Bank Charges case upheld

nickmack

mazzxtc wrote: »

This case won, as far as I'm aware only affects Lloyds TSB customers as their T&C's are worded differently.
Does anyone know if there are any cases won today?
There certainly doesn't look like anyone else has lost again.

Even if you're a LloydsTSB customer reclaiming, I wouldn't be overly concerned by this.

Most banks have changed their Terms now so they can claim these are 'service charges'. Putting aside these are thinly disguised penalties, they weren't worded like this when most people incurred the charges.

Both plantiffs could have presented the case differently and perhaps won. This judge made a ruling to dismiss the cases, but this does not mean others will do the same.

As Martin has said, continue claiming.

tinkerbell1978

should we carrying on trying to claim back our charges from TSB!?????? HELP!

Crazy_Hamster

feater wrote: »

just watched the link. Didnt really conclude anything, though have to say that the comment about calling the bank for help is laughable. Whenever I asked for an overdraft I was turned down for not managing my account (even though it was the charges putting me overdrawn in the first place!!!) and when I was offered a loan I was turned down and my credit rating got worse and worse. Cheques would be bounced as they take money out before they put any credits on your account each day... So even if overdrawn for about an hour that would result in a charge of 30/35 quid.... Nice work if you can get it I'd say!... If the banks don't want people to go overdrawn then that's the first thing they could change!!!

I am trying to claim over £1000 from Lloyds. I admit that I ran my account badly, and of course I accept that the bank had admin costs etc. However as you say I called the bank and asked for help, they said there was nothing they could do. So what started off as one cheuqe that I forgot about being bounced turned into charges, then charges for being over drawn, then DD not paid because of these charges. So I end up nearly £200 down the next month and so it snowballed and I do not believe that a £120 charge for a returned DD is reasonable. Which frankly shocked me when I looked back over old statements.

I do not want interest and I have told the bank that I will accpet 80% of my claim. Which as I haven't used my account for over a year and I am only claiming back 4 years seems fair to me. I have also asked them that if they can't refund me perhaps they can give me a break down of their costs so that I may understand the charges/fees.

I wait to hear from them

Scrudge

Tozer wrote: »

Clearly you know very little about defamation of character. The statement cannot be 'fair comment' as there is no evidence it is true or justified.

I find it outrageous that just because the impartial judge did not make a popular decision there is even a suggestion of bribery or corruption.

May I explain to you that if A says about B something then it is not the literal meaning of what has been said - it is how a reasonable person (possibly subject to inuendo) would interpret it that matters for the purpose of libel action.

If A is shouting at the street that B is an idiot - there is no libel case (perhaps brach of piece etc but no libel) - because it woud be clear to any reasonable man that all that means is that A is Angry with B.


Also if your elderly neibour sprends rumours about you that you are a bad man - she could be sued and would have to prove that you are ill behaved etc.

If she says to everyone that he does not say hello to me and therefore he is very bad, it would be very difficult to sue her. Because all she did is made a fair comment (and fair comment does not have to be fair as you understand it - fair comment is a legal term!!!). People whom he told that had full knowledge of the facts the statement is based on and are free to make their own conclusion - and indeed the majority would not agree with her and dismiss what she said.



Applying it to suggestions of possibility of bribery in this board, it is clear what was meant is that the judgement was far too perverse. That's how an ordinary person would interpret what has been suggested. No actual knowledge of the judge was implied and whoever reads the thread will have a clear understanding of this.

It could be argued that it does imply that the judge is incompetent and that in itself is defamatory. Also unlike analyzing strengths and weaknesses of linking pereverse decisions to possibility of bribery, the majority of people would not be in a psition to form their own view as to whether allegations of pervesivness of the judgement is reasonable - so it woud be difficult to apply a fair comment defence. However the judge would find it difficult to sue as there are a number of other defences in defamation cases relating to freedom of speach - in particular freedom to criticise decisions of authorities. If the judge did sue on the basis of the statements made implying his incompetence not only he would loose his defamation case - he would mae a fool out of himself and could find himslf removed.

MarkyMarkD

chrissieo wrote: »

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

I stand corrected, shall i rephrase that last question?

How best should I plead my case?

I can't really advise you how to plead your case. It depends a lot whether you bank with LTSB or not as all banks have different Ts & Cs. The arguments which caused the plaintiff to lose in this case may not apply in the same way with your bank.

Equally well, as others have suggested, the same arguments may be found compelling by a different judge.

MarkyMarkD

feater wrote: »

Cheques would be bounced as they take money out before they put any credits on your account each day... So even if overdrawn for about an hour that would result in a charge of 30/35 quid.... Nice work if you can get it I'd say!... If the banks don't want people to go overdrawn then that's the first thing they could change!!!

This is a popular refrain from those who've been charged. You are required to have cleared funds in the account by the end of the previous working day. So your money wasn't "an hour" late, it was a working day late.

Scrudge

WiseInvestor wrote: »

Edinburghlass,

I can assure you there has been absolutely no abuse on my part, although I proudly admit to being firmly against the concept of reclaiming bank charges levied due to the fault of the account holder. Mistakes by banks can and do happen and can/should be queried, but they don't amount to the thousands of pounds that people are claiming (IMO dishonestly) through the help of this site.

Only 1 person so far has admited "I was late with a payment". If I was late paying my mortgage I'd risk having my house reposessed. Breaking the rules has consequences and people NEED to understand that. Campaigning for a reduction in charges would NOT help people manage their money more responsibly and could result in our entire economy taking a serious turn for the worse.

This site should be encouraging readers to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY and TAKE ACTION. That's not abusive, it's straight-talking. Sadly, some seem incapable of telling the difference.

How shall I put it so as not to sound too offensive?

Not very clever are you???

You have littered this board with your useless comments and you keep shouting here "broke the rule" "breached the contract" "due to the fault" and so on.

If you had a reasonable amount of grey matter in your brain and basic knowledge of the law (level of knowledge that could be gained by reading messages on this thread) you would know that what you are saying is opposite to what banks claim.

The bank won only because the unreasonable judge concluded that those penalties are not penalties for any breach of contract. They are charges for service provided under the contract. So according to the bank no breach occurred - the customer was entitled to use the services - such as having items presented for payment while overdrawn and they have used those services.

But obviously the judge was wrong as all he did is interpret the terms literally without considering the substance of the contract.

deary65

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

I don't see how you derive your first statement from the press quote, which merely reiterates what has been reported elsewhere.

Whether the charges are penalty charges or not is a matter of legal contract, not a question of "the label the bank have attached to the ... charge".

The judge held in the case that the charges were NOT charges for breach of contract. He was supported in this decision by the plaintiff's agreement that they were not charges for breach of contract, because the plaintiff did not accept that he had breached the contract. As I sais before, the plaintiff dug his own grave on this point.

Once the point that they are contractual charges for services provided, rather than penalties for breach of contract, had been conceded, the issue turned on whether those charges were reasonable - and, indeed, whether they needed to be reasonable. And on this point the judge held that they didn't need to be reasonable as the various "unfair contract terms" clauses didn't apply, and even if they did have to be reasonable, they were reasonable in comparison with both other banks' charges and an estimate of the full costs of running the customer's current account.

I did not say i derived my conclusion from the press article.

Do you recall the case of wither a license was really a tenancy.In that case their lordships found a tenancy i.e they looked at the substance and not the form of the contract.In other words equity looks to the substance and not the form. What ever name they chose to call it in my opinion its a fine. i.e punishment.

Russjo

Okay, I've read every post on this thread and feel more confused than I was before. Can anybody please explain in simple terms/language the T&C issue. Am I right in thinking that the judge considered Mr Berwick's unlawful charges to be service charges?

deary65

Russjo wrote: »

Okay, I've read every post on this thread and feel more confused than I was before. Can anybody please explain in simple terms/language the T&C issue. Am I right in thinking that the judge considered Mr Berwick's unlawful charges to be service charges?

Unfortunately you are not the only one confused on this matter so also is the law, the matters really need to be clarified by a higher court. The banks are a powerful cartel when they say jump the government ask how high .However the law has only one master and that is reason.

You should have a look at the money masters videos!!