Bank Charges case upheld

Tozer

Felix_the_Foccer wrote: »

ok, going from your comments, would it be an idea for a number of people for a number of people from here (and elsewhere) to contact The Law Society here: http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/contactus.law

ok, admittedly I'm not a lawyer and I certainly wouldn't class myself as an 'expert' in these Bank Charges cases but it does seem that this Judge is flying on the face of all logic and law.

No it would be a ridiculous idea. The Law Society regulates Solicitors not judges. The appeals process is to question judges' decisions.

Orchidthegreat

I am on the second letter which I sent three weeks ago they haven't replied to my request for exactly the same as this guy at exactly the same bank! I am getting worried now

lewt

Edinburghlass wrote: »

It may well have been a tongue in cheek remark, however it was posted on Martin's website and therefore he then becomes responsible for what is posted.

So please, lets leave it there or I may need to remove some posts.

As I said above, please keep to the subject as I have now removed some posts.

i thought it was a realistic idea of why it could happen.... don't you?

WiseInvestor_2

keeperbear wrote: »

I am more worried about how these claims may lead to the disappearance of free banking services

At last a commonsense post on this thread!!

I'm firmly with Lloyds TSB on this one - the customer broke his contract and effectively STOLE from the bank by using an unauthorised overdraft! If I miss a mortgage payment I run the risk of my house being taken off me - is that a reasonable charge or a penalty?

For all those people who go into the red without asking permission first, I think you deserve to be penalised. Meanwhile, those of us who take care of our finances (and I'm not well off by any means!) risk being charged for everyday banking services like cheques and cash withdrawals as is the case in many other countries, simply to fund those who can't be trusted to tie their own shoelaces properly!

Running a Current Account should not be taken lightly, yet many people believe they can do as they please and shouldn't be penalised for stealing.

WELL DONE LLOYDS TSB!

Tozer

iamstacie wrote: »

"True, there is no direct judicial precedent although it will be persuasive in order to ensure consistency"

I understand your point, but can you not then reason that the statements issued by a judge yesterday - after awarding in the claiments favour - that he considers this a waste of time and if it carries on he'll award compensation too (for want of the correct word!) will also carry weight amongst over judges. This is one out of thousands, and I'd have to say the other 1000's that have been awarded in the claiments favour must carry so much more weight than this one decision IMO.

The judge did not decide in the Claimant's favour in respect of the point of law - the judge criticised the bank, quite rightly, for saying it would defend the claim and not doing so.

The issues are very different.

And sadly I do not think there have been 1000's (or to my knowledge ANY!) decisions in favour of Claimants. That is why banks have settled out of court. There have been judgments against banks but these are DEFAULT judgments and not arising out of decisions following a trial.

This is the first to my knowledge.

funkylala

Oh dear...I really hope you never have anything unexpected happen to you WiseInvestor!! It must be a lovely position to be in..I wasn't so lucky I'm afraid.

alemted

Mr_Squiddy wrote: »

I am pleased with this ruling. I have always tried to manage my financial affairs properly and have paid no more than £20 in penalty fees in the last ten years. Why should I have to subsidise individuals who cannot be bothered to manage their financial affairs properly? I hope this will embolden banks to start fighting back against their irresponsible customers who think it's perfectly OK to help themselves to the bank's money without arrangement or permission.

Unfortunately, not everyone is as fiscally astute as you are.

The reason I want my charges back is the amount of the charge. Charging £35 for a service which costs ~£4.50 is a rip-off in my eyes.

If they had charged me what it actually costs them - I wouldn't be taking them to court.

Lots of others on here missing the point as well...........

Tozer

playfire1 wrote: »

Sorry you are wrong. It is not 1 - 0 to the banks. Of all the thousands of defences that banks have entered into the court and subsequentely have not turned up. Claimants have still had to give their evidence before the magistrate and they have still had to approve it. 1 -0 to the bank? More like 10,000 - 1 to The people.

This is nothing to worry about

Sorry but what you are saying is completely and utterly wrong. Firstly, there are no magistrates. They are district judges.

Secondly, THERE HAVE NOT BEEN ANY CASES OTHER THAN THIS ONE TODAY WHICH HAVE BEEN DECIDED. Ther have been default judgments but that is when a defence is not entered.

The thousands of cases have been settled out of court. There have been no rulings apart from this one.

Please try and keep to the facts.

Time2Go_25

chipbeck wrote: »

Abuse withdrawn maybe you should have stated this in the first place mate.
Please accept my apology.

Apology accepted.

As I said it will be great when all this has ended and everyone knows where they stand, like the majority of disputes I believe there are rights and wrongs on both sides so the sooner it's settled the better.

bsjwright

So we've seen the first victory for the banks:

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

I've already submitted a claim and am waiting for the judgement date (within a few days). Should we be worried by this new ruling? It appears to me that Berwick was making the wrong argument - I believe he should have been arguing that the charges were not in proportion to the bank's costs (per the UTCCA 1977), rather than that they were illegal contractual penalties. If I present the argument in that way to the court, surely they'll rule in my favour?