Bank Charges Test Case Article discussion

TighterThanTwoCoatsOfPain

Smasher wrote: »

Ok, so what if you signed a contract with your landlord in which it says that if you paid your rent late, he can shoot your kneecaps off? You see how stupid your argument is now?
THAT is why there is legislation that governs unfair terms. You are not allowed to make conditions that permit one party to commit an unlawful or illegal act in the event of that the other party breaks any of your terms. There is a good reason for it.

Honestly, you should go & learn a bit about the subject before you stand on your soapbox.

Dude, you're taking it far too personally.. I hear exactly what you're saying, i just dont agree! If the contract said the above, derrrr you wouldnt sign it !!!!!!! You chose that bank with those charges.. they dont all have the same charges, or wait for it, arranged the overdraft in advance?

Hows about we agree to disagree. Have one on me :beer:

Nathan_Spleen

TighterThanTwoCoatsOfPain wrote: »

Dude, you're taking it far too personally.. I hear exactly what you're saying, i just dont agree! If the contract said the above, derrrr you wouldnt sign it !!!!!!! You chose that bank with those charges.. they dont all have the same charges, or wait for it, arranged the overdraft in advance?

Hows about we agree to disagree. Have one on me :beer:

I think the point Smasher is making is that just becuase you sign a contract it does not follow that the terms are enforcable if there is a signifcant inbalance. This is precisely why UTCCR exists.

To say they don't all have the same charges is spurious. And an arranged overdraft is not a 'choice' for many people.

If you want to debate this further, I'd appreciate it if you'd base your arguments on something that resembles facts.

Edinburghlass_2

Provided the bank has replied to you that your case in on hold then your claim will be in the pipeline.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/oft-bank-charges#process

and from the FSA

http://www.moneymadeclear.fsa.gov.uk/news/product/unauthorised_overdraft_charges_test_case.html

chipbeck

How on earth can this be deemed as a contract when they simply change their terms and conditions and then tell you what you'll be paying in the future. They make the rules up as they go along.

Smasher

TighterThanTwoCoatsOfPain wrote: »

Dude, you're taking it far too personally.. I hear exactly what you're saying, i just dont agree! If the contract said the above, derrrr you wouldnt sign it !!!!!!! You chose that bank with those charges.. they dont all have the same charges, or wait for it, arranged the overdraft in advance?

Hows about we agree to disagree. Have one on me :beer:

Hmm something tells me you have been fed that idea..

I didn't choose "that bank with those charges". If I had a choice, I wouldn't have a bank account at all. But I don't have a choice. If I want to have a job, I must have one. It is the same for most people, even those on benefits.

I have seen all your rantings. I considered them to be mis/un-informed and ignorant so I posted a response & said what I thought.
The original theme of your rantings was that "stupid", "dumbo", "irresponsible" reclaimers are to blame for the possible end of "free banking" and that the superior intelligent likes of you will have to pay for their stupidity. You have still not given any kind of explanation as to how and why that is so..

There isn't really anything on which to agree or disagree, but if you prefer we can agree to drop it.
I'll certainly have that beer.. :beer:

Smasher

chipbeck wrote: »

How on earth can this be deemed as a contract when they simply change their terms and conditions and then tell you what you'll be paying in the future. They make the rules up as they go along.

I still have my original overdraft agreement. It says that charges for exceeding my limit were to cover their administration costs. The agreement was changed without the possibility for negotiation to say that the charges are now actually fees for the "service" of bouncing a cheque, refusing a DD or going over my limit e.t.c. (Which fortunately doesn't happen anymore).
The charges are exactly the same amount and would be incurred for exactly the same reasons as before. So either they are providing these "services" at cost & making nothing from them, or they lied to me and lied to the court in their written defence..

Bobsp_2

I think that some people can not manage their money, or live beyond their means, and are using this bank charges as an excuse.......

Money management can be hard, but please do not blame everyone around you....

DONT SPEND WHAT YOU HAVE NOT GOT.....

PhiltheBear

This thread has become somewhat circular.

The FACT is that bank accounts aren't free. They are paid for, largely, by the interest earned on the account holder's money.

The FACT is that the banks also take money, in fees, for other services.

The FACT is that the charges they make for some of those fees is excessive - and, in case we get the argument about the amounts of these charges I suggest that you look at the agreement you signed with your bank and then look at the charges they would now apply. Unless you signed up recently you will find that charges for things like unauthorised overdrafts have increased from virtually zero to a punitive level.

The FACT is that when banks stopped charging for current accounts part of their 'fee recuperation' was to charge a higher interest rate on unauthorised overdrafts. They didn't, at the time, charge a fee.

The FACT is that with some accounts if you unintentionally present a cheque or direct debit or standing order that would take you over your overdraft limit (which may be nil) then the bank will impose a CHARGE for bouncing the payment. That CHARGE may make you exceed your overdraft. The charge bears no relation to the costs involved as the process is completely automated.

The FACT us that once you are in the state of being overdrawn (unauthorised), depending on your bank, your bank may CHARGE you again - every day - until you bring your account back to a level at which you are within your limit.

Note: This is a CHARGE. It's not a service fee. They aren't 'servicing' anything. They are simply fining you for breaking their rules. (And the OFT judgement confirms this - see paragraph 372).

Now, this may not matter when you have large funds. However, if you are on a low wage or benefits and literally live from hand to mouth (as millions of people do - cf current discussion of 10p tax rate) then these charges can make the difference between you and your family eating or not.

And it's all very well saying that a) you know what the charges are (I'll bet a pound to a penny you don't know what all the itemised charges are that can be applied to your bank account) and b) you shouldn't go overdrawn but sometimes, often through no fault of your own, the situation arises and you can't do anything about it.

I'll give you a for instance. I paid a credit card bill over the phone with my debit card. Something went wrong in the transaction and although one payment reached my credit card, two payments were taken from my bank account. Different banks. It took weeks to get the 2nd payment reinstated. I didn't know about it until I got my bank statement. My fault? No. But in the interim I'd gone into debit and was getting horrendous daily charges. (£39 a day!) I work in banking. I specialise in credit card fraud. I knew exactly what had happened and so I could walk both banks through the process to recover my money and, eventually, to get my charges refunded. But the vast majority of people don't have specialist knowledge and would be stuck with the charges.

Now, if you are smug enough and selfish enough to think that levying huge charges is fair then I suggest that when it happens to you you'll welcome the opportunity to enrich one of the most appalling businesses there is - by which I mean banking. On the other hand, if you are a reasonable human being then it is likely you will see that excessive charges imposed by rich corporations (banks) on those least likely to afford them is morally unjustifiable.

And, if you are rich enough to have money on deposit in a bank, you'll be happy to hear that the banks rip you off too - but that's another story.

In the meantime - try and deal with facts. It's much more grown up.

naitch1980

The issue was never whether the charges were legal, but whether the amount charged was lawful.
Irrespective of whether or not you know you are going to be charged or not, or how much you will be charged, the point is that in UK law, the injured party to a breach of contract can only claim liquidated damages – this means that they can only charge the amount required to bring them back to the exact state of play they would have been at had there been no breach of contract ie the banks should NOT be making a profit on these charges, as by UK law, you can not make a profit from a breach of contract, as this would effectively encourage vendors in a contract to make things difficult for vendees in order to charge them further and make a further profit.

So again, to sum up, the issue was never that people should not be charged, nor that the average £35 fee itself was illegal, it was that the banks needed to prove that this £35 was indeed to restore them to the financial position they would be in before an individual exceeded their overdraft (or whatever other breach occurred) and that they were not making a profit on these as per UK law.
<O:p
<O:p
So the onus was on the banks come out and prove that the £35 charge was not excessive. Clearly, they have been unable to do so, which means that the £35 must be excessive.
<O:p</O:p
If the banks had any sense, they would calculate the exact fees and mitigate their losses on this, prove that (say) £12 is the true cost and charge £12 per breach, refunding everyone £23 per charge. This way, they would be allowed to continue charging said £12 for breaches in the future, and there would be no need for the specualtion on an annual fee.

<O:p
So, for the non reclaimers out there, I suggest you get your facts straight before blaming Martin<O:p</O:p

johnny_storm

PhiltheBear wrote: »

This thread has become somewhat circular.
Now, if you are smug enough and selfish enough to think that levying huge charges is fair then I suggest that when it happens to you you'll welcome the opportunity to enrich one of the most appalling businesses there is - by which I mean banking. On the other hand, if you are a reasonable human being then it is likely you will see that excessive charges imposed by rich corporations (banks) on those least likely to afford them is morally unjustifiable.

Sorry Phil I already pay for lots for "morally justifiable" things I never use or agree with through taxes.

Let us all hope that banking is not added to the list of things where everyone has to pay to save those too stupid to save themselves.