Bank Charges Charter/Petition Discussion

Newbold

TANZARELLI wrote: »

Locutus,

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

Are they expected to act as charities then? And, no, I don't work for a bank - I just hate the idea of large numbers of people having to pay for their previously free banking just because some people decide they don't want to pay the fees they originally agreed to pay.

Both sides knew what the agreement was - it was clear, and in writing. If people didn't like the charges they had a simple option - stick to the limits that had been set and avoid the charges.

TANZARELLI

Newbold wrote: »

Are they expected to act as charities then? And, no, I don't work for a bank - I just hate the idea of large numbers of people having to pay for their previously free banking just because some people decide they don't want to pay the fees they originally agreed to pay.

Both sides knew what the agreement was - it was clear, and in writing. If people didn't like the charges they had a simple option - stick to the limits that had been set and avoid the charges.

If they were fees for a service then I would agree but they are penalties which allow the bank to make profits which is unlawful. You now only have to look at the way the banks are re-wording the T&C's to try and cloak these penalties becaus ethe service arguement is the only way they can win.

BAILIFFCHASER

Newbold wrote: »

Are they expected to act as charities then? And, no, I don't work for a bank - I just hate the idea of large numbers of people having to pay for their previously free banking just because some people decide they don't want to pay the fees they originally agreed to pay.

Both sides knew what the agreement was - it was clear, and in writing. If people didn't like the charges they had a simple option - stick to the limits that had been set and avoid the charges.

New bold lives in another world and does not want to join the crowd.

I_Perseus

Locutus - I'm sorry you feel I'm missing the point.
Not only do I understand the need for consumer representation 'one voice' etc, I also understand the complexities of the consumer credit act, statute law, common law, Account of Profits precedents and many other things relative to consumer legislation.

When someone does a wrong against you at work, and you are treated unfairly - do you, or would you be willing to allow that to continue without raising a complaint or challenge?

If you paid more council tax than your neighbour, purely because you have a crazy paved drive and double glazed windows - would you not ask why, or demand an explanation or amendment?

If you were assaulted in the street by someone you knew - and left you broken and bleeding, would you not call the police and prosecute?

I am sure you answered yes to all accounts.

If a bank levies a charge as a penalty, profits from that charge, commercially re-lends that charge money profit to another consumer at 16%, all because a direct debit is drawn early, or the amount is incorrect - you and every consumer has a legal right to challenge the lawfulness of the amount you have been charged.
Terms and Conditions are agreed (in most cases) on opening the account. They also allow variations of those T&Cs on notice by the bank.

If I warn you to stop talking to me, and tell you I'll break your legs if you carry on - and you agree. You then 'carry on' moments later, and I break your legs - I have broken the law. Would you not press charges because I warned you, and you agreed at the time?

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 stipulates 'in short' that any term imposed on a consumer found to be disproportionate to that of the creditors actual losses - is an unfair term. It is yet to be confirmed as unlawful in the wording of that clause.
In common law (with many precedents), the same phrase is classed as an unlawful charge by virtue of being a penalty (which is legally unenforceable).

So, when the point being made regarding the £5 charge is discussed, it is used in the context of 'Why agree a penalty, when the actual costs/liquidated damages' incurred by the bank for your/our breach is what they are legally entitled to charge.
To offer this amount contradicts common law, the UTCCR, UTCA,and about £1 billion pounds worth of claims for reclaiming charges.

Whilst I appear to be 'overly negative' about the charter - I have clearly stated the reason for 'picking holes' in it - and they are all very justifiable.
To offer something like this, in the ultimate hope that those in powerful places may listen and even agree on some/most/all, with all the inaccuracies, contradictions and lack of professional representation is in my view tantamount to signing away the consumer credit act, precedents and common law (and the Statute of Limitations Act 1980) in one fell swoop.

So - no I haven't missed the point at all - and have yet again clarified that I am not arguing for the sake of it, I'm just very p'd off that this document could undermine and contradict every thing I work for in the field of consumer rights and reclaiming charges or unenforceable agreements.

One loud voice - Yes great - but one that is informed, compliant with regs and means something - not being subservient and throwing away rights.

Newbold - the Chairperson of the British Banking Assosciation 4 years ago, confirmed that the rise in penalty charges in the UK ensured that free banking is/would be funded for some time - then bragged that the UK is one of a very few that had this free banking regime.
So - thank you for your point, and those incurring charges over too long a period of time, have in fact funded YOUR free banking for long enough!
Now, join the club and pay your own way! :T

TANZARELLI

I couldn't agree more Perseus, you have stated our thoughts very well.

If the banks charged what our breaches actually cost us and proved on request by providing disclosure of those costs they they were in fact proportionate to their actual liquidated losses, then this issue would have been put to bed a long time ago and also the banks would not have made millions in so called 'gesture of goodwill' refunds to many consumers. Why is this? you may ask, well the answer is simple, because they are in the wrong and they know this. Profitting from a penalty is not right and is backed up by legislation and case law. The banks have pushed hard for this to remain in contract law but there is a bigger picture using restitution under equity, which Perseus has breifly alluded to.

You only have to look at the UTCCR, SOGAS and other legislation to see this.

I really believe that those who feel reclaiming bank charges is selfish, need to wise up as those who have been subjected to the banking industry charging regime for year have been footing the bill for way to long and its now time the tables were turned.

Tanz

Newbold

You're entitled to your viewpoint, but the law isn't yet as clear as some people seem to think it is. Let's not forget the cases the banks have won, for example.

The people who are moaning about the charges knew exactly what the deal was before they decided to take out money beyond the agreed limit. They knew what the charges would be, and still they decided to do it. In any other scenario taking money that doesn't belong to you when the owner hasn't agreed that you can have it is theft. Why is this so different? The banks are charging you for taking their money without permission - how is that so unreasonable.

And as for the people with the free banking being subsidised by the ones who choose to operate their accounts in such a way that they pay fees - it's not that simple. Most of them keep credit balances (some very large) for practically no interest. That's what pays for the free accounts, not necessarily just the ones who pay the fees they've agreed to pay.

There are a lot of people out there making much less noise than the ones moaning about paying the fees they signed up to. Much less noise for now, that is. If the banks start charging again, which they sure as hell will to get back their lost income, this silent majority will become a very noisy majority, and Martin Lewis' name will be mud. I'm glad he's not bothered about that!

locutus_2

Newbold, I agree with most of what you posted.
I Perseus I also agree with what you posted.

I know it's not an ideal world, and if we were all discussing this over a few beers we'd be able to say that both sides have their merits. I feel Martin Lewis has hit the middle ground. I feel £5.00 is not disproportionate to the estimated £2.50 - £4.50 that it costs banks to refuse a direct debit and issue a letter, and think it's hard for anyone to argue that it is.

and yes I Perseus, I do feel that the people that get hit hardest by this have been the people that cannot afford the penalties.

Newbold I doubt that this will end free banking for a few reasons. 1st banks are already paying millions on advertising so if 1 bank could offer a product cheaper than another they would do it to get the customers. 2nd Banks rely on loyalty by their customers because sometime in our lives a big majority of us need a mortgage and a big majority get that from our own banks. 3rd banks would opt to offer a lesser account for people with low savings that doesn't allow direct debits etc... as these seem to be the problem. However I do agree banks are not charities and need to make money and if it did come to affluent people having to spend a few quid a year for their banking then so be it. I'd much rather it be them paying over the poorest people in the country!

Again I Perseus I say don't just be negative, post a positive solution because I can tell your aim is to help the people in the UK that are in most need of help. Banks have been a law unto themselves for far too long, and we need a law to keep them in check. It's obvious that The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 is not clear cut in this matter as the banks have successfully defended a claim. If it were as black and white as you state then it would never have come to this.

TANZARELLI

Locutus,

If you are referring to the Berwick case then this was an ill preparred case which the defendant won due to the claimant not presenting his arguements properly.

He should have had T&Cs from when he opened his account to prove veiling of the charges. Also he should have used SOGAS and if he did he would have won.

We have moved on now from the standard basic claims which this and other sites promote. It is more about claiming restitution in equity and putting the banks to an Account of Profits. These claims will succeed and are doing so as the banks will try to defend with case law and we are batting it back with additional case law which superceeds their defence which we have seen them then U turn on it.

We are not looking to seek compensation from this but restitution due to the defendant taking our money by levying charges and also re-lending it which allowed the defendant to profit from the unlawful charges:

“A right to restitution is a right to a gain received by the defendant, while a right to compensation is a right that the defendant make good a loss suffered by the claimant” (Lord Hope of Craighead 2007).

Newbold

You'll like this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6960358.stm

TANZARELLI

Newbold wrote: »

You'll like this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6960358.stm

Too right I do, and all courts should be taking this standpoint as I have posted previously.

Thanks for that.:j