Bank Charges case upheld

techspec

nellyj wrote: »

not sure if this has been said (scanned the thread) but, i was lucky enough to get on the consumer action groups site before it crashed. the claimant in question has his own thread running about his claim with lloyds. all he was claiming was for around £1310 charges (mostly o/draft) and right from the outset he added £520 approx interest. other posters , some of them site mods i think advised and questioned him about why he was going for 40% interest ...the claimant didn't seem to have much of an answer, in fact he admitted he might not have worked it out right and kept going with his claim. personally, i wonder how much of the dismissal of this claim was down to him adding way too much interest.
i too started to panic about my claim with the lloyds 'til i read all his thread.

I claimed £500 interest on £1000, but its not 50% interest.

It is because i charged 8% per annum, going back six years.

The guys interest may have been correct, but he got confused.

redsquare

Maybe Lloyd's felt they didn't need to turn up as the claimant could do a better job for them than they could. They must have been clued into his case and, judging from what's said above, it doesn't sound like he got his act together very well. Difficult to tell for sure without seeing full details of the case, of course.

Crazy_Hamster

I have sent 2 letters claiming for my charges plus interest however I am planning to write a 3rd and final letter asking them to justify the charges to me and making an offer that I won't claim for interest if they settle out of court. However my old bank is lloyds and I hear they drag their feet. This news today has unsettled me a little but I will carry on.

nellyj_2

techspec wrote: »

I claimed £500 interest on £1000, but its not 50% interest.

It is because i charged 8% per annum, going back six years.

The guys interest may have been correct, but he got confused.

i agree, i didn't mean that he was charging incorrect interest...i meant that the bank or judge thought it was just a tad on the wrong side of ok.
i feel for the bloke... and i really hope some chancy young solicitor steps in and does his appeal for a pittance.

megan34

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6657025.stm

you can download the judgement further down this page in pdf form and read it for yourselves.:money: I wonder how many claimants are up in front of Judge cook at Birmingham tomorrow!

Sarah_Lou_3

On a lighter note this lady was awarded costs with lloyds tsb, proves each court is different. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6595667.stm

I read on another forum that the claimant stated that the courts were illegal rather than unlawful, this might of played a part in him losing his case

WiseInvestor_2

I do agree with those who've suggested that perhaps we should pay for standard banking services (eg. cheques, withdrawals etc), but that isn't how it's done at present so any moves towards this would be disadvantageous to THE MAJORITY of UK consumers. Don't be fooled into thinking that standard charges would stop banks charging for breaking contracts (ie. unauthorised overdrafts) - it would merely result in everyone paying more which would be disastrous.

To all those who think the banks are being unfair, try dipping your fingers into the till next time you're shopping in Woolworths to see how they react, or help yourself to a seat in First Class next time you're on a plane or train with an Economy Class ticket - theft is theft and perpetrators should be punished.

I certainly don't consider myself 'perfect' when it comes to money but I do make the effort to stick to the contract I signed when I opened my account.

playfire1

your point is respected, however theft is classified in law as 'if a person dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another, with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it'. Your allegation that everyone claiming bank charges back, is guilty of THEFT is seriousley wrong and should be immediately ammended.

You cant prove dishonesty in this case and there is never any suggestion that the money will be permanentley deprived.

I should clarify it is my understanding that your POST states that if you go overdrawn or have a so/dd rejected etc you have stolen from the bank. Not with standing the bank allow you in most cases to take the money ( for the explicit reason to then charge ya for it). If the bank did not allow you to go over your overdraft then you couldnt get charged, could you? hmmmm

WiseInvestor_2

I disagree. Taking something without permission from the owner is wrong - we all know that, we were taught it as children. Using an authorised overdraft (for example) involves taking money that doesn't belong to you from the bank. Taking money out of the till in Woolworths is no different, except it involves performing an act that most people would consider unacceptable.

playfire1

WiseInvestor wrote: »

I disagree. Taking something without permission from the owner is wrong - we all know that, we were taught it as children. Using an authorised overdraft (for example) involves taking money that doesn't belong to you from the bank. Taking money out of the till in Woolworths is no different, except it involves performing an act that most people would consider unacceptable.

well thats your opinion - but in the eyes of the law. im just informing you for the record. ITS NOT THEFT. and as i previousley stated. 'why do the banks allow us to go over our overdrafts' they could easy just say INSUFFICIENT FUNDS. TRANSACTION DENIED. but they allow it dont they. Then they charge you.