Bank Charges Charter/Petition Discussion

agnes_2

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.

You are wrong when we opened our account no such charges/penalties existed and no agreement and nothing in writing, we have never been given or asked to sign or agree to any changes in conditoins of our account. Also you should remember that the penalty charges which we are claiming, far exceed the true cost incurred and therefore they never did belong to the bank.
The bank is using this as an excuse to apply charges to your accounts, when they have no real need to do any such thing. What about the monstrous amounts of money they have made investing the excessive penalties

BY THE WAY WHAT ARE YOU DOING ON THIS SITE?

agnes_2

Newbold wrote: »

Not a popular view here of course, but all this is achieving is a structure which will involve EVERYONE being charged by the banks for operating current accounts - just as it used to be a few years ago. The banks will make their profits somewhere (some people seem to think they're going to operate as charities) and if they can't make them by charging people who choose to overdraw without authority they'll make them from the vast majority of people who operate their accounts within agreed limits and currently pay no charges.

If you choose to overdraw without the bank's agreement you're effectively stealing their money. Why shouldn't they charge you for it? You have a choice. You know the rules, you know the charges - just don't overdraw.

I'm just waiting for the whingeing to start once the banks start charging everyone £5 per month just to operate the account. First Direct have started already and the rest will follow. Thanks, Martin - this is going to make you very unpopular in the long run.

What bank used to charge for running an account a few years ago, we've had private and company accounts for 40 years and never paid for running them, always paid HUNDREDS in interest for overdrafts though They've earned plenty in interest from us in overdrafts and loans.
Martin will never be unpopular, he has helped thousands of people all over this country he is an extremely clever man and deserves all our appreciation and he certainly gets my thanks and respect.
Didn't you know all the banks made profits running into billions last year? operate as charities? I don't think so.

agnes_2

Tools wrote: »

Martin , I am afraid I have to echo the thoughts of many of the members posting on here . I appreciate you trying to retake control of the matter and suggest a `fair` compromise but that is all it is , a compromise .

I began my reclaiming the Yorkshire Bank and have been successful on two accounts dating back 6 years . I began on CAG but have now moved on to other groups (as many have for various reasons) and I am currently a Team Leader on www.legalbeagles.info .

The results of the OFT test case should not be suggesting a `fair maximum limit` , it should be forcing the banks to disclose their true costs .

The proof I have seen regarding how calculations are made for Yorkshire Bank (i.e. CYNthesys) proves that at least one of the banks involved in the test case already knows what amounts are proportionate but still act unlawfully by profiting from penalties . The petition should be asking for the courts to order disclosure , not suggesting a `fair maximum limit of £5`. The law is the law if it is disproportionate in favour of the bank then it is unlawful . If the courts ignore this and do actually take heed of the petition then it makes a mockery of what everyone has been fighting for DISCLOSURE OF TRUE COSTS . As also suggested the limitation of 6 years should also be looked at as well as fraudulent concealment , even the Master of Rolls himself Sir Anthony Clarke has made comment regarding fraudulent concealment

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications_media/speeches/2006/sp270406.htm

I also feel that a stay on charges by the banks is a bad idea unless once the test case is over the banks are going to write these off . Imagine the test case , for example , drags on for a year . Throughout this time people are slowly but surely accumulating charges , when the test case is finally decided , what then?? Do the banks suddenly say `never mind we will let you off ` I very much doubt it . People will be forced into even more debt possibly taking out loans they cannot afford , which if secured , coud lose them their homes . BAD BAD IDEA.

This test case should be testing those cases put to the FSA and FOS but individual litigation should be allowed to continue THAT is what you should be lobbying for not some limp half hearted compromise of £5.

May i also say that sites such as the FREE Legal Beagles self help forum were not offered the invitation of input because Consumer Action Group have personal differences with the Team/Members and have taken it upon themselves to deem it as a profit making organisation , when in fact they are doing the same as( and if you speak to Stephen Hone himself ) and have good relations with penalty charges forum as well as consumer credit support forum.

I also agree with you on this I feel that the whole case revolves around the
DISCLOSURE OF TRUE COSTS

I also think that we should get something done about the blanket staying NOW Put a stop to the penalties until the case is concluded, why should we be prevented from a hearing which we have paid for, at the same time as the banks are completely released of all obligations.

agnes_2

locutus wrote: »

Agnes 1st go to http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/BankCharter/?showall=1 Then press F3 to bring up a text search box.
Put in your name in the search box and if it comes up you've signed, if not try clicking the link in your inbox again.

BTW the link I posted will show all signatures (around 39,000) so will probably take a while!

May I just ask are you using AOL as it sometimes does not let you click links from your e-mail. If that is the case, copy the link in your inbox by highlighting it by holding left click on your mouse and dragging the highlight over it. press CTRL + C then go to your internet browser address bar, delete all the text in there and press CTRL + V. That will then confirm you and your signature will be added
:T

HELLO Locutus Thanks for the help yes I am with Aol, but I cannot get it to work even doing what you say? I copy and then CTRL+V in to my browser should anything pop up then or do I do anything else, nothing happens?

agnes_2

TANZARELLI wrote: »

Try signing it again, do you have an alternative email addy this may help.

Hi I tried that it still does not work

hunter001

I have just bought a new tv on buy now pay later, we had to pay a 10% deposit which we paid. but when we logged onto our internet bank we relised they had took the deposit twice we phoned up and pointed this out and the money has been refunded. but we later learned we had incurred bank charges on the over payment only. we wrote to evesham and pointed out that there error has caused a bank charge but they have said they except no responsiblity for this and won't refund the cash. please could anyone help us on this and tell us if we are in our right to claim this back.

many thanks

lindilou39

problem here is ..if its a DD payment then the company has the right to claim on or before the due date...it isnt the banks fault, so therefore you should approach the company that took 2 payments and get them to re-imburse the charge that was set out by the bank...send evidence of the charge to this company to show they have acted inappropiately.

lindilou39

Agnes wrote: »

HELLO Locutus Thanks for the help yes I am with Aol, but I cannot get it to work even doing what you say? I copy and then CTRL+V in to my browser should anything pop up then or do I do anything else, nothing happens?

its not AOL links that cause the problem...usually its hotmail as they dont allow content unless you open it. Most servers blank content unless you open it.

hunter001

Thanks for reply

we did send the letter we got off the bank to the company and they reply was 'we are not responsible for the charge'

many thanks

I_Perseus

Agnes, completely agree with your content...and urgent action based on legal standing, supported by statue/case law is ALL that can be legally challenged with - not some made up figure, or wimsydaisical attitude to SoLA... Can you imagine submitting a POC based on the contents of this charter? LMAO the judge would at least have a laugh - and the bank would say - well you agreed to the charter, now where are we wrong?

Perseus, from consumercreditsupport