Bank Charges case upheld

nickmack

pdel61 wrote: »

Hopefully at the end the banks will realise the error of their ways and therefore prevent anyone incurring these charges in the future. Afterall it's quite easy to do all the need to do is refuse any payment that would take people overdrawn or over their overdraft limits. Problem solved.

Not sure the bank will ever see it as an error on their part. It's a great profit boosting scheme, so it's not in their interests to 'help' customers in this way.

Gecks

Ok this thread is very difficult to follow and I'm not sure if this has already been mentioned, but in my eyes the situation here is very simple and the judge was justified:
- The claimant did not bring with him Lloyds TSB's T&Cs which explicitly state that going into your o/d is a breach of the 'terms of the account' (i have them here)
- Therefore the judge had no reason to assume this was a breach of contract, so the various precedent cases and laws forbidding penalties on breach of contract couldn't be applied. The judge agreed with the bank that these we 'service charges' as he had no evidence to the contrary.
- So if he made the same claim, with the same judge, but had the T&C's with him as part of his court bundle he would have been successful in his cliam.

this is all pretty clear if you're prepared to read through the massive PDF file documenting the judges decision but i can understand those who aren't

Time2Go_25

nickmack wrote: »

Not sure the bank will ever see it as an error on their part. It's a great profit boosting scheme, so it's not in their interests to 'help' customers in this way.

May be, I don't know if they make more money from people in debt or those in credit.

I wonder if they did bring it in though how long it would be before people were saying that it's not what they want, especially when their shopping bill, mortgage or attempt to draw out money was refused.

MarkyMarkD

pdel61 wrote: »

Hopefully at the end the banks will realise the error of their ways and therefore prevent anyone incurring these charges in the future. Afterall it's quite easy to do all the need to do is refuse any payment that would take people overdrawn or over their overdraft limits. Problem solved.

I don't agree with your point here.

Many unauthorised overdrafts are created by customers writing guaranteed cheques. Nothing can be done by the bank to stop these clearing, precisely because they are guaranteed.

With regard to other transaction types, it can be better for the customer that they are cleared despite being unauthorised - otherwise fees for non-payment might be incurred elsewhere, or in the extreme other services might be cut off. Or non-payment of (say) a credit card could lead to a worsened credit history.

MarkyMarkD

Gecks is right - the only Ts & Cs produced in court seem to have been LTSB's latest Ts & Cs which explicitly allow customers to obtain unauthorised overdraft, on payment of the relevant service fee.

The judges are not in the business of guessing what the contractual terms are - if the plaintiff doesn't present enough evidence, they are not going to win their case. And nor should they.

deary65

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

Gecks is right - the only Ts & Cs produced in court seem to have been LTSB's latest Ts & Cs which explicitly allow customers to obtain unauthorised overdraft, on payment of the relevant service fee.

The judges are not in the business of guessing what the contractual terms are - if the plaintiff doesn't present enough evidence, they are not going to win their case. And nor should they.

You have confirmed what I have been saying the judgment is meaningless. Had this matter been argued by competent council the whole banking system would have been taken apart and a very different decision reached.

deary65

sgm wrote: »

First post so be gentle.

I haven't read all of this thread but it seems to me that the District Judge is trying to force a High Court ruling on this.

If you read the statement by the High Court judge on Monday he seems to be saying that the courts and judiciary are getting fed up with these claims clogging up the legal system, and a High Court ruling is called for. The DJ in Birmingham seems to have taken it upon himself to try and force one.

Anyone else agree or am I barking up the wrong tree?

Yes! I agree, that what is needed, the law to be clarified.

MPG_2

Hi everyone! I'm sueing the Woolwich for 3grand and they acknowledged last night, two days before the original 14 days is up (swearing and frustration). That coupled with the news of the first upholding got me a little rattled right before bed - yeah, just what you want before a good nights sleep. Is anyone else playing ball with Woolwich?

yias74

Jim_Boomtime wrote: »

Despite not even turning up to court, Lloyds TSB has become the first bank to win a case brought against it by a customer for overdraft charges.

I'm not sure how it could have won - the customer turned up, the bank did not.

Details here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6657025.stm

Wonder what implications this will have? Banks now starting to defend claims?

Id like to congratulate Martin on my sucess story. A few years ago I was in financial hardship,after going on his site i Downloaded the letter and sent it off to the halifax. I paid for my last six years statements, in all honestly i couldnt be bothered to go through all the statements as this was reminding me of my past and upset me. I decided to aim for a figure of 5k which i would have been happy with.
I then received a letter from the Halifax stating they were not prepared to pay me so i then downloaded the second letter threatening court action. It took them eight weeks and i didnt receive a reply, i rang them straight away and i found out that the actual charges appliet to my account had been 8136!!!!!!. So now i was not going to settle for 5k. They sent me a letter saying that they would pay me 2456, they put it directly into my account and said i had 14 days to accept or decline. I rang them and said i was not going to accept so she said what would you be prepared to accept i said 5.5k. She agreed and put the money in my account the same day!!!!
She also said that was their final offer. A couple of days later I thought try them again and see if i can squeeze a bit more out of them, she said but you accepted our second offer. I said after speaking to the cab and my solicitor they told me not to accept so her final offer was another 2k. In total I got back 7.5k i was over the moon. Martin if i ever meet you id like to buy you a drink. Top man and a big theank you.

Moglex

sgm wrote: »

First post so be gentle.

I haven't read all of this thread but it seems to me that the District Judge is trying to force a High Court ruling on this.

If you read the statement by the High Court judge on Monday he seems to be saying that the courts and judiciary are getting fed up with these claims clogging up the legal system, and a High Court ruling is called for. The DJ in Birmingham seems to have taken it upon himself to try and force one.

Anyone else agree or am I barking up the wrong tree?

I must admit that was my best guess at what was happening.