Reclaim Unfair Bank Charges article discussion Part II

Thermaltake

Hey,

I sent a reclaim charges notice 8 months ago before the test case was lost at the high court. LLoyds never got back to me about the situation, what are the chances now of getting anything back.

Any help would be really appreciated!

natweststaffmember

Hannah-Marie wrote: »

Hi, Im wondering if anyones got any idea on what i should do concerning bank charges?
Im just 17, and got charged 38pounds when i had an unpaid item for my contact lense in january when i was 16, because i didnt have £2.61 extra in my account...
I didn't actually know what a charge was, or how it works, as when i set up the account (when 15) none of it was explained to me, and ive only recently realised that i might have been able to claim it back while seeing the news? When id realised i wouldnt have enough in my account to pay for my lenses, id asked specsavers whether i could change the date for it to be taken, and they said it was ok, itd just be taken out the next week instead... no mention of a charge to me, so i was totally nonplussed when i saw -£34.11!!!!! they did take it out the next week... when my mum put £50 in to cover it!
I got a letter off natwest on friday which theyve sent to all customer with a list of changes - including the charge for an unpaid item from £38 to £5!!!!!
Is there anyway i can ask for (at least!) the £33 difference back, or am I too late?
id appreciate any suggestions of what i should do
thank youuuu! x

If you were 17 years old then the charge MUST be returned in its entirety. I am assuming you had a card plus account or the 16-18 year old accounts which have a term within it that states that a Direct debit or standing order is not permitted on the account yet they allowed it and then charged you. You need to write to the bank and specifically ask for a refund of the charge since you were 17 years old at the time it was taken. I GUARANTEE you will get it back. I never lose that argument.

chrisharri

Hello, Sorry if I'm repeating a question. I have my bank charges on hold and I'm expecting a letter soon telling me that I have no case. Has anybody recieved one of these yet, since the test case has ended?
Also, you know these clauses that OFT have used for the test case, does anybody kow where abouts I can read up on them?

Centium5000

mramra wrote: »

Firstly, this is a forum for money saving. The point I have made repeatedly today is that we can all save money by avoiding high charges from banks by managing our money, budgeting and being aware. This is completely in alignment with the aims of MSE.

The majority (not all, but most) of people who incur penalty charges for taking unauthorised overdrafts do so because of bad planning/ignorance/care-free attitude. And so they have to pay penalties at the rate already agreed on their T&Cs. Why should the banks re-imburse for this?

Oh, mramra, I do so love your posts!

They always provide an opportunity to wheel out some factual evidence in response to unfounded statements and well-worn banking industry propaganda. Entertainment and education at the same time - what can be more fun? :T

Firstly, they're not penalties -we'd like them to be deemed as such as being unrelated to actual cost would render them unenforceable under common law, but unfortunately the Supreme Court's analysis is sound.

The banks provide this 'service' either a) at a charge, to avoid us incurring penalties from the payee or b) at a charge after having assessed the request for payment and declining it.

The Supreme Court (SC) also ruled that the 'service' charges are part of the overall price of an account. As such, they cannot be deemed unfair on the grounds of being excessive under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCR), as per Regulation 6 of the same.

If you are uncertain about the legal status of this, please find a link to the Supreme Court's judgement below:

http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/uksc_2009_0070_judgmentV2.pdf

Secondly, none of the above prevents a court ruling the charges are unfair on other grounds. This is also stated in the SC's judgement. I've suggested possible grounds at length in other posts:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=27296623#post27296623
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=27332125#post27332125

Thirdly, if you's like to know (as opposed to assert) who is actually paying these charges, the OFT has conducted an in-depth report into the whole business. It's full of statistics that may help you form your view:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/financial_products/OFT1005.pdf

I've summarised a few of these statistics in another post if either you don't have the time or inclination to read the above:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=27382825

Finally, this particular forum isn't about money saving in the way you suggest - it is called Reclaim Bank & Credit Card Charges. Moreover, this thread is entitled Reclaim Unfair Bank Charges article discussion Part II.

I would suggest that many of the comments you have received about being off-topic have a point.

Advice about money management can be good advice but only as far as it allows for personal circumstances.

That said, this isn't intended as a personal attack - many of your peers are doing the very same thing. Your posts are just the most consistent I've seen and that's what prompted me to respond.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to share a few facts.

P_Walters

mramra shouldn't be attacked, he is definitely consistent and has every right to his point of view, albeit kind of smug. I intend to campaign strongly for him to run the country as he makes me laugh every time I read his posts, never quite knowing if he's just being more outrageous than he need just for the sake of it.

Although he is off-topic as you say, I still make the appeal - mramra, do not leave us!!! There are no forums on this site, or maybe even the internet, for "Lucky so-and-so's who can totally manage their finances and should be a shining example to us all and we should ALL be like you and not the bunch of whining, moaning peasants who continually moan at the injustice of it all after living like Lords for the past however many years thanks to the benevolence and sheer heartfelt kindness of the banks" (redundancies and naughty practice by said banks had nothing to do with our sheer uselessness at incurring such charges, naturally).

Absolutely top man mramra!

natweststaffmember

chrisharri wrote: »

Hello, Sorry if I'm repeating a question. I have my bank charges on hold and I'm expecting a letter soon telling me that I have no case. Has anybody recieved one of these yet, since the test case has ended?
Also, you know these clauses that OFT have used for the test case, does anybody kow where abouts I can read up on them?

Is it on hold with the bank or is it on hold in the County Court?

chrisharri

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Is it on hold with the bank or is it on hold in the County Court?

It's on hold with Natwest. My Other half also has a claim on hold with Natwest. I was wondering if he would have any case with NAtwest because he has Private banking with them, and also his company banks with Natwest, and has alot of money in the bank. We were thinking that he could say that he will stop private banking with them and also move his company to a different bank if they don't repay his charges. Do you think that might work?

natweststaffmember

chrisharri wrote: »

It's on hold with Natwest. My Other half also has a claim on hold with Natwest. I was wondering if he would have any case with NAtwest because he has Private banking with them, and also his company banks with Natwest, and has alot of money in the bank. We were thinking that he could say that he will stop private banking with them and also move his company to a different bank if they don't repay his charges. Do you think that might work?

Am still working on getting the up to date info from all the banks and currently that will take time. All banks still have to look at hardship cases but the current situation is still not certain at the minute.

beaujolais-nouveau

amtrakuk wrote: »

One thing I did find out is try aligning you're direct debits to the same day, therefore you will only have one bank charge as I understand, HSBC charge per transaction day not per transaction.

From personal experience, I can say that Lloyds TSB charge per transaction, even if they refuse several on the same day. They can take out the equivalent of an entire week's wages in charges in one day, if you have that many DD's refused on one day.

dmcallister1506

Just a thought guys. The Supreme Court have stated that this cannot be appealed in the European Court of Justice. Is there any way that I, as an individual, can contact the ECJ about this or is this out of my jurisdiction?

Just looking for advice, I really don't know.