Bank Charges Charter/Petition Discussion

daveczyzewicz

It seems to me that our choices are becoming very limited these days with banks charging for being overdrawn etc, now we hear that we may be charged for actually having a bank account or even drawing OUR money out of it.:mad:
Whatever happened to freedom of choice ?
We as consumers don't ask to have our wages paid into our accounts, our employers do and we don't ask for OUR money to be taken out ie direct debits, standing orders.
So why do we enjoy being put over a barrel ?

I do agree though that a £5 charge for being overdrawn would be a fairer amount. :T I have signed the petition I just hope it does some good, I'm afraid I am very synical when comes to things like this.

I_Perseus

daveczyzewicz wrote: »

It seems to me that our choices are becoming very limited these days with banks charging for being overdrawn etc, now we hear that we may be charged for actually having a bank account or even drawing OUR money out of it.:mad:
Whatever happened to freedom of choice ?
We as consumers don't ask to have our wages paid into our accounts, our employers do and we don't ask for OUR money to be taken out ie direct debits, standing orders.
So why do we enjoy being put over a barrel ?

I do agree though that a £5 charge for being overdrawn would be a fairer amount. :T I have signed the petition I just hope it does some good, I'm afraid I am very synical when comes to things like this.

Forgive me Dave - but are you really that synical to allow the banks to apply further unlawful penlties to your account?
A fairer amount - in law - would be the cost to the bank. FULLSTOP.
The reason for the rate of these bank charges were generally 2 fold.
On one hand - the banks profit from T&Cs you as a customer have no say in, nor negotiation in.
On the other - they have been openly admitted in previous years as a deterrent for customers 'abusing' the bank accounts they have.

Then--- recently, confirmation that the penalty charges applied, allow free banking to exist.
Further - the penalty charge being challenged, the banks apply charges to accounts, wiping out free banking (but still charge the customer the penalty/deterrent/admin for free banking - how ever they describe it).

So, my question is, are all consumers happy to sign a charter that promotes unlawful penalties, and assists the banks in concealment of facts beyond 6 years (an abuse of the Limitations Act)
OR... will you have your voice heard to support the OFT case's principles, and enforce your legal right to information and conformity without statute/common law and case precedents being disregarded?

I know which one we should be supporting!

Martin, or any other moderator - is this thread still being monitored, or is it to become a ramble with no further input?
Please tell me there is some discussion left in this matter?

locutus_2

I’ve been reading through this post, and it seems to me that all people are posting is that they object to banks charging even £5.00 for unauthorised overdraft. The letter of the law that people have been complaining about is that they are “disproportionate to the costs incurred by the bank”. A £5.00 charge is much more in line with the costs, and is therefore more likely to be passed.
I feel the main thing we need is to be listened to. This cosy arrangement by the banks, the FO and the OFT is missing one essential ingredient... US!! The consumers! Let’s get our voices heard, sign the petition en-mass and exercise our rights as citizens of the United Kingdom. We are the people that vote for our government, so let’s get them to earn their keep. Our voices together in the petition can demand a change! If not, let’s vote Martin Lewis as next prime minister of England!

TANZARELLI

Why is he standing?

Locutus I agree in some of you posting however I disagree that a bank should make a profit from a penalty. Until they disclose their actual liquidated losses then I still beleive £5 is too high.

I agree we need to have a vioce but I also feel that we need to do this right in order to avoid future problems that doing it wrongly or rushing it may cause.

Tanz

I_Perseus

locutus wrote: »

I’ve been reading through this post, and it seems to me that all people are posting is that they object to banks charging even £5.00 for unauthorised overdraft.Sorry - wrong - the objection is to contradict the very laws and statutes that protect consumers from unlawful penalties.
The letter of the law that people have been complaining about is that they are “disproportionate to the costs incurred by the bank”.Exactly
A £5.00 charge is much more in line with the costs, and is therefore more likely to be passed.Willingly by the banks, as they are still making upto 1000% - yes profit by 10 fold!
I feel the main thing we need is to be listened to. This cosy arrangement by the banks, the FO and the OFT is missing one essential ingredient... US!! The consumers!There is no obligation for an authority to 'involve a 3rd party' in this High Court test case. But, I do understand and agree that we could and should present 'our case' in support of their actions!
Let’s get our voices heard, sign the petition en-mass and exercise our rights as citizens of the United Kingdom. Our 'rights' are being frayed by the very charter you support Locutus!!!
It is not the amount, and never has been, in question - it is what the amount represents - an UNLAWFUL UNENFORCEABLE PENALTY. Oh yes, and - stitching ourselves up on a 6 year limitation rule that shouldn't apply anyway, but handing them that assurance in the charter offers a concession on post 6 year claims.

We are the people that vote for our government, so let’s get them to earn their keep. Our voices together in the petition can demand a change! Unfortunately, this 'change' you seek will not be borne from the charter. The charter agrees to an unlawful penalty being charged without so much as a 'well mr banky, what were your costs then?', and rolling over on the SOLA -
If not, let’s vote Martin Lewis as next prime minister of England! :eek:

I'm sorry to pick holes here locutus, and I really am all for reclaiming as much as poss, with the greatest emphasis on consumer equality in contracts etc.
As I have disected before, the charter has been (in my honest opinion) hurriedly prepared, unprofessionally presented, inaccurately and discriminately compiled, and offers concessions against matters that have formed the legal arguement for millions of pounds worth of reclaims.

Just in case there is another 'well we need something quick, and we need to be heard!' statement--- Have you heard of a Pyrrhic Victory?
Here's a wikipoedia definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory

TANZARELLI

Agreed Perseus. I believe we are also showing a sign of weakness to the banks by agreeing to accept the £5. This I feel proves to them they are grinding us down in the bigger battle of consumer against fat cat multi national banking industry.

Talking of wars and victory it could be described as attrition tactics where the side with the biggest reserves often wins in the long run over those with less materials or resources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_attrition

BAILIFFCHASER

Hi everybody thought i would join in as well. What is genrally happening is that banks are trying to tie us down with certain rules and regulations where as if you lok into it abit more deeply they are talking a load of nonsense. Apart from the bank charges they have left a wide gap open for any one who is daring enough to pick on them. Then when they are picked on they try and strike claims out. I bet you the first person who won his bank charges mush have gone through hell with his bank. Then all of a sudden every bank was paying out willy nilly. Then when our freinds at the oft woke up they joined the band wagon by giving the banks time to breath by taking them to court. Does this mean that everytime somebody finds a way to recover any sort of money be it charges fraudulant debits etc we are going to have the oft and banks goto court over it ? Waste money and argue over what we already know is a banks world.

locutus_2

I Persius:
You are sadly missing the real point. We all need to rally around 1 idea that even the banks have a problem arguing the fairness. If you want people to rally around another point/petition then post that. Try being positive instead of negative. At the moment this is the best move forward for us as we have had our ultimate solution removed from us with the courts not taking our cases. Sign the petition or not is your choice, but posting pure negativity and causing confusion only serves to help the banks. I think £5.00 is both profitable for the banks and affordable for the consumer, and so helps maintain the status quo.

BAILIFFCHASER:
Our teeth have been pulled by the courts, the OFT, the banks and the FO, so this petition is our loudest voice now IMHO.

BAILIFFCHASER

locutus wrote: »

You are sadly missing the real point. We all need to rally around 1 idea that even the banks have a problem arguing the fairness. If you want people to rally around another point/petition then post that. Try being positive instead of negative. At the moment this is the best move forward for us as we have had our ultimate solution removed from us with the courts not taking our cases. Sign the petition or not is your choice, but posting pure negativity and causing confusion only serves to help the banks. I think £5.00 is both profitable for the banks and affordable for the consumer, and so helps maintain the status quo.

It is still a win win situation for the banks. First they can charge you £30 for returning a cheque etc years on end and now they may be able to charge you £5 instead ? Also do not forget that banks will in the end start to introduce charges for day to day running. Then where would the £5 fee go ? I know what i am saying from experience the experience because of which i was moedrated on the consumeractiongroup.co.uk site by jhonni(in theory being booted off). I am not the only one. Anybody who is making sense gets thrown off but anyway we are here to discuss bank charges.

TANZARELLI

Locutus,

If £5 is still profitable for the banks then it is still an unlawful penalty.