First reports of someone losing in Court on bank charges Blog Discussion

meoldmucker

I too took loydsTSB to court but it got thrown out because I am on an IVA and the IVA would be in danger of colapsing. So be warned, if you are on an IVA and the bank owes you save yourself £120.00 and the bad karma.

Charis

krisskross wrote: »

Just a small point. How do the banks pay for the computers, the software,the ATMs etc? Do you think it just all appears in the branches at no cost?

They invest our money (not all of us are without a balance at the bank) and make a far bigger profit than we could because they have lots more to invest. They lend some at an agreed rate of interest to borrowers, a rate which is far, far in excess of what they give to investors/savers. This is how they pay for their computers, their staff and the forest of advertising leaflets we are inundated with.

Some of the posters on this site have overdrawn due to their own or other people's errors, like the poster whose salary was paid by cheque instead of direct debit. Many younger people have no margin for errors, all their income goes on rent and survival, that is why this site is so popular. Being so poor that when an error happens the bank immediately makes it infinitely worse by charging £300 does not make anyone a thief. Except maybe the bank's shareholders.

monkeybadger1

Hello there,
Im new to this site, but have been keeping close tabs on what's been going on over the last couple of months. To me it is clear that the courts are inundated with claims. I'm currently claiming with the support of a friend who is a solicitor, so im pretty confident in my claim. However, I received the notice of transfer from MCOL to my local court and it appears that all future cases will not be issued an "allocation questionaire" (to set a court date), but rather they be dealt with in writing between the district Judge, defendant and claimant. This is a new development, obviously to relieve pressure from the court system with specifically bank charge claims. As confirmed over the telephone with my local court.
Obviously, all these cases are dealt with seperately, but it is clear that Tuesdays ruling and the "new" method of dealing with bank charge claims is getting up the nose of some District Judges.

Kind regards.

99point99

Hi - ok so now the banks have won a case. So....surely we should fight fire with fire and refute their claiming that they are providing a 'service' and are not charging penalties in our POC's? Has anyone come up with any ideas or written anything I can use in my POC against Natwest - I have a sneaky suspicion Im heading for court now (I filed a claim with moneyclaim for £2853.83 using moneysavingexpert.com's standard POC and have just served - which means they have 2 weeks to reply and decide whether to defend) that Lloyds won something - I bet all the lawyers are drafting out standardised letters of defense based on today's judgement. We need some ammo against this!!!

Iv written something - see follows:
I believe the service levies applied to my account are disproportionate to the ACTUAL monetary cost of this to the bank and are therefore unfair. I do not mind paying this charge based on a fair and reasonable reflection of the cost of said charge. Until recently I have felt that this charge was reasonable - however in light of recent news reports and media coverage I have reason to believe that I have been paying far more than I should for a service I did not gain equal benefit to the cost that I paid. I believe that I have been paying charges in excess of £35 for a service which costs the bank on average £2. I feel that a 2000% profit margin is unfair on me as a consumer, I am happy to pay a reasonable rate of say 30-50% profit margin. Unfortunately the bank did not make a realistic offer of this and as such I never received any correspondence from them on this matter (so much for the service fees I have been thousands of pounds and I dont even get a reply?).

I would like to add that the average consumer does not have a say as to whether they actually WANT unarranged borrowing services. In that regard Im sure 99% would say "NO thankyou, I do NOT want unarranged borrowing on my account". Natwest never asked me this, just asked me to sign their contract or I wouldn't get a bank account with an overdraught. They therefore force these service charges on people - making it an unfair trading procedure. If you lived in a finite community with finite traders all trading at identical cost - indirectly is that not a monopoly? Do they expect people in this day and age to keep their money under their pillow if they do not agree to their unfair contracts? I did not request these services - they were a term and condition which I had no choice but to accept in order to utilise basic banking service - to get paid and to spend my money. I believe a person should not live in fear of spending money which has been made available to them. I made numerous complaints to Natwest over the 5 years I have been a customer. Their only solution was to offer me an extremely high interest small loan which didnt solve anything other than to compound debt.

At the end of the day - the lawfulness or unlawfulness of bank charges does not concern me. What concerns me and has forced me to seek court action is the fact that I didnt have the money the banks took from me in the first instance. By charging me extortionate fees, far higher than the service provided, for things which I couldnt afford in the 1st place is grossly unfair - and the fact that I had no choice in the matter at the time further enforces the unlawfulness of these charges or fees or whatever word the banks choose to dress up their penalties. I admit that I did not keep a tidy bank account however Im willing to offer Natwest an olive branch and pay the cost of the charges at a REASONABLE and fair rate, so long as they recoup me for the excess they have taken. That way the banks can pay their overheads and I can pay off the debt that I have incurred since joining Natwest.

mistermind

My comments in red, but no discourtesy to London Diva whom I believe to be a well-intentioned person. Just to present another part of the picture.

LondonDiva wrote: »

.......
As it is, much of the comments on the threads & in response to MArtin's opus on this seems to be that the bank have an obligation to lend us money to pay our gas bills when we've spent the money on a holiday or new tv. We have a right to spend and be fiscally irresponsible without consequences or thought.

Banks are not charities and taking money you know you don't have is wrong, or as my mohter taught me - stealing.

A student's bank account was just 13 pence short of meeting a D/D from his credit card. This D/D was bounced twice by the bank, after which his bank applied 3 penalty charges, and his card applied 2 penalty charges. From being 13 pence short, he was now £126short, and the D/D has still not been paid. His bank and card are correspondingly £126 richer.

I am sure London Diva is a responsible lady who values self-sufficiency, but is she really condoning this practice? Is this too, theft? One person borrowed £3K. Falling behind, within a few years this debt was turned by penalty charges into a debt of £300K. This was a cause celebre in a Liverpool court in 2003? Does London Diva truly condone this practice?

.......
Instead, it's spend, spend all you want & then claim back the money because the bank was not sympathetic or understanding.

Bottom line, their money, their business (not charity) their rules. ....
With respect no. Not their rules, Her Majesty's rules. One law, one justice -- equally for the poor as for the rich.[/I]

saraharrow

99point99,

If you havent already had a look, go to the consumer action group website.
They have evidence that you can use in your court case to support you.
They also have a downloadable interview from a top banking exec from Lloyds/TSB saying that they are penalty charges and they are for the purpose of profiting banks and not for any other reason (well, not those words exactly, but thereabouts).

One result for the banks against many more for the consumer, dont be disheartened it doesnt set a precedent, and the banks still wont allow this to go the high court.

Good luck, email if you want further help

Regards

Sarah

PS all those people saying congratulations to the banks should think twice, the next illegal charge / unethical service they bring in may affect you...

99point99

Cheers Sarah -
Well I didn't imagine that it would come to this - that I may actually have to fight in court to prove that I have been ripped off - and there may actually be a chance of LOSING. But now that Iv joined the fray I may as well get my artillery ready and prepare for battle!

But I have a few questions. This guy that lost obviously wasnt prepared for the bank's defense - they turned it around on him - he was obviously gunning for the 'penalty charge' route - whereas the banks came at him on defense from the 'service fee' route. How CAN I BE PREPARED? How can I challenge them on both counts - or should I just stick to the 'unfair penalty accusation'? Should I take copies of the Unfair Contracts Regulations and if so where can I get all this information? I know I'll need my bank's t&c's (apparently Berwick didnt even have his t&c's), all my statements - but what about the actual defense - how do i convince a judge that the bank was ripping me off and know what Im talking about? Where can I get the in's and out's of lodging a good old hammering of the banks WITHOUT hiring a solicitor to do so. All I have to go on are bits and pieces from these forums (.ie a bit of this and that regulation from the year 1998....blah blah blah).

I'll have a look at consumeractiongroup but do you think their site will answer all these questions?

If one thing - Berwick's defeat has definately caused a stir - and I want to be prepared for anything.
Bran

saraharrow wrote: »

99point99,

If you havent already had a look, go to the consumer action group website.
They have evidence that you can use in your court case to support you.
They also have a downloadable interview from a top banking exec from Lloyds/TSB saying that they are penalty charges and they are for the purpose of profiting banks and not for any other reason (well, not those words exactly, but thereabouts).

One result for the banks against many more for the consumer, dont be disheartened it doesnt set a precedent, and the banks still wont allow this to go the high court.

Good luck, email if you want further help

Regards

Sarah

PS all those people saying congratulations to the banks should think twice, the next illegal charge / unethical service they bring in may affect you...

Leaf

Sorry ;-) Been a bad day!

Leaf

dynosaw

Hi, have read the full transcript and am rather cynical.

the bank did not turn up or it seems enter a defence and it seems to me that judge Cooke took it upon himself to conduct a defence for the bank!

This case must surely be won on appeal.

I will watch with interest as I am now at letter before action stage with HSBC & Citibank

Hoohah

werdna75 wrote: »

We as account holders agreed to these charges when we set up the account. Ok, so they've gone up over the years but so has the cost of gas. If we thought these charges were unfair, unlawful etc. why did we agree to them in the first place? I carefully chose my account as it had the lowest charges!

So, best not make a fuss right, I mean, it's always been like that, afterall, the Banks need to make money or they won't survive. I was reading a hardship story a few weeks ago of some poor chap who worked for one of these charities who earnt GBP22M.

werdna75 wrote: »

My concern is that me, as a person who manages my overdraft carefully, keeps within my budget and chose my account wisely, is going to have to pay for people who agreed to something and now want to back out because it's cost them something!:mad:

I appreciate your concern and you have my sympathy, however, did it not occur to you that you have been paying less because others are subsidising the system with these penalties. Did I not read somewhere that banks make about GBP6Billion a year, which curiously is the same as they steal in penalties.

werdna75 wrote: »

It's common sense that if you agreed to pay £20 each time you go over your agreed overdraft limit you pay it. If you went to the paper shop and said "I know I agreed to pay £5 for the week's papers but now I think that's unfair" you'd be laughed out of the shop!

I have a problem with these kind of analogies, you see, nothing is like the Banking system, except the banking system itself, not even your local paper shop. But for your benefit ... A Billion pound organisation penalising someone tens/hundreds of pounds who has gone overdrawn by a few pennies, is a bit like punching an accident victim squarely in the face ... cheered on by you whilst you were chanting, 'you should have taken more care in the first place'.

werdna75 wrote: »

Ok, I agree that some banks charge way more than it actually costs to do the transaction but you agreed to pay that when you chose their account!


Come on guys, some common sense. We were daft enough to agree to these charges, we didn't have to! As Martin always tell us, shop around for the best deal! I did!

Werdna

But we don't have a choice do we, our choice is, pay a lot or pay a lot more. Nothing will ever change if people don't make a stand, it's all too easy to say well, thats the way things are. People who make a stand generally speaking make things better for all of us, even you.

A further frustration about these poor hard done by banks: 30 years ago when I opened my first bank account, I was paid weekly, back in those days it took 5 working days to clear a cheque ... it all sounds so archaic now, imagine ... 5 days to clear a cheque, thank God we have had a technological revolution and it now only takes .... errr... 5 days still ... oh well, thats the way things are, thats what we agreed to ... only fair, we 'apparently' have a choice(?)