LloydsTsb PPi Grabbing

JuicyJesus

Brains64 wrote: »

MARTIN LEWIS NEVER SAID ALL BANK CHARGES ARE ILLEGAL

So when he said "Bank charges are unlawful", without any qualifications, ifs or buts, what did he mean?

JuicyJesus

sava05 wrote: »

Your links is not clear just admit it regardless what you think of me and Brains64

No. They are archived copies of MoneySavingExpert from 2009, showing that Martin Lewis specifically made the claim "bank charges are unlawful". [text removed by MSE Forum Team]

sava05

I still got bank charges back then in the time when Martin Lewis said to consumers back then to reclaim them. The banks lost then and have lost now with the PPI scandal and I also won back reclaims with PPI's as well. Nothing wrong in stating that.

JuicyJesus

sava05 wrote: »

I still got bank charges back then in the time when Martin Lewis said to consumers back then to reclaim them. The banks lost then and have lost now with the PPI scandal and I also won back reclaims with PPI's as well. Nothing wrong in stating that.

Good for you. Martin Lewis was still wrong when he said bank charges are unlawful though.

sava05

The amount Banks were charging were unlawful especially when people got over drawn etc. So back then was correct. Anyway its PPI we are talking about and the banks lost. Please talk about the present not about 4 years ago.

JuicyJesus

sava05 wrote: »

The amount Banks were charging were unlawful especially when people got over drawn etc. So back then was correct.

No they weren't.

Brains64

JuicyJesus wrote: »

No they weren't.

To clarify, what was unlawful about the charges was and still is if a bank makes charges that leave a customer in severe hardship, unable to meet basic costs of living and leaving them in a spiral of debt and if the bank charges are out of proportion with the reason they have made the charge in the first place.

Back then, bank charges were higher and banks were not minding their LAWFUL obligation of treating customers fairly by factoring in customers financial circumstances when making these charges, the court ruling does put the bank in a stronger position but all the court ruled was that the bank charges themselves are not illegal so long as banks apply them within the rules, this is what Martin was saying, he wasn't saying that banks shouldn't be charging per say, that's not what he meant at all, this is a misinterpretation of what he was telling customers by people who want to now say 'ha ha Martin Lewis was wrong' blah blah blah.

Since then, largely as a result of Martin highlighting this legal point the average level of bank charges have come down in line with the proportion of the reason so they did not win it all, the law back then still applies now, the following law under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 states that charges must reflect administration costs and cannot be punitive, this STILL is the case and if a bank breaks that law you can STILL get those charges back.

I did myself recently, so please be aware anyone who reads this post, don't let people tell you that "bank charge reclaiming is over", it's not over, it's just harder because of the ruling but you CAN still get them back in certain circumstances, the banks are not above the law, they can't charge a customer whatever they like regardless, that ruling was not a free reign for banks, just a clarification of what part of the charge process is legal for banks to incorporate and what isn't, because charges have come down since, the strongest point nowadays is the 'punitive' aspect of the law.

Regardless of whether the charges are in proportion or not they must still allow for your financial circumstances at any amount, show your bank that they have left you in hardship as a result of the charges and they MUST legally do something to help you, they could either waive further charges or give at least a partial refund.

JuicyJesus

Brains64 wrote: »

To clarify, what was unlawful about the charges was and still is if a bank makes charges that leave a customer in severe hardship, unable to meet basic costs of living and leaving them in a spiral of debt and if the bank charges are out of proportion with the reason they have made the charge in the first place.

*snip things that are irrelevant that do not change the basic facts of the matter at hand*

1) They weren't unlawful in any event. So Martin was wrong.

2) Martin made no qualification as to any situations in which they may or may not be unlawful, he just said "bank charges are unlawful". So regardless of anything you may or may not have written above, Martin was wrong.

Martin said "bank charges are unlawful" and they are not therefore Martin is wrong.

[Deleted User]

This thread should be allowed to die...

Brains64

JuicyJesus wrote: »

1) They weren't unlawful in any event. So Martin was wrong.

2) Martin made no qualification as to any situations in which they may or may not be unlawful, he just said "bank charges are unlawful". So regardless of anything you may or may not have written above, Martin was wrong.

Martin said "bank charges are unlawful" and they are not therefore Martin is wrong.

He went into detail about it on that video I made a link to a few posts back and also in those articles he explains what he thought was wrong with the charges and on what basis a customer can ask for a refund, I suggest that you are selective with what you read and listen to and you frankly don't read it all or listen to all of what he said and you just focus on that one bit 'bank charges are unlawful' because that bit conveniently fits into your case against him, if you'd care to play the whole video and read ALL of what he said on his site Juicy then we can have a conversation about what Martin Lewis said, meant and what he didn't say and didn't mean etc.