Bank Charges case upheld

chrissyfp1

I received a letter last week from lloyds solicitors marked Strictly without predudice and Confidential and Privileged. This letter offered me all the money inc interest and costs but had conditions attached that bound me to confidentiality of the terms. A review of my account, and that i agree to maintain my account perfectly in future and if i don't i'll get the fee's. If i had agreed to the terms it would mean that if i went overdrawn in the future i would not be able to claim back any money, well thats the way i took the terms to mean. So i replied with a letter saying that i accept the offer without predudice and reserve the right to make any further claims should they charge me again in a way that may be considered unlawful. I also said that i am not prepared to agree to any confidentiality clauses they try to impose, unless of course their client wishes to make an offer of due consideration in addition to the amount in order to be afforded this privilege by myself.
Have i shot myself in the foot?
If they don't agree to my terms can either mine or their letter be used in court and would i be looked upon unfavourably by the judge because i didn't agree to their terms. I have received a court date for 3rd June, sent out by court after sols sent their letter. The Lloyds defense is based entirely on the point that there was no breach of contract and they are a fee for service. Which was the exact same defense used by lloyds in the case of Mr Berwick. Standard disclosure has been ordered on mine. Does anyone know if standard disclosure was ordered in Mr Berwicks case? If so isn't that a breakdown of costs they incur and if thats the case, the fact that they didn't follow the order should have meant that Mr Berwick should have won by default doesn't it?
Christine :0)

WiseInvestor_2

Knackered wrote: »

1) Why are you in this thread if you have such a high-and-mighty attitude?

Because your collective actions will cost ME money, once banks start charging me to withdraw £10 (in credit!) from a cash machine. There are countless posts from people demanding consumer rights - have they REALLY stopped to think whether responsible consumers rights are being protected?!

I've never been charged by my bank, just as I never pay credit card interest. That has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with how much or little I earn, but has everything to do with living to my means. It takes less than a couple of minutes each month to manage my account, which is far cheaper than being saddled with penalty charges for getting it wrong.

I firmly believe that bank accounts aren't suitable for everybody. If you aren't good with money (and it takes a lot of practice to become good/sensible) then keep your cash in a box under the bed. When it's gone it's gone. Nobody will EVER charge you for keeping an empty box. However, I don't think many people could cope with this because they ALWAYS want more - only when the bank gives them more they complain about being charged for it!!!!!!!

I don't have a car so I don't pay road tax, petrol, parking etc. I catch the bus. I don't own a TV - so I don't pay TV licence. I think it would be a VERY interesting excercise for all those who've posted their attempts/successes at reclaiming 'unfair' bank charges to list their income and expenditure. TV/DVD players in every bedroom is my guess.

LIVE TO YOUR MEANS - don't overspend if you can help it. If you can't help it, don't just do it - go and TALK TO SOMEONE about it. Authorised overdrafts are ALWAYS cheaper than unauthorised spending - which is exactly how it should be. Claiming that charges are unfair due to the amount is meaningless - do you think it really costs £6000 to fly to New York? Well that's what it costs for a First Class ticket, whilst someone in Economy has paid only £200. Does £6000 really reflect the true cost of the service? Of course it doesn't. Banks are commercial organisations - if you want charity go and speak to the Samaritans.

chrissieo

With all the different advice and in the light of Mr Berwicks judgement yesterday I am a little confused. Could someone please explain, simply, the following points to me.

1) There seems to be some confusion over the term penalty and charges. If the bank has changed there T&Cs since my account was open to read charges/penalties etc how do I find out what they were when my account was opened in 2000

2) Am I right in thinking if it is worded as charges they have to give a breakdown on how those charges are calculated by themselves and my case would be stronger if I agreed to what I see as an acceptable charge, i.e. £4.00 and accepted the difference in settlement.

From some of the earlier posts it seems that in the last 24hours banks are changing their tatics and now are going to be prepared to go to court. How is it best to defend this to avoid being in a similar situation to Mr Berwick.

I am currently in the first stages of claiming agains Capital One credit card and had, until yesterday, expected to receive a greatly reduced "goodwill" offer from them which I would of accepted in part payment and then offered them a reduced claim to reflect that I am prepared to accept £4 per charge as just charge for their administration, then assuming that would be refused I would proceed with court............................How should I now proceed.

I have at least 2 other claims that I wish to initiate in the near future, is it now going to be worth it. Sorry to sound so negative but feedback from members today stating that the banks stance has changed dramatically in the last 24 hours is quite unerving for a newbie claimant like myself.

Chrissie

WiseInvestor_2

cuddly1 wrote: »

if it only costs the bank in the region of £2.50 per charge and some are charging as much as £40 isnt that stealing on THEIR part from us by charging excessive amounts ?????

So don't bank with them - it's as simple as that.

MarkyMarkD

pigginsexy wrote: »

Or he is a shareholder. Dont forget that some of these Judges sit on the main board of banks as shareholders!!!!!!!!. My uncle who is a Judge at the high court is also a 32% shareholder with Birmingham Midshires. He goes to every board meeting and has the right to vote!

Maybe this judge is in the same position??????

I don't believe for a moment that a judge would accept a case where he was financially involved with one party.

Birmingham Midshires is a division of Halifax - it isn't even a separate company since Halifax bought it. Therefore nobody is a shareholder in Birmingham Midshires and your 32% shareholder uncle is a figment of your imagination.

deary65

It seems that the truth recognised and given effect to by the court lies not in the substance of an unfair penalty charge, rather, it lies in the label the bank have attached to the unfair penalty charge.

Report in The Guardian
http://money.guardian.co.uk/news_/story/0,,2080480,00.html

You can see the way that this is eventually going to 'pan out'. 'Yes', the OFT will eventually say, 'banks are entitled to charge a fee for their services', and it is up to the consumer to exercise 'choice' and shop around for the best deal and that the banks should do more to make their fees more transparent.

Knackered

@ WiseInvestor: You have no idea what kind of circumstances lead people to such situations and your trivialising of it just makes you look like a total ignoramus.

On the flip-side of your argument, it is the charges THAT WE HAVE BEEN PAYING that have led to you having free banking for so long. Don't spit your dummy out now that things are changing in your cosy little world.

WiseInvestor_2

jen1972 wrote: »

My husband whom earns just under £1000 a month bring home pay have endured paying lloyds on average £150 in charges a month we then either have to not pay something the following month therefore incurring charges elsewhere or subsquently reduce important things like trying to feed our children

I'm sorry but my sympathy is waning fast here!

£1000 per month is a lot of money! Most of the world survives on less than that. If it isn't enough for you, why have you had children?

£150 per month in charges demonstrates that your financial handling needs some serious investigation. Running a bank account is as much a skill as running a home.

jen1972 wrote: »

I also agree a realistic amount like £2-4.50 is fine to charge us people, therefore the debt whole wouldn't widen on us

If you're serious about getting yourself out of debt, the first lesson to learn is to stop blaming other people. Banks are commercial organisations - they charge for a service and it's up to you whether you use it or not. You, the consumer, are not in a position to comment or dictate on the rates they charge. However, as the consumer you CAN take your business elsewhere. If you can't manage a bank account, don't have one -that way you won't be charged a penny and can focus on getting your financial affairs back on track.


Good Luck

ricicle86

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

I don't believe for a moment that a judge would accept a case where he was financially involved with one party.

Birmingham Midshires is a division of Halifax - it isn't even a separate company since Halifax bought it. Therefore nobody is a shareholder in Birmingham Midshires and your 32% shareholder uncle is a figment of your imagination.

Correct - if a judge is found to have a pecuniary interest in the outcome of a decision then that decision is void for bias and JR proceedings would be initiated. I am sure this is not the case! Why didn't the claimant request an adjournment or (as has been suggested) request an order from the court for the bank to provide details of costs incurred?

I would appeal the decision anyway, not sure how much it costs to appeal though!

jen1972_2

WiseInvestor wrote: »

I'm sorry but my sympathy is waning fast here!

£1000 per month is a lot of money! Most of the world survives on less than that. If it isn't enough for you, why have you had children?

£150 per month in charges demonstrates that your financial handling needs some serious investigation. Running a bank account is as much a skill as running a home.


If you're serious about getting yourself out of debt, the first lesson to learn is to stop blaming other people. Banks are commercial organisations - they charge for a service and it's up to you whether you use it or not. You, the consumer, are not in a position to comment or dictate on the rates they charge. However, as the consumer you CAN take your business elsewhere. If you can't manage a bank account, don't have one -that way you won't be charged a penny and can focus on getting your financial affairs back on track.


Good Luck

THANK YOU FOR WISHING ME GOOD LUCK. however as you do NOT know me and i did NOT quote you personnally please do not comment on my children. you clearly have no monetay problems to which i am very pleased for you, i am just stating to such likes as yourselves that certain predicament can place you in a situation that then is difficult to climb out of and spirals and had you evr been in this situation you would understand. obviously we need a bank account to have wages paid into so that is not an option, therefore leaving the banks with the monopoly. i don't wish to get in to a slanging match with you. i am very serious about getting out of debt and i will with or with claiming my charges backs. i certainly don't want you sympathy save it as you never know whats round the corner for yourself!!!!! Also a £1000 a per may be A LOT of money but please note that we pay our own rent, council tax and domestic bill we do not live on hand outs from your taxes so i find your comments quite insulting. We don't all have the perfect life (holidays , nights out) my husband works damn hard to support us