Bank Charges case upheld

AlexisV

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

You fail to grasp that it is the law that dicates the rates they can charge. This is not a forum full of people moaning that they have been charged - it's a forum of people discussing how they can use the power of the law to reclaim what they have been overcharged.
Until the banks tell us how much they have been overcharging, the courts are giving back the whole amount to the claimant.

And as for taking business elsewhere, show me a bank that charges legally and in accordance to the actual costs it incurs.

You're right, I don't know your circumstances but you're sat on the internet at 2pm on a Wednesday afternoon so you clearly have enough money for a computer and internet connection.

The gentleman in question could be at work, like myself and probably a lot of other people on here.

oldwiring

oldwiring wrote: »

IMHO Tozer is in the minority when it comes to shooting down people. Moreover AFAICS he is not abusive of persons but writes as to principles. This is more than can be said of those who believe that the banks are always rogues and that anyone, who puts a case for them, must be in their employment. Some of their comments verge on the abusive in comparison.

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

If you love bank charges so much, stay out of this thread.

Oh BTW I will save anyone the joy of abusing me for this post. My previous history is in my profile Yes I did work in a bank and for another notorious institution, but retired from the bank twenty odd years ago. I was aware that there some That I would trust and some I would not lend a shirt button to, and that assessment had no relation to well off or not. The difference with then and now is that everything is impersonal; the system is all. TBH (hopefully without 20-20 hindsight) I think many of us then could see how it was changing and did not like all we saw in the banking Brave New World
:beer: even though we may differ in opinions

Another abusive post from the same source as the others

've got four stars and one word for you: **** off.

Tozer

Ernest wrote: »

Tozer,

As much as I appreciate that you are a qualified professional, and you are giving free (but apparently not impartial) advise, i must say: I find most of your comments on this subject to be negative, provocative, and offensive. The tone of your posts are, at best aggressive and for the most part are off topic and irrelevant.

It would be useful if posts can be as constructive as possible and I write this keeping in mind that everyone is entitled to his/her opinion without being attacked and shot down in an offensive manner.

I'm sorry but I have to fundamentally disagree. When someone says that a Judge is corrupt and has been bribed WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE, that is libel and it should not be said on a website where the operators of the website may have liability. Thats all!

When someone says that they know about defamation law and clearly do not, that is not an opinion but an erroneous statement of fact that needs to be put right to prevent other people making libellous comments.

WiseInvestor_2

OldWiring,

I honestly wasn't meaning to be personal by pointing out that those who claim to have no money also possess every gadget under the sun. However, your point is noted and I shall tone it down. Sorry.


AlexisV,

Banks are commercial organisations just like supermarkets, airlines and builders. They set the price and we decide whether to use them or not. Distorting an open market with legal intervention will have more serious consequences than many bother to consider.

BTW - the poster you refer to has already said she's at home (sorry OW!)

Edinburghlass_2

Okay, thanks for your apology WiseInvestor and btw I wasn't accusing anyone in particular in my earlier post but please lets stop this now or sadly this thread will end up being closed and that is helpful to no-one.

I'm aiming this at everyone so no-one feels left out

AlexisV

I'm not denying they're commercial and there to make as much money as possible, but that is neither here nor there with this subject. The law is the law - it's not negotiable or bypassable because it would hinder profitability.

They are not selling a product or service, where obviously you can mark up as much you want in most cases, they are charging a penalty (not an admin fee), which comes under a different statute.

rachieb_2

Paul_Varjak wrote: »

Interesting that the bank chose to defend the action. I though banks usually backed out of such actions at the last moment for fear of setting a 'perceived precedent' (I say 'perceived' as I don't think County Court Judgements are binding).

The interesting thing will be seen should the case go to the High Court and the claimant wins. That would set a precedent that I think County Courts would have to follow and may add fuel to the judgement reached in another court and mentioned on 'Working Lunch' today, where a judge said he would order damages against banks who defended actions until the day of the court hearing and then backed down.

hi,
it looks like i am now in the same situation, i tried to reclaim my charges from natwest (£1715), however they have now filed a defence so we will have to wait and see the outcome.

MarkyMarkD

Your views are all very interesting, AlexisV, but incorrect. The judge has held in the LTSB case that the charges are service charges and that they are lawful.

Just because you have decided that they are penalty fees doesn't make them penalty fees; just because you have decided that they are unfair doesn't make them unfair.

LTSB's terms and conditions may differ from other banks' in a way which enables them to successfully take this stance; I certainly reckoned that at least some banks DID state that you were not allowed to incur an unauthorised overdraft and hence it can be argued that charges for doing so are penalties for breach of contract. But if the contract specifies that you can overdraw without authorisation as much as you like, on the payment of the fee laid out in their list of charges, then the judge has held that they are able to charge such a fee.

He also dismissed all of the plaintiff's arguments about the fairness of the level of the fee.

MarkyMarkD

chrissieo wrote: »

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

You should have kept a copy. If you don't have one, there's no real reason why the bank should send you one now, but you can only ask. Alternatively probably someone like CAG has back copies.

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.

No, because the judge in the recent case has stated that the costs are irrelevant. It doesn't matter in the slightest what YOU see as an acceptable charge.

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.

You are the plaintiff, not the defendant. What do you mean by your question?

groover1977

WiseINvestor wrote...BTW - no employer could ever INSIST you have a bank account. There are alternatives.[/QUOTE]

You quite obviously have little idea about what you are disscussing. I am an Officer in the British Army and I had to have an account with a cheque facillity before I started at Sandhurst. It was a requirement of anyone going to Sandhurst. There are several reasons for this that I will not bore the members of this site with. But suffice to say that if this is the extent of your advice(and accuracy of it), then I am sure I am not the only one who will just ignore your posts in future.

I am the first to admit I am trying to claim back my bank charges because there seems to be an oppertunity to do so. I hold myself entirly responsible for my financial situation and blame nobody else. However if I can claim back a little money from an institution that makes billions a year in profit, from it's customers (i.e all of us) then I wil attempt to do so.

I am also in a position where I have to deal with soldiers that have money thrown at them, in the form of loans and credit cards, because ultimately these institutions know that the Army will not abbide bad debtors and will ensure repayment if it comes to that. Some of these young men and women are not the brightest in the world and struggle to read and write and do not understand the immplication of the agreements they are signing. And yet a bank or credit card company does not check if they actually understand the terms and conditions of agreement. Before you say they don't have to...yes they do. If you go into a bank and are sold a loan, said bank has to make the buyer aware of the risks of non-repayment. By not giving any advice they are effectively giving bad advice. I know for a fact that this is done form speaking to my soldiers and having been through the process myself (once again I am not denying my own culpability, I have no one to blame for my own situation but myself).

However I am getting off topic. Thank you to those that have bothered to post constructive comments on a massive range of topics (not just about bank charges). The comments and the advice from Martin has not only helped me but a number of my soldiers too.

A final word to WiseInvestor...nothing constructive to write...don't bother writting. I don't want your sympathy, I don't need it and, nor do I suspect, does anyone else on this site. Back in your box!!