Bank Charges Test Case Article discussion

natweststaffmember

Jamesdh wrote: »

Natweststaffmember please can you help me. My bank manager handed me over to collections when I claimed my bank charges to get me off her figures. I claimed under the hardship reclaim and on 22 Nov 2009 I got an offer which was dated 18th Nov. I signed it accepting the offer and posted it back. The very next day the court results came in. I thought that was luck I got it just in time.

I phoned this morning to find out how my payout was going and the lady informed me she only recieived it yesterday! "Postal strike" she claimed was the problem. She says I have to wait and see if I will be paid since the court ruling!

Surely as they made me a goodwill offer on the 18th and the fact that I accepted it means I will be paid out. Can you please guide me as my car has since failed its MOT and I cant afford to fix it and have had to put it onto SORN which means I have no transport and this payout was a absolute rlief considering they took over £410 from my account for 3 debit orders totaling £38.

To add to the what Alpine star has said, the offer was made prior to the OFT test case, so just because acceptance was received after that date should NOT effect the way they deal with your case. If it does can you send me a Private Message cos I would be intrigued by it.

taitTait

Publicity seeking Martin Lewis should pack it in now. Why back all these !!!!less idiots,and in some cases you may say frauds who jumped on this bandwagon.
If they didnt over borrow and over spend they wouldnt have incurred bank charges.
Start saving!

lostsoul1977

lawscot wrote: »

As a lawyer practisng in litigation in Scotland I can say that the general view of those other lawyers I have spoken to is that the Supreme Court judgement does not overly affect matters one way or the other.

Firstly it is reasonably clear that all they were being asked was whether or not the OFT could intervene on a narrow ground of law. The Supreme Court has said no they can't but only on that very narrow ground while pointing out at the same time that their decision might not have been the same had the OFT proceeded to ask if they could intervene on another different ground. (perhaps a small side swipe at the OFT legal team?)

However that case only decides if the OFT could stick their nose in on 1 ground under the legislation- to use the vernacular.

It does not decide that account holders have no rights to contest the charges. Nor that the OFT could try again under differing grounds.

I work in Scotland and can't say whether the same law applies in England but here in Scotland charges can only be made by the banks to reflect the actual loss incurred by the Bank in dealing with the unauthorsied overdraft. Otherwise it is considered not a compensation for breach of contract but truly a "penalty". Under Scots common law such charges are unlawful in that they do not make a fair reflection of the loss incurred and are not compensatory but punitive.

The issue to be fairly decided is not that account holders should get off "Scot free" but that the payment that they should be making is a true reflection of the loss to the Bank.

To think of it another way - what if you found that somehow you had breached a contract with someone else and they had lost say, £200 as a result. They then produce a contract which says they can claim what they like and they ask you for £1,000 instead without any specification as to how they come to that figure. That sound fair? Clearly not. You and I would not get away with it in ordinary life so why should the banks be allowed to by operating a cartel.

I find it difficult to understand how the banks can justify a fee as high as £35 per computer generated letter when a lawyer will typically charge £20 for a bespoke letter of the same length dictated by a professional and containing specialist advice!

And its not about free banking. The banks have put out feelers in years past when they were making these charges unchallenged to guage reaction over the possibility of losing free banking.

Banks have operated hidden charging arrangements for years and made fortunes. Just one example was Bank of Scotland who would not credit solicitors accounts the day a B of S cheque was paid in but would debit their account the day a cheque was paid out. The result was that over several days the bank had the use of the cash and also didn't pay interest but would charge it.

Anyway my suggestion would be that if you are in Scotland proceed with the litigation. Especially if the value of the case is under £3,000 and can be done under the Small Claims procedures where you can do it yourself and costs are restricted.

best wishes

Lawscot

Lawscot, that is my understanding as well. In relation to the previous decision against this argument that would be in a lower English Court and not applicable in Scotland though if someone could point me in the right direction I would like to have a look at the reasoning. I have used both arguments on my bank and have reached the litigation point. I will let you know how the bank now deal with this argument when I hear from them dismissing the OFT argument.

My claim is larger than £3000 but caselaw says that I can split up my claim into a number of smaller claims to get it under £3000 and so not run any excessive risk in relation to court expenses.

natweststaffmember

taitTait wrote: »

Publicity seeking Martin Lewis should pack it in now.
I suggest you email to him privately your views since I doubt he cares if you take a pop at him or does the green eyed monster escape from your cage?
Why back all these !!!!less idiots,and in some cases you may say frauds who jumped on this bandwagon.
For example? I prefer examples and evidence of people who have fraudulently claimed bank charges back because I would share your outrage at such behaviour.
If they didnt over borrow and over spend they wouldnt have incurred bank charges.
How do you know this? Can you link to a thread on here where that scenario has incurred? Some people have lost their jobs and their income has gone down but their outgoings on basic necessities does not. I wouldn't say they have overspent or over borrowed.
Start saving!

How do you save if your income is outweighed by you outgoings under the scenario I have given? There is no money to save so how can you start when you have a negative in your budgetting?
I'm not sure you have thought about your post much.

Twinkly

natweststaffmember wrote: »

They have kinda been doing that anyway. For example, we have had the Personal Current Account study, and they are still due to publish a further report on the fairness of charges soon.

PCA study is what you are thinking of and the report was published earlier this year by the OFT.

The PCA study concentrated (very basic interpretation) on the fact that 90% of the population consider a PCA an "essential" service, that customers are dissatisfied with many aspects of how they are run and concluded that the banks needed to make improvements in certain areas in order to satisfy customers.

The PCA study did not address the fact that banks have slowly but surely acquired this 90% monopoly over the populations finances. Why that is or what can be done about it.

I am not aware of any OFT study that has - or even kinda has.

lakeley

queenofbargains wrote: »

Martin writes this under the question about reclaiming if you are having current financial difficulties

Although there is no firm definition of what genuine hardship is, it generally applies if you are not able to deal with your debts, for example you have mortgage arrears and lots of credit card debt that you cannot afford to pay back.


My case is one of the rarest financial hardships and i independently took on 4 major banks and have dealt with what i class as 'tough cookies' in society. The only difference between me and the banks is that i am a self learner with 18 years legal knowledge, so i played them at their own game and used their 'tough cookie' image against them with my ' clever cookie' image!

I have to say they 'think' they are 'clever cookies' especially HSBC who i have found to be the most hardest to crack, but myself alone i gained a lot of knowledge and evidence into their procedures and noticed many protocols was not followed. This did not come as a surprise to me as the banks are defending their 'so called' money. What they didn't bargain on was a woman in her 30's playing them at their game and finding their flaws!

All i have to say is when i eventually get an email back from martin lewis i do hope he listens to my story as the things i found out about the banks and the evidence i have here would amaze many people if they knew what i had to contend with over the past few months alone..... my fight alone continues..... as i want all my money back from the major banks!

lakleey x

PhiltheBear

taitTait wrote: »

Publicity seeking Martin Lewis should pack it in now. Why back all these !!!!less idiots,and in some cases you may say frauds who jumped on this bandwagon.
If they didnt over borrow and over spend they wouldnt have incurred bank charges.
Start saving!

Alternatively, you could make posts on a forum where someone might actually think you had something meaningful to say. Then you would be happy - and many people here would be happy too. :j

Twinkly

taitTait wrote: »

!!!!less

I am curious as to what expletive has been censored there. I can't work it out.

veryannoyed_4

With the help of this website, I recently claimed back over £8000 on mis-sold PPI on loans I have had going back approx 9 years. Over the last 6 years I have incurred approx £3000 worth of bank charges, and the most I've ever been over my overdraft is a few hundered pound. I was wondering how feasible it would be to claim back the bank charges based on the fact that if I had not been mis-sold the PPI, I would have had more money available to me, and would therefor not have incurred these charges.
Any advice would be appreciated

pingchris

id say that was a reasonable argument ,but i could be very wrong,maybe others could shed light on this also