Bank charges, interest and some other info/questions.

ibiza

I have been lurking here for a while but have not posted until today.

As far as I am aware the claims for back charges are currently on hold while the situation is investigated.

There were a few aspects I felt unsure about in when people were reclaiming, or just about banks in general.

:mad:

One was the 6 year limit, which i would have guessed would not apply if the matter was ongoing. Basically, if someone has been taking money from you for years, would it not be based on the last date being within 6 years and your being able to show the entire amount.

This would seem both far more relevant and applicable if the investigation took three years and even if it found against the banks would save them three years worth of charges, in addition to the interest as explained below.

:rotfl:

The other is easier to show with a hypothetical example - based on the amount of interest that should be claimed.

To make it simple its based over three years, which is roughly when an outstanding sum on a credit card would double, based purely on compound interest. (25.99APR)

If at a point three years ago Graspers Bank had overcharged a customer by 1000 pounds and since then Graspers had also been charging interests on an outstanding balance on their Graspercard which meant the 1000 pounds they have overcharged has doubled as it could have been used to clear the Graspercard balance.

Clearly they stand to make a fortune from their illegally obtained fees even if they repay the charges they misappropriated and interest at the amounts suggested here.

:eek:

Another aspect was I did voluntary work in the CAB for years and saw many people with dreadful debt problems. In many cases people had spent money on cards with variable rates which started at very low rates but over time had more than doubled.

Clearly if the interest on a card doubled overnight people would complain it was a material change and object. But if the change is done over a period of time and more than doubled, surely there must be a point where an objection can be made that the variable rate has had a change that is material. If you look at base rates and inflation over the last few years none of them have had similar increases.

Can anyone think of a reason for this, other than profiteering?



Lastly I don't know if this is of benefit to anyone. Back in February my girlfriend had written to the Financial Services Ombudsman and received this reply.

Last financial year we received 672,973 initial enquiries and had
112,923 cases formally referred to us. A year ago we only had around 100
enquiries a week about bank charges. Over the last six months we have
seen the number of initial enquiries about bank charges increase
steadily, and until last week were receiving up to 1,000 calls and
emails a day about bank charges. Last week we saw an unprecedented
volume of enquiries about bank charges, with around 3,000 calls a day on
Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. This increase follows on from a Watchdog
programme on Tuesday night and the increased media focus on this area
generally.

It would appear that in many instances the banks are making offers
directly to consumers following their initial enquiry to us, as the
number of cases that are formally referred back to us are much lower at
around 150 cases a week. We have not yet had to investigate a case about
bank charges, because so far in every case where we have contacted the
bank involved to ask for information to investigate their charging
structure, the bank has said that they will refund all the charges to
the consumer's account to settle the dispute.

Any views or opinions would be greatly appreciated!

:beer:

Stokey125

ibiza wrote: »

I have been lurking here for a while but have not posted until today.

As far as I am aware the claims for back charges are currently on hold while the situation is investigated.

There were a few aspects I felt unsure about in when people were reclaiming, or just about banks in general.

:mad:

One was the 6 year limit, which i would have guessed would not apply if the matter was ongoing. Basically, if someone has been taking money from you for years, would it not be based on the last date being within 6 years and your being able to show the entire amount.

This would seem both far more relevant and applicable if the investigation took three years and even if it found against the banks would save them three years worth of charges, in addition to the interest as explained below.

Sorry being fair has absolutely nothing to do with it the 6 year rule applies to court claims and is based on the provisions of the Limitation Act 1980. The six years start from the date the cause of action arose. So it starts from the date the charge was made. So for example you cannot claim for anything prior to 23 August 2001. There has been some talk about being able to claim beyond 6 years. I am not sure that this argument is sound in law so go on the 6 year cut off