Bank Charges OFT Test Case Discussion

a11waysindebt

yralih wrote: »

:rolleyes: I made my claim just before the OFT announced that there was to be a test case.
I then recieved a letter from Lloyds saying that because there was to be a test case my claim would be on hold until it is heard.
Now Lloyds have sold my 'debt' (the interest charges) to a debt collections company and my so called debt has more than doubled.
I live on benefits, and couldn't afford to pay in the first place, any idea as to what I can do now?
:eek:

I'd reply back giving the dates you first made the claim to them.

As for your debt,seeing that you mentioned a debt collection company any returns as such would be paid to them.

a11waysindebt

butephoto wrote: »

Yep, they're definitely worried if they're spending that money. But I suppose if you look at them potentially losing billions then £1m each is pennies.

Who's money are they using though.

siowenson

chipbeck wrote: »

What I can't understand is the fact that the banks have not refunded millions in charges because they are simply 'good eggs'. They must have thought they were going to get done for charging such large amounts. This being the case should they win will they be getting the money back off previous claimants? My view is they won't do this and therefore why should I not be repaid as well.

They better refund us back the charges.

I dont think its a coincidence that my partner and i have a combined overdraft of £1300 when we are trying to claim back £1700+.
I am absolutely positive these bank charges are the reason for my debt. The banks bloody time it to take the charge when there is no money in the account so that it incurs a charge the next month.

nickmack

butephoto wrote: »

But I suppose if you look at them potentially losing billions then £1m each is pennies.

Absolutely, it's a very lucrative income stream and they're going to fight hard to keep it.

crispy_chris

Our official line is that having current accounts open that never go over their OD and always pay their CC on time (which to be fair, is most) actually cost the bank more to hold open than they get back in return. Because of this we need to implement charges on people who (for whatever reason) cannot stay within the agreed boundries of their account.

As has been previously posted the current word from the higher ups at our bank is that should we lose the banks will be getting together to discuss where we can get that missing money from, and it will almost certainly be that we charge people to have current accounts.

The UK is in the unusual (although admittedly not unique) situation whereby the banks dont charge you to have your account open. I suppose this may change if the banks lose the case.

butephoto

You are joking, right?

Banks make money by lending out that which people pay in. The loans/mortgages all have higher interest rates than are paid into any savings accounts. Plus the time taken to clear cheques and transfers between banks. How do you account for the huge profits being made? Simply penalty charges?

You don't believe that rubbish, do you?

crispy_chris

Of course not, I was merely saying thats the official line, unfortunately I dont make company policy - those brainless morons who are higher up the chain of command do.

Worst part is while they're telling us this sort of rubbish you just know they dont believe it (surely noone getting promoted that high could be that stupid) and therefore they're pretty much lying to you and theres nothing you can say to change policy - so why even bother.

I hope the banks lose (hope HBOS isnt watching :shhh: ) as some of the charges being dished out are true madness.

butephoto

crispy_chris wrote: »

Of course not, I was merely saying thats the official line, unfortunately I dont make company policy - those brainless morons who are higher up the chain of command do.

Worst part is while they're telling us this sort of rubbish you just know they dont believe it (surely noone getting promoted that high could be that stupid) and therefore they're pretty much lying to you and theres nothing you can say to change policy - so why even bother.

I hope the banks lose (hope HBOS isnt watching :shhh: ) as some of the charges being dished out are true madness.

Ah, apologies. I didn't realise you were quoting the powers that be.

lids_2001

nickmack wrote: »

I read the article here:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/consumer_affairs/article3182120.ece

about the amount of money the banks have spent on their legal team. It shows they must be somewhat concerned though.

Let's hope the OFT and their legal team (Brian Doctor QC and three junior barristers) have done their homework and can get through the first stage of the case and convince the judge that the regulations apply.

Is it just me that miss reads this as Brain Doctor?

siowenson

The banks dont have a leg to stand on imo.

Their argument is that they charge the poor people so the rich folk dont have to pay any fees. !!!!!!?

If the govenment was to offset all the income tax onto poorer people so that the rich didnt have to pay anything there would be riots in the streets.

They should be making money the traditional banking way by loaning and investing all they money we ask them to hold.

Also, why are they trying to scare us with across the board fees for account use? Have you noticed they have never once mentioned how much it would cost? I bet its because they know it will only be a couple of pounds per month.WOW, scary!
If the bank started charging all of us £35 a month to use our accounts everyone would take their money out and wait till the competition between the banks drove the fees down.