Bank Charges case upheld

WiseInvestor_2

Lindi,

Nobody is abusing claimants because as you rightly point out the facts aren't known. But it's clear that a great many people feel that banks are unjustified to charge for the services they offer. If a customer takes something that doesn't belong to them, the business reserves the right to know why.

You're clearly upset that your bank have charged you £6.57 but you haven't explained any of the circumstances. In over 30 years of banking I have never been charged for a product or service that my bank hasn't been able to justify. What payments did your husband ask them to make? If he didn't ask them to make any payments and a mistake has been made then your bank will refund you. That's quite different from all the people posting here with literally thousands of pounds in charges - if takes more than a simple mistake to amass costs like that.

grayclose31

WiseInvestor wrote: »

Lindi,

That's quite different from all the people posting here with literally thousands of pounds in charges - if takes more than a simple mistake to amass costs like that.

Maybe most of the people with high amount claims got into the situation due to the bank spiraling their charges!

Just a thought.

MarkyMarkD

Edinburghlass wrote: »

The reason it is being posted again and again is cos these elderly grey cells started merging them all

It would make more sense to delete the duplicate posts, and pm the daft people who KEEP posting the same story time after time after time. Having 15 links to the same BBC story is scarcely helpful to anyone.


And regarding the main topic, I don't know why people seem to believe that, if you accept that bank charges are service charges (and it appears that the plaintiff in this case HAD accepted that, which is the main reason his case fell) those service charges have to be reasonable. That's guff. There's nothing in law to prevent people signing up to things which are expensive or which involve a profit to the provider of the service.

Reading between the lines, the plaintiff's case seems to have been purely that the service charges the bank are levying are more than their costs. And that argument has failed - not surprisingly, IMHO.

lindilou39

WiseInvestor wrote: »

Lindi,

Nobody is abusing claimants because as you rightly point out the facts aren't known. But it's clear that a great many people feel that banks are unjustified to charge for the services they offer. If a customer takes something that doesn't belong to them, the business reserves the right to know why.

You're clearly upset that your bank have charged you £6.57 but you haven't explained any of the circumstances. In over 30 years of banking I have never been charged for a product or service that my bank hasn't been able to justify. What payments did your husband ask them to make? If he didn't ask them to make any payments and a mistake has been made then your bank will refund you. That's quite different from all the people posting here with literally thousands of pounds in charges - if takes more than a simple mistake to amass costs like that.

he didnt ask them to make a payment...mind you they didnt bother on 3 occasions to say they now charge for you having a current acount with them...if you read my post wiseinvestor you will see what i am driving at..

Will&Claire

Ok, yes the news today is raising eyebrows...onwards and upwards though, im going to carry on with my claim regardless. I feel that if everyone gives up now, or more to the point is scaremongerd into questioning their own quest for repayment of their money, be it fair or unfair which ever way you look at it, then the cause is surely going to take a rapid downward spiral into the lap of the banks, which ultimately will provide their way out of paying back fair/unfair bank charges.
Im not saying that I agree OR disagree with their charges. I, which Im sure like many others, have seen an opportunity to get back some money, albeit from our banks and are capitalising on it. If it were the council/water board/ electricity supplier, we would all be after them too like greyhounds out of the traps. I think that the morality/legal side is taking a back seat to a certain extent, we just want some money.... from WHOEVER.
Life is hard enough for the mere mortal, I think that the challenge and possibility of landing up with a cheque which we had previously written off gives a sense of hope.
Let's face it...the banks are greedy..and so are WE !!!!

moonrakerz

I wonder how many lawyers employed by the banks will be getting their P45s in the morning ?

All those cases where the banks have paid up - presumably on highly paid legal advice - the first case that gets to Court and the banks win !!!!!!

Wonderful !!!!!!! Serves them right.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

pete-in-london

Kind of sod's law for everyone really.

Hopefully this event will turn out to be an anomaly. It would be much better (in the public interest) if the media focused on the tens of thousands of successful cases rather than this one isolated case of some chap who got unlucky due to (what appears to be) lack of preparation.

lindilou39

I saw your post wiseinvestor before it was removed, basically i was pointing out the unfair conduct of the banks, now this a charge only applied to credit card accounts that are not used, not current, and now wiseinvestor do you think it was deemed necessary to charge my husband for a zero balance account, I dont think for one moment that on these boards no will say they are exempt from a charge, but there is proportionate and disproportionate, and i think to charge or service an account costs £30 then please feel free to give us all a proportionate breakdown??

Lindi

Scrudge

soolin wrote: »

Yes it is a silly thing to say if you can't prove it...

One of my jobs involves working within local courts and the behaviour and professional integrity of both paid District Judges and lay magistrates is expected to be beyond reproach and where there is any hint of problems either can be asked not to sit until allegations are fully investigated. If you are even hinting at misconduct likely to bring the court into disrepute then you must report it immediately, otherwise making comments about accepting back handers is libel.

I know a thing or two about defamation law.

What the poster said is that the decision is so perverse that he would not be surprised if there was a bribe exchanged.

He did not say or imply in any shape or form that he has any knowldge of the judge yet alone whether any bribery was in fact involed in this case.

What he did say is that he consider that the decision was very perverse. So perverse that he would not be suprised if there was a bribe involved.

No right person would think that the statement was made based on any factual knowledge of the judge or what might or might not have taken place. The statement is just a fair comment based on the facts of the case. If it implied (or could be interpreted to be implying) that the statement regarding bribery is based on any factual knowledge of bribery taking place - then it would be a different matter.

It would be mockery if the judge tried to sue for libel for someone saying that his decision is pereverse to the extreme. This would make a fool out of the judge (not that I have much respect for him anyway) and would probably result in him being removed.


My personal view is that there are mental cases amongst judges making decisions that even a fraudulent but sufficiently competent judge would not chance making even for a big bribe.

markshark_2

Hi all,

Despite the fact that lots of people have linked the BBC News story on here multiple times (:rolleyes: ) lots of people seem to have misread/ misunderstood the article:

The bank did not turn up to court to defend, they just used their written defence (the same as with every other case they have defended when court action has been taken).

Therefore, this seems to be one isolated incident where the judge has gone in favour of the banks?

Let's keep our fingers crossed that the guy appeals and they settle out of court or even get found against! Ball back in our court again :T