Bank charges ARE fair

thespaceshanty

How silly SO171NOT - charges are legal but penalty fees are unlawful under British law, we know they must be imposed because it is the banks money you are taking when you are over drawn etc, but the level charged is unacceptable hence why we are fighting, not the fact they charged in the first place, penaltys are fine as long as they cover costs not exceed them!

kayla23

Hi All,

I can see this is a very opinionated thread so wanted to ad mine too,

agreed bank chages are fair, without question.
Without charges everyone would constantly be in the Red without feeling the concequences of their actions, and peoples personal debt would spiral out of control.

agreed banks need to make a profit
I do not want to have to pay for banking, and without making profits the banks will force all of us to pay a premium for the service

agreed bank charges are far to high
As everyone says the charges do not reflect the actual costs to the bank

But,

Are we all forgetting that the majority of the high street banks now have the following products which they also make money on,

Overdrafts
Morgages
Credit Cards
Savings
Investments
Personal Loans
Secured Loans
Premier current accounts

When I claimed back my charges I had charges that ranged from £12.50 - £125.00, to have £125.00 taken off you for being overdrawn for 2 days is both unfair and I feel illegal when the costs to the bank are lower. Also I felt that the charges were not consistant.

I did not claim back the debit interest as I agreed that this was a fair charge.

Thanks

Twinkly

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?

To answer your question in full. 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. I am surprised I had to explain that to one with so many posts logged on this forum but I am happy to do so.

With regard to Consumer Law. It hasnt changed much since 1992 and a quick google on the subject tells me it definitely hasnt this week so the answer to that would be no, it hasnt.

I have now edited my original post to save others, who may not have the experience you do on the forum, becoming confused as to the meaning of my statement.

tulip1_2

Virgin Moneysaver [By the very nature that they are paying us back proves they know that what they are doing is wrong. Well done to you for being so good with your money and keeping in credit, but for some of us it is not always that simple. You try running a small buisness and getting paid the money you are owed on time so that you don't somtimes go in the red. Who is it then that gets penalised? Not the person you have done the work for, they have got what they want, but the likes of me who is TRYING to make an HONEST living. Not everying thing is black and white, there is colour too!

SkinFlint_2

I don't even know why we are debating this ?

If people feel so strongly about it, why don't they just leave this forum and start a 'defend our banks and free banking' forum ?

It's not even their money so why are they begrudging people who are simply reclaiming what has been unlawfully taken ?

Do people think that banks would just hand over millions of pounds if they had done nothing wrong in the first place ?

People just get over it cause you're not gonna stop it and people are coming here for advice and support not to debate it !!

reehsetin

Twinkly wrote: »

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 ?

people in credit would be paying for their own banking , banks earn interest on the customers money



yes charges are excessive but some people just seem to blame the banks full stop, its all their fault, its not all the banks fault, thats the only attitude that irritates me

Tozer

suz75 wrote: »

I kinda see what your saying but don't understand why you have posted it on a Bank Charges are Unfair Reclaim them site???? Have you made a claim against a Bank??? There are alot of people on this site and others working to get back money that i personally feel the banks have taken unfairly, again the arguement in my eyes is the actual amount they charge is not in keeping with the actual cost to them and that's what makes it unfair to us as customers. And everyone can have slip ups in their banking from time to time re going overdrawn etc does that mean you've got to be punished over and over???:rolleyes:

Perfectly reasonable for both sides to be heard isn't it?

OK yes, everyone can have "slip ups" in their banking. But people are claiming tens of thousands of pounds. I really find it astonishing to read about people who "slip up" and incur £5000 charges in 12 months.

Tozer

Twinkly wrote: »

To answer your question in full. 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. I am surprised I had to explain that to one with so many posts logged on this forum but I am happy to do so.

With regard to Consumer Law. It hasnt changed much since 1992 and a quick google on the subject tells me it definitely hasnt this week so the answer to that would be no, it hasnt.

I have now edited my original post to save others, who may not have the experience you do on the forum, becoming confused as to the meaning of my statement.

Not strictly true. Actual loss has nothing to do with things. A charge of liquidated damages has to be a genuine pre-estimate of the loss likely to be suffered in the event of a breach. The UTCC Regs have zip all to do with that and they have not facilated the ability of consumers to reclaim at all.

The liquidated damages point is ancient - goes back at least 150 years in English law. It's also an argument I ran when I was a law student many years ago.

SkinFlint_2

The fact that someone can incur £5000 charges in 12 months just goes to show that the charges are excessive in the first place, doesn't it ?

No-one is disputing the need for charges. They're getting their money back because the charges have been excessive.

The banks should be happy to call it quits because people are only claiming for the last 6 years and look how long the banks have been getting away with it.

I don't think anyone has a right to grumble about it.

Tozer

Running_Horse wrote: »

I do not earn a lot, but have never had an overdraft or debt. Now it looks like I could lose free banking because some people abuse the system. If you have an authorised overdraft and agree to the terms and conditons that is fair enough. If you have an unauthorised overdraft, you are borrowing someone elses money without permission. If you don't want to be charged, don't go overdrawn.

Could not agree more. If you cannot afford it, don't expect anyone else to afford it for you.