Bank Charges case upheld

Mark7799

oldwiring wrote: »

Question without criticising at all those who are claiming.:D and :beer: to refrash those inner parts!

What will you do tp prevent yourselves having occasion to be charged in future? If OFT does eventually decide an apprpriate level of charges, will you accpt them?

OK constructive replies or insults, at my age It'll be water of a duck's back.

I have posted this question in various forms previously and can't yet recall an answer.

smudgemanc26

stoneman wrote: »

Wow, one bank gets a win and loads of you guys are running scared:eek:
See, you are great at having a go when you think it's a done deal with no risk, but the first sign of it not all going your way, and you start shaking in your boots. Christ, you could almost smell the money in your nostrils couldn't you, tough luck. I hope we get more common sense from judges now, and see it for what it is, people just trying it on. See, if we play this out all the way, no contract will be worth the paper it's written on. YOU KNEW THE TERMS AND CHARGES WHEN YOU SIGNED UP, they weren't hidden in the fine print. Now because of all you Charlies jumping on the bandwagon, all of our bank interest fees will go up, and the banks will start charging to service the simplest of accounts.
I have been overdrawn in the past, but I knew what would happen and took my punishment, you should to. Stop bleating on, and join the real world. But why should you, you are moneysaving experts. Ha!

I for one am not running scared as Im sure many others are not and intend to fight for their case.

I think your missing the point here along with that Monkey thingy - i dont think are disputing the fact that it is indeed their own fault they have gone overdrawn or been charged for direct debits the point is (as so many people have pointed out in the past on these forums) are the charges the banks are levying.

I mean come on you go overdrawn by all of a pound and you get charged £30! Where is the sense in that and where is the proof that it costs £29 to push a button and put on these charges. I dont even get a letter anymore off the bank so what exactly are they charging this amount for for pushing a button on the computer - thats my argument.

I fully take responsibilty for my account and any oversights or errors that have happened - hence me stating on my charges list they can have their £12 the OFT has thought is fair, but i do not agree with the charge amounts that the banks are applying.

I also dont think people are bleating on just merely asking for advice or posting up their stories on this forum - You see this site has been set up to help people and offer advice and most of the time people are friendly and supportive although you do seem to get the odd one now and again that thinks they have the right to criticise and bad mouth people (mentioning no names!)

If they kept their charges fair in accordance with the amount of cost it takes for the administration i for one will be happy - hopefully someone with the powers that be will decide this sometime in the near future!

Hoohah

So a few people think these charges are all perfectly fair. We have seen worthy examples of paper shops and bakers and how everyone needs to make a profit blah blah blah.

One question to the defenders of those poor, poor banks who are now being vicitimised by the nasty unfair consumer:

lets assume the Banks have made some legal enquiries over and above popping into their local Citizens Advice Bureau in their lunch hour .. and in fact have spent a few quid on 'proper advice'.

Why then have they paid a penny, let alone millions?

Perhaps some of you, who are in defence of the Banks, should be offering your expert services, tell them they are in their rights... you could save them a fortune. Surely that would be a better use of your time than bemoaning these 'fools' here.

smudgemanc26

Hoohah wrote: »

So a few people think these charges are all perfectly fair. We have seen worthy examples of paper shops and bakers and how everyone needs to make a profit blah blah blah.

One question to the defenders of those poor, poor banks who are now being vicitimised by the nasty unfair consumer:

lets assume the Banks have made some legal enquiries over and above popping into their local Citizens Advice Bureau in their lunch hour .. and in fact have spent a few quid on 'proper advice'.

Why then have they paid a penny, let alone millions?

Perhaps some of you, who are in defence of the Banks, should be offering your expert services, tell them they are in their rights... you could save them a fortune. Surely that would be a better use of your time than bemoaning these 'fools' here.

Here here i agree - some people have nothing better to do! They are probably bank managers or something!

RabbitMad

Hoohah wrote: »

One question to the defenders of those poor, poor banks who are now being vicitimised by the nasty unfair consumer:

lets assume the Banks have made some legal enquiries over and above popping into their local Citizens Advice Bureau in their lunch hour .. and in fact have spent a few quid on 'proper advice'.

Why then have they paid a penny, let alone millions?

to let you know "where I am" as they say on Dragons Den. I have never been charged by my bank and feel that £30 for going over your overdraft limit is perfectly fair. However, I don't think its overly fair to charge this 3 times in a day due to 3 seperate debit card transactions. So I'm probably on the fence.
I think both the OFT and this judge have realised that this is an extremly complex issue and looking at one charge in isolation is difficult.

Now to answer your question:- The banks have paid out as they don't want to have a court case that sets a precedent even though they feel they have a strong case, but probably more importantly because they don't want to reveal the costs of each and every service they provide. This is highly sensitive comercial information that could cause them much bigger problems than a few customers reclaiming their charges.

In the mean time they are re-writing terms and conditions to the point where these are legitimate service charges so that these sorts of cases go away in a couple of years time.


Well that's what I think anyway.

Moglex

RabbitMad wrote: »

to let you know "where I am" as they say on Dragons Den. I have never been charged by my bank and feel that £30 for going over your overdraft limit is perfectly fair.

You may think it fair, but it's unlawful.

Now to answer your question:- The banks have paid out as they don't want to have a court case that sets a precedent even though they feel they have a strong case,

Or, more likely because they know full well that if the case comes before an apellant court with the top barristers fighting it out they will be shown to have absolutely no case at all.

In the mean time they are re-writing terms and conditions to the point where these are legitimate service charges so that these sorts of cases go away in a couple of years time.

Sadly for the banks that is most unlikely to work.

The law may be an a-s-s, but it is not so much of an a-s-s as to be blinded by mere wordage. If it was you could do pretty much anything, contractually, by simple misrepresentation.

No, the judges will look behind the words and ask themselves how, if they can process a DD for no cost to the customer it can possibly cost more than a few pence not to process one. They will almost certainly see that it cannot and infer (correctly) that the charge is a disguised (illegal) penalty.

The change in wording is just another trick of the banks to put people off claiming what is rightfully theirs.

stoneman

And where do the people who are asking for the refunds get off asking for ALL the money they have been charged. So the banks are not even allowed to charge them anything, this is where my "jumping on the bandwagon" comes in. Folks with absolutely no idea of how a business works just blindly going along like sheep because someone tells them it's an easy buck.
I have not once heard of anyone putting in a claim but saying "OK, I want x amount back, but lets come to an agreement on how much we think is a fair fee to be charged". I think hell would freeze over if that ever happened.
The reason I think the banks have not decided to fight any of these is as stated before, yes they are wrong to call them "charges", because it is not lawful to make a profit from an administration fee, but I am sure if they went to court and tried to get some of the money the claimant asks for reduced, by at least saying " OK, we overcharged them, but surely they are not entitled to ask for all the money returned" they would be able to reduce what they are paying out by at least a third. but at the moment, they don't wish to set any precedence, they have the money to deal with this.
And another thing, don't you think that by claiming back your "unfair fees " from those nasty banks that that will be the end of the matter. Wait till the next time you try to get a loan or a mortgage.

stoneman

attheraces wrote: »

Obviously this squeaky clean know all thinks all of us are out of his league...

Well, maybe he should defend the banks then... I'm sure banks pay millions for top notch lawers to tell them it is illegal and unfair.

BANKS PLEASE TAKE NOTE....... STOP PRESS:

HSBC, LLOYDS, RBS, HBOS etc... 0800 'I KNOW ALL' is just round the corner.

Just to let you know, it is obviously unfair to justify these ridiculously high charges, that is why credit card companies are in the process of reducing there charging system... I have claimed over £2400 from my bank and credit card companies spanning 6 years, others have done the same... They don't tend to pay if they are wrong, but, who am I to argue. You know best of course...

Look who's a clever guy then. Stealing money that doesn't belong to you, then getting them to refund you over £2,400 for the privilege. At what point during that period did you realise that you should get your head out of the sand.:rotfl:

redsquare

Quote above:
"I have not once heard of anyone putting in a claim but saying "OK, I want x amount back, but lets come to an agreement on how much we think is a fair fee to be charged". I think hell would freeze over if that ever happened."

Hell wouldn't freeze over, the banks would come back and say £30.00!

oldwiring

Mark7799 wrote: »

I have posted this question in various forms previously and can't yet recall an answer.

Let's ask the questions in a separate thread. I'll put it in large size for those with poor eyesight.



New thread created