating the ability for consumers to reclaim current levels of bank charges. End of story.

As for those complaining about the good guys "suffering" directly because of the bad guys reclaiming, for crying out loud behave yourselves or I will start blaming all the good guys for having their free banking paid for and subsidised straight out of my own purse. Using the same ideal, why should the bank be allowed to take my money to give to you ? I blame the bank for unlawfully taking the charges and I blame the bank for any action they take to recover their losses, no-one else.

As for the opinion that charges incurred are my own fault I recently reclaimed a charge incurred purely because some snot at NTL could not be bothered to do the job they are well paid to do and debited my account some 6 months after I sent in the form. I hadnt a clue that they had even received it. There was no akcnowledgment or advisal of amount to be debited ten days prior, as is required under their own direct debit guarantee. It should be noted the bill was paid by credit card as usual while I waited for them to acknowledge and no money was due to them at all. That charge was Not my fault at all thank you very much.

Thank you for the oppertunity to let that out. I am sick of seeing people fighting about this on the forum. The banks must be thrilled to have caused so much in-fighting here by simply breaking a consumer law.

bengal-stripe

Twinkly wrote: »

Penalty charges are contrary to Consumer Law, end of story.

What about Multiplex, the builders of the delayed Wembley Stadium, who are liable for millions in penalties, should they be let off from all the penalty charges due?

nickmack

Al_Mac wrote: »

I thought it was a charge that was in excess of the loss, that was contrary to consumer law. Or has that changed this week?

However it's dressed up, it's a penalty charge, which makes any contractual claim unenforceable in its entirety. The banks are now calling it a 'service charge' to try and disguise it again.

Markyt

bengal-stripe wrote: »

What about Multiplex, the builders of the delayed Wembley Stadium, who are liable for millions in penalties, should they be let off from all the penalty charges due?

No, as they don't fall under the auspices of consumer law. The clue is in the name.

savvykaz

I have to just add my two-penneth.

Last year I put a claim in with the dreadful Nat West and was refunded £2,250, all of which was unlawful charges and interest. Most of the charges were £38 for going £1 over our overdraft or £38 for non-payment of a DD. Then on top of the £38 went interest, making us even more overdrawn! For a few years when DH had just gone self-employed life was VERY stressful for us and the problems with the bank compounded this. They were never sympathetic to our situation, so when I read on here about re-claiming charges, I decided to go for it. The whole process was extremely nerve-racking and a few times I wondered if I was doing the right thing, but I persevered and the whole thing took from last July until pay-out on November 5th. Had the charges been 'fair and lawful' as the Nat West tried to insist they were, then why pay me back?