Yeh Nice One Martin .......... Not

*Chattie*

Twinkly wrote:

krisskross

Personally I dont want to take anyones money I have my own thank you

But in answer to your post I base my discussion on the fact it is not illegal to go overdrawn but it is unlawful to charge the penalty for doing so and nothing else.

I thought it was the amount charged that was unlawful and not the charge that is unlawful.

If the charge is unlawful then surely they will be stopped altogether rather than the amount charged being reduced.

Twinkly

ollyk wrote:

I couldn't help notice you were quick to point out the errors of need_more_money but not those of road2nowhere... under the circumstances should you not have corrected their post as well?

I was not quick to point it out, its too early in the day for speed in my actions yet
I pointed out a flaw in their discussion and simply addressed it. I enjoy discussion and apply no malice or aguementative emotion to my posts.

I dont feel I should "correct" every single post on a thread or I would be here all day. However in answer to what I perceive is a request from you I will give my opinion on the post road2nowhere made.

They said :

road2nowhere wrote:

It;'s our money the bank is taking it illegally
so we have the right to claim OUR money :money:

Whilst I am not sure what "correction" this post requires I will assume that the word 'illegally' is the flaw in this post ? Perhaps to be replaced with the word 'unlawful' ? Either word is appropriate and I find the post "correct".

Twinkly

*Chattie* wrote:

I thought it was the amount charged that was unlawful and not the charge that is unlawful.

If the charge is unlawful then surely they will be stopped altogether rather than the amount charged being reduced.

It is unlawful to charge a penalty. Given the amount charged it is classed as a penalty and therefore unlawful which is the basis of peoples claims. It is perfectly legal to make a reasonable charge proportionate to the loss incurred though.

Twinkly

nickmack wrote:

The banks are imposing what amounts to a fine with the charges, which is bad enough, but to then ask them to label customers according to whether they think their living is excessive is not a role they should play.

I have parents to do that I dont need the bank telling me how to spend my money as well, good grief

*Chattie*

Twinkly wrote:

It is unlawful to charge a penalty. Given the amount charged it is classed as a penalty and therefore unlawful which is the basis of peoples claims. It is perfectly legal to make a reasonable charge proportionate to the loss incurred though.

So if/when they bring the amount down we can still claim as its unlawful to charge a penalty?

Twinkly

*Chattie* wrote:

So if/when they bring the amount down we can still claim as its unlawful to charge a penalty?

Yes.

The crux of the matter is that the charges are grossly disproportionate to the loss incurred and so constitute a penalty. A penalty is unlawful, a charge is not.

Edited it to add : Unless the amount is brought down so far as to reflect the true loss incurred (and the figure is around £4.50 allegedly) then it will still constitute a penalty. If it ever is, after disclosure of the true cost, then it would be deemed reasonable - lose its penalty status - and become lawful.

*Chattie*

So why is everyone worrying about the OFT ruling if as you say bank charges are unlawful no matter what they charge?

So bank charges are not bank charges but penalties? But only some bank charges are penalties?

Twinkly

*Chattie* wrote:

So why is everyone worrying about the OFT ruling if as you say bank charges are unlawful no matter what they charge?

So bank charges are not bank charges but penalties? But only some bank charges are penalties?

I dont know why people are worrying but my guess is that they think the OFT decision will be regarded as law on the matter. It wont.

The basis of a reclaiming bank charges is to state their charges are unreasonable and constitute a penalty, thereby unlawful. At the court stage in the procedure of claiming the bank needs to defend by stating their true cost in court for it to be deemed by a judge whether or not your claim is valid. So far the banks have not done so. In essence the banks are admitting that their charges are unlawful by not defending the claim on this particular point.

Bank charges are not penalties just some are. Some bank charges are penalties, yes.

*Chattie*

So the bank "charges" I have that are around the £4 mark are charges and not penalties whereas those that I have going upwards of £15 are penalties and not charges.

Twinkly

*Chattie* wrote:

So the bank "charges" I have that are around the £4 mark are charges and not penalties whereas those that I have going upwards of £15 are penalties and not charges.

Its not my decision and I wouldnt advise on it, assuming thats what you're asking. Thats for a court to decide if/when the banks disclose their true costs and your choice to pursue a claim for this amount under the current ruling on what constitutes a penalty.

Edited to add: I have read that figures given as true costs have been as £4.50 and £2.00 so personally I wouldnt claim for anything around those amounts. It is on this basis that people are claiming for the much higher charges since they are the only figures the banks will currently admit to and a court hasnt set a precedent on what is reasonable and not a penalty. I hope I've explained that ok