MSE News: Is bank charges reclaiming back? Martin Lewis thinks it could be

Former_MSE_Helen

MoneySavingExpert.com creator Martin Lewis says a new court ruling has a chance of reopening the floodgates...

Read the full story:

Is bank charges reclaiming back? Martin Lewis thinks it could be




Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply. If you aren’t sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.

michaels

I think there is a good chance if this can happen quickly as the govt would love to pump a few more billions into the economy with an election approaching.

Personally I think the current balance where those in hardship are helped but the lazy and !!!!less have to pay up according to the T&C they signed up to is fair but I know once 'free money' starts being waved around any morality issues go out the window and 'letter of the law' loop holes are all that matters.

colsten

I think MSE should put at least as much effort into convincing people that they need to get and stay on top of their finances, e.g. by using something like YNAB, or just pen and paper. Then there won't be any surprises like the one mentioned in the article, the woman who forgot she's written a cheque. Not going into an unarranged overdraft in the first instance is the real answer to the issue.

michaels

colsten wrote: »

I think MSE should put at least as much effort into convincing people that they need to get and stay on top of their finances, e.g. by using something like YNAB, or just pen and paper. Then there won't be any surprises like the one mentioned in the article, the woman who forgot she's written a cheque. Not going into an unarranged overdraft in the first instance is the real answer to the issue.

I agree - an unarranged overdraft is effectively spending someone else's money without even asking first if it is OK. If someone reached into my wallet and took out £20 without asking I would be pretty upset even if they assured me they were going to give it back later.

GingerFurball_2

It's not the same crusade it was 6 or 7 years ago though. I would argue that things are better for the consumer now than they were at that time - certainly who I bank with has improved as their overdraft fees are less, the amount that can be charged in a month is capped, there is a small buffer so that minor indiscretions are not penalised, and, most importantly, there's less chance of getting sucked into a charges spiral because they won't charge further if it's unplanned overdraft charges being applied that take you back into an unplanned overdraft.

That most certainly wasn't the case 7 years ago where 1 minor indiscretion (as in Martin's woman on benefits who had to budget to the penny example) can lead to serious financial harship.

Alpine_Star

michaels wrote: »

I agree - an unarranged overdraft is effectively spending someone else's money without even asking first if it is OK. If someone reached into my wallet and took out £20 without asking I would be pretty upset even if they assured me they were going to give it back later.

Not an accurate analogy.

Current account contracts explicitly allow you to do this and it is entirely a matter for the bank whether they honour the payment or not.

During the first instance test case the banks put forwards evidence that an attempt for a customer to pay for something without sufficient funds is actually a 'request' for an overdraft and the associated charge is for the consideration of whether to grant it.

It wouldn't be much of a bank if you could spend their money without asking would it?

Credit-Crunched

Yet another reason for my phone to ring off the hook with pre recorded voice mail messages saying I am due a refund due to new government legislation...

Why is it only in banking that this molly coddling and inability for the companies to enforce their terms and conditions is so punitively challenged.

Try not paying your council tax, going over a few days on your MOT, taking car insurance then not paying the DD.

All other industries have contracts in place that are there to protect both parties, whereas in finance it appears that when a customer is in breach of a contract, and obtains money, that is not theirs, has not been pre agreed and in many instances is not repaid, the company is punished.

Alpine_Star

Credit-Crunched wrote: »

All other industries have contracts in place that are there to protect both parties

That's just the point.

In this case the court held that there was a ''significant imbalance in the rights and obligations'' between the parties to the contact.

The price variation clauses which allowed Lloyds to increase prices on a whim without method or reason, coupled with another clause that prevented the customer from withdrawing from the contract were rightly held as unlawful.

colsten

Alpine_Star wrote: »

The price variation clauses which allowed Lloyds to increase prices on a whim without method or reason,

The charges might be considered too high, but both method and reason is clearly described in the T&Cs / charges document freely available online and in print.

Alpine_Star wrote: »

coupled with another clause that prevented the customer from withdrawing from the contract were rightly held as unlawful.

a customer can close their bank account any time they like, provided they have settled any overdraft on the account. As a customer, you don't even have to give notice or reason.

OhReally_2

OMG! FGS, let this die Martin. It's a dead duck. As dead as a dodo.

You were successful initially because you fell upon something that the businesses involved would not bother to defend if challenged.
That often works on a small scale.

But as everyone piled onto the gravy train that ensued, it was never going to continue. No business can afford to continue to repay customers for charges they have incurred. So the banks fought back.

It doesn't matter what you think of the ultimate decision, nor that of the lower courts or court of appeal. The Supreme Court decided and that is final.

You spent a fortune on the best legal advice in the land to try and save face. But even you have to admit that no one to date has ever succeeded in getting anything back based on that very expensive legal advice you were given.

You'd be better off trying to get back the charges you incurred in obtaining that legal advice that is apparently useless.

You earned your notoriety, at least in part, due to the original success of reclaiming bank charges. Some would say you earned even more notoriety when the whole thing collapsed quite spectacularly with the decision of the Supreme Court back in 2009.

Now Mr Foster-Burnell has got what I think he really wanted i.e. his own 15 minutes of fame. I I have listened to him on the radio and seen some of his posts here. It is clear he is economical with some
some of the facts about this recent success, but I won't rain on his parade here.

Let Mr Foster-Burnell enjoy his 15 minutes of fame he so obviously wants, and allow him the full glory without you always being seen over his shoulder taking some of the limelight. Your time in this is over and done.

Gtc1

OhReally wrote: »

Now Mr Foster-Burnell has got what I think he really wanted i.e. his own 15 minutes of fame. I I have listened to him on the radio and seen some of his posts here. It is clear he is economical with some
some of the facts about this recent success, but I won't rain on his parade here.

Let Mr Foster-Burnell enjoy his 15 minutes of fame he so obviously wants, and allow him the full glory without you always being seen over his shoulder taking some of the limelight. Your time in this is over and done.

I think that's pretty unfair, alluding to the fact this guy has misrepresented the facts with no basis.

I wonder if you'd care to explain?