Bank Charges case upheld

feater

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

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.

Oh that makes it much better then... They hold onto my money for a full day and for what... just cos they can't change the system to credit the account before they debit it.. Even you can have to admit that it's a simple solution to a lot of problems for so many people. And please don't reply with any statements about managing money properly... blah blah blah... etc. Some of us don't have regular income when self employed so it's not that easy at times.

Moglex

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

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.

Just because the banks have an unfair and unreasonable term does not mean that people cannot complain about it.

And don't bother to argue that the term is fair and reasonable. You are obviously on the bank's side so you may as well save your breath.

Moglex

feater wrote: »

Oh that makes it much better then... They hold onto my money for a full day and for what... just cos they can't change the system to credit the account before they debit it..

It's even worse than that.

Some years ago cheque I was expecting was delayed so I put cash into the account as I knew a large number of small direct debits were going out the next day.

When I got my next statement I was perplexed to discover over two hundred pounds of 'failed DD charges' even though, looking at the statement it was quite clear that at no point was it showing insufficient funds to pay what was due to go out.

Nat West don't send out letters when they do this so by the time a further set od DD's were due, the 'penalty' charges meant that some of those failed.

When I asked for an explanation I was told that for charging purposes they always remove funds before they add them.

I told them that as they literally had my cash in their grubby little paws when they bounced my DD's if they did not reinstate the funds they'd effectively stolen from me I would issue a private prosecution for fraud and they could enjoy the publicity I would ensure it got (even if it was unlikely to succeed).

Needless to say they quickly capitulated.

chrissieo

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.

All this talk of T&Cs has got me thinking, knowing full well I don't have any of mine I did manage to find one LLoyds credit card statement from 2003 that clearly states the charges (as charges not penalty charges) on the back of the statement, i.e. £20 for going over limit £20 for late payment etc etc. Would this serve the same purpose as the full T&Cs

Chrissie

kellbell_3

I am going to sound really stupid here........but if are to take a copy of our banks T&C's with us to court, where do we get copies of these?

Thanks

Skeletor

kellbell wrote: »

I am going to sound really stupid here........but if are to take a copy of our banks T&C's with us to court, where do we get copies of these?

Thanks

I've just started a thread asking the same question. You'll be able to download current T&Cs off your bank's website but that woun't be much use because they'll obviously be recent updates with the whole reclaiming unfair charges in mind.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=455383

bicolormoth

Gecks wrote: »

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

if this is in fact where it went wrong for Mr Berwick, then we might assume that at appeal he WILL have his T&C's with him, and the judge will agree with him this time. :j

smashedbooboo

Hi, the question has anyone got charges back from lloyds tsb since THAT court case. I have just checked the success board and someone got theirs back yesterday.

natweststaffmember

I should add some info for everyone which the news seems to have forgotten. The Lloyds case was NOT the first bank charges case to where the BANK WON. In 2005, NatWest won a claim using identical arguments and a lot less press coverage. Have NatWest won again? Have they stopped paying out? The answer is NO on both counts. Please do not be worried about one case in which the bank got lucky. They win once in a blue moon, i guess the judge saw one.

iwilldoitthistime

smashedbooboo

I got a letter from Lloyds solicitors today paying up in full. So dont despair!