Bank Charges Reclaiming Charter V.II

MSE_Martin

UPDATE 13 August

The final Bank Charges Reclaiming Charter is now live. Plus sign the petition to ask Gordon Brown to support it.

Martin











_______________________________

Thanks for all the feedback on the first draft of the charter which is intended to go to decision makers and as a petition on the Govt website. It was a great help.

This is the second draft (a tiny bit of tweaking needed, but much nearer).

The Bank Charges Reclaiming Charter
MoneySavingExpert.com, ConsumerActionGroup.co.uk & PenaltyCharges.co.uk

The regulator, the FSA has suspended bank charges reclaiming awaiting a court decision based on the Office of Fair Trading’s agreed test case with the banks. This decision was taken without any consultation with the consumer groups who have been championing bank charges reclaiming.

The three campaigning groups behind this charter, have or are helping between them well over 1.5 million people reclaim and ask all politicians, decision makers, bank customers and shareholders to consider the following. <O></O>
<O></O>

• Five pounds is a fair maximum amount for bank charges. Banks have been charging around £30 for penalty charges; this is totally disproportionate to their actual costs. Even generous estimates suggest £2.50 is an appropriate cost, so a five pound maximum is a more than generous limit.
  <O></O>
• Penalty charge structures leave finances irrevocably damaged. Often penalty charges occur in batches, a simple shopping trip and miscalculation of how much is left in an account, can result in £100s in charges. This then snowballs, as people don’t have the resources to pay the charges and are thus charged more. The banks make over £1 billion a year from these charges, which often irrecoverably destroy peoples finances.
  
  <O>
  </O>
• Bank accounts are obligatory & there’s no competition. In the modern age, there is little choice but to have a bank account; both employer and social security offices rarely accept an alternative. Yet there is no competitive market for bank charges, all banks charge similar amounts.
  
  <O>
  </O>
• Bank should not be allowed to levy charges during the stay. Banks have already paid out over £500 million to reclaimers; a sum indicative of the fragility of their case. The consumer has not been served by putting a hold on reclaiming cases, meanwhile banks continue to levy these charges, which continues to debilitate people’s finances. The hold on bank charges reclaiming should be lifted, but if not the levying of charges by the banks should also be put on hold.
  
  <O>
  </O>
• Any agreed new charge levels must apply to past as well as current customers. The OFT credit card ruling in 2006 indicated a maximum £12 charge, yet omitted to infer that those who had previously been charged more should be allowed to reclaim it. When a new settlement figure (of no more than £5) is reached, customers must be allowed to reclaim all amounts above that for the prior 6 years.
  
  <O>
  </O>
• Payouts should be made automatically, without request. Banks have taken money from their customers without asking; when the Courts rule these charges are unlawful, they should be made to pay them back without the need for customers to request it. If this does not happen, there’s been little benefit to consumers of this test case and moratorium.
  
  <O>
  </O>
• Repayments should include 8% statutory interest. Repaid charges should include interest at 8% the rate applied to successful reclaimants in the Courts. Interest should also be compounded.
  
  <O>
  </O>
• All credit file defaults resulting from unfair penalty charges must be deleted. Banks must agree that all default records that have been placed on credit files due to unathorised overdraft charges/penalty charges should be wiped.
  
  <O>
  </O>
• There should be an immediate moratorium on all default entries. During the period of the OFT litigation we require there to be an immediate moratorium on the placing of defaults on the credit record of any customers in respect of any sum which is comprised either wholly or substantially of charges.<O></O>

<O></O>
More info on bank charges reclaiming<O></O>
<O></O>

www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/bank-charges<O>></O>>
www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk<O>></O>>
www.penaltycharges.co.uk <O>></O>>


Any thoughts?

Martin

Twinkly

MSE_Martin wrote: »

....
This is the second draft (a tiny bit of tweaking needed, but much nearer).

....When a new settlement figure (of no more than £5) is reached, customers must be allowed to reclaim all amounts above that for the prior 6 years.....

...Any thoughts?

Martin

Hiya Martin

I haven't quoted the entire post to save space in the thread and have only highlighted this point to add my tuppence worth about. The rest is great and in my opinion doesnt need much tweaking, if at all.

However, with regard to the time period specified of 6 years, I think this section could be amended to state 'from the date of opening the account.' Bearing in mind that some account holders may have been with the bank for 25 years or more and incurred the equivalent of a years wages in that time in charges. That is an extreme example but you get my gist.

I have made more than a few posts on the forum regarding the Statute of Limitations and its use in reclaiming beyond 6 years and believe it to be a valid course of action. There are cases where people have reclaimed beyond the 6 year period in court and won.

The banks are fully aware that their charges are disproportionate and have levied these charges despite this rendering their actions extortionate in many cases. It is due to the work of this site and others campaigning on consumers behalf and making the relevant legislation known that has enabled both the banks and consumers to become aware that it is actually unlawful as well. There can be no excuses now.

The banks actions constitute fraud at worst and a mistake at best. In my opinion they should rectify their 'mistake' with no limitations and it should be proposed that they do so in this charter.

/hops off the soapbox

MPG_2

I concur with all of the above

MP xx

lindilou39

Martin can i say...although the credit card companies have been levied to £12 and this is the only charge they could levy in the first instance for a late payment fee..where bank charges are affected is it going to be possible that the banks will defend each and every charge per court appearance..i.e be it...ok what do we charge for un paid s/o or unpaid dd? ok we agree etc..then they go away from court then the next argument will be..ok what do we agree is an acceptable charge for going into unauthorised borrowing.......If they structure every charge this could drag on and on.

lindilou39

Twinkly wrote: »

Hiya Martin

I haven't quoted the entire post to save space in the thread and have only highlighted this point to add my tuppence worth about. The rest is great and in my opinion doesnt need much tweaking, if at all.

However, with regard to the time period specified of 6 years, I think this section could be amended to state 'from the date of opening the account.' Bearing in mind that some account holders may have been with the bank for 25 years or more and incurred the equivalent of a years wages in that time in charges. That is an extreme example but you get my gist.

I have made more than a few posts on the forum regarding the Statute of Limitations and its use in reclaiming beyond 6 years and believe it to be a valid course of action. There are cases where people have reclaimed beyond the 6 year period in court and won.

The banks are fully aware that their charges are disproportionate and have levied these charges despite this rendering their actions extortionate in many cases. It is due to the work of this site and others campaigning on consumers behalf and making the relevant legislation known that has enabled both the banks and consumers to become aware that it is actually unlawful as well. There can be no excuses now.

The banks actions constitute fraud at worst and a mistake at best. In my opinion they should rectify their 'mistake' with no limitations and it should be proposed that they do so in this charter.

/hops off the soapbox

your soapbox is luffleh twinks

Stokey125

Martin


As it seems that the banks may not be complying with the terms of the waiver may I suggest that we add that were it can be proved that a bank has not complied with the terms of the waiver and this has caused loss the bank shall be liable for the loss incurred.

chris1275gt

MSE_Martin wrote: »

Thanks for all the feedback on the first draft of the charter which is intended to go to decision makers and as a petition on the Govt website. It was a great help.

This is the second draft (a tiny bit of tweaking needed, but much nearer).

The Bank Charges Reclaiming Charter
MoneySavingExpert.com, ConsumerActionGroup.co.uk & PenaltyCharges.co.uk

The regulator, the FSA has suspended bank charges reclaiming awaiting a court decision based on the Office of Fair Trading’s agreed test case with the banks. This decision was taken without any consultation with the consumer groups who have been championing bank charges reclaiming.

The three campaigning groups behind this charter, have or are helping between them well over 1.5 million people reclaim and ask all politicians, decision makers, bank customers and shareholders to consider the following. <O></O>
<O></O>

• Five pounds is a fair maximum amount for bank charges. Banks have been charging around £30 for penalty charges; this is totally disproportionate to their actual costs. Even generous estimates suggest £2.50 is an appropriate cost, so a five pound maximum is a more than generous limit.
  <O></O>
• Penalty charge structures leave finances irrevocably damaged. Often penalty charges occur in batches, a simple shopping trip and miscalculation of how much is left in an account, can result in £100s in charges. This then snowballs, as people don’t have the resources to pay the charges and are thus charged more. The banks make over £1 billion a year from these charges, which often irrecoverably destroy peoples finances.
  
  <O>
  </O>
• Bank accounts are obligatory & there’s no competition. In the modern age, there is little choice but to have a bank account; both employer and social security offices rarely accept an alternative. Yet there is no competitive market for bank charges, all banks charge similar amounts.
  
  <O>
  </O>
• Bank should not be allowed to levy charges during the stay. Banks have already paid out over £500 million to reclaimers; a sum indicative of the fragility of their case. The consumer has not been served by putting a hold on reclaiming cases, meanwhile banks continue to levy these charges, which continues to debilitate people’s finances. The hold on bank charges reclaiming should be lifted, but if not the levying of charges by the banks should also be put on hold.
  
  <O>
  </O>
• Any agreed new charge levels must apply to past as well as current customers. The OFT credit card ruling in 2006 indicated a maximum £12 charge, yet omitted to infer that those who had previously been charged more should be allowed to reclaim it. When a new settlement figure (of no more than £5) is reached, customers must be allowed to reclaim all amounts above that for the prior 6 years.
  
  <O>
  </O>
• Payouts should be made automatically, without request. Banks have taken money from their customers without asking; when the Courts rule these charges are unlawful, they should be made to pay them back without the need for customers to request it. If this does not happen, there’s been little benefit to consumers of this test case and moratorium.
  
  <O>
  </O>
• Repayments should include 8% statutory interest. Repaid charges should include interest at 8% the rate applied to successful reclaimants in the Courts. Interest should also be compounded.
  
  <O>
  </O>
• All credit file defaults resulting from unfair penalty charges must be deleted. Banks must agree that all default records that have been placed on credit files due to unathorised overdraft charges/penalty charges should be wiped.
  
  <O>
  </O>
• There should be an immediate moratorium on all default entries. During the period of the OFT litigation we require there to be an immediate moratorium on the placing of defaults on the credit record of any customers in respect of any sum which is comprised either wholly or substantially of charges.<O></O>

<O></O>
More info on bank charges reclaiming<O></O>
<O></O>

www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/bank-charges<O>></O>>
www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk<O>></O>>
www.penaltycharges.co.uk <O>></O>>


Any thoughts? Yes i have a thought.What about the people whose cases have been "stayed" As well as being paid the difference between the actual figure charged and what is deemed to be fair plus interest, are they going to add the costs incurred in putting the pressure on the banks by way of fees going to MCOL and court costs? My first letter was 28/02/07 and now Cobbetts are requesting the case be stayed until December because of the move by OFT.

mikejonah

When claiming back my charges do i have to list all individual charges or just add one figure

borgbaiter

There is no fair charge. this is the thin edge of the wedge. either its an actual loss, ie its cost them something or its a penalty. Only a court is able to impose penaltys since the magna carta, i see any admission of a "Fair" Charge as being an errosion of our already limited freedoms from oppression.

based on my business bank charges an automated debit was charged at 70p each that includes profit as its a service charge. seems unlikely any other automated charge for any reason could cost more. there is always the discounted 2nd class post and some toner to pay for i guess so be generous and allow them a quid and there still into unlawful profit.


regards


borgbaiter