Bank Charges case upheld

Deluks

Can hardly be classed as theft.
The banks do nothing to stop is from happening, in fact most of the time they cause it by sending people even more into debt with their charges. This is not a problem for the bank, they like it when we go overdrawn. There is no system in place to stop people from going over their limit, it would be relatively simple for banks to decline every payment which took their customer over their agreed limit, but of course, this is not in the banks interest is it.

lea2001gb

I am a little nervous now, as I have just read on BBC1 text news that Birmingham County Court has just denied someone getting their bank charges back. They have stated that Lloyds back acted appropriately and that the person claiming was not entitled to anything back. Can anyone possibly give an opinion on this as it would appear that once one court sets a precident then all other courts will follow.

oldwiring

chipbeck wrote: »

Only got as far as amo amas amas at school old wiring but I agree with you. If you'd have read a couple more items you would have found my apology.

Honi soir qui mal y pense (or something like that)

As you say I did not see your apology. However I was not intending to make my post accusatory in any way:D

WiseInvestor_2

That's exactly right Deluks - banks make their money from people who can't manage their finances responsibly. But people can't expect to be irresponsible AND not have to pay for it. If the banks don't make money from you then they're going to come looking to me - and the rest of the UK population.

WELL DONE LLOYDS.

Tozer

Sarah_Lou wrote: »

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

Sadly not - the Judge said that he was not dealing with the issue but the conduct of the case by the bank. The bank was criticised for defending but not continuing with the defence. The judgment makes a BIG statement that it was not intended to deal with the merits of the case.

Aark

As far as I can understand, the key issue of fact that decided Berwick v Lloyds TSB was that there is no term that states you must not attempt to withdraw money from the current account that would take you over any authorised overdraft facility.

If there is no term, there can be no breach - and therefore no penalty.

Halifax, purely taken as an example as I currently bank with them, have the following clause:-

18.1 If you have a Cardcash account, you must not allow your account to go overdrawn. If you have a Halifax Current Account, unless we agree that you can do so, you must not use your account or allow anyone else to use it if this would make your account go overdrawn or over your overdraft limit.

I would assume that this is clear enough to indicate that anybody exceeding an overdraft limit is in breach, and presumably the charge can be seen as an unenforceable penalty clause.

I can't find a full copy of Lloyds TSB's terms and conditions on their website though, does anyone know if there is a similar clause? Obviously Judge Cooke couldn't find it!

playfire1

WiseInvestor wrote: »

That's exactly right Deluks - banks make their money from people who can't manage their finances responsibly. But people can't expect to be irresponsible AND not have to pay for it. If the banks don't make money from you then they're going to come looking to me - and the rest of the UK population.

WELL DONE LLOYDS.

Exactly! I think thats been pretty clear. lol.

Deluks

WiseInvestor wrote: »

That's exactly right Deluks - banks make their money from people who can't manage their finances responsibly. But people can't expect to be irresponsible AND not have to pay for it. If the banks don't make money from you then they're going to come looking to me - and the rest of the UK population.

WELL DONE LLOYDS.

In some cases you are right, but this can also be classed as a tax on the poor and less well-off. Or in other words, the poor subsidising the rich.

Regarding Woolworths, they wouldn't let you walk out of the shop with an item if you hadn't paid the full amount.
This is what the banks are doing, and then they are using their penalty charges to help get people deeper and deeper into debt, then offering an olive branch in the form of a loan. (more debt) If you can't see this as a form of exploitation then I can only assume that you are in some way benefitting from this (or are a Daily Mail reader)

Tozer

Just an idea but shall we keep this thread for discussion on the case rather than 'them and us' debate?

almond

are starting to worry i am not in to all this law thing I am trying to claim 1038.00 back but have statements missing still at 60days tried the lba but
got nowhere now don't know whether to go to court or try for the other
statements. the now seems urgent we get our claims in , what do you think
please help.