Help! HSBC Relieved us of £100

davidcampbell

What right does a commercial company have to fine its customer 5 x parking tickets (=£100) for a minor offence?

if you parked your car illegally 5 times you would be fined 5 times so here your wife has had 5 transactions which she didnt have funds for and she has been fined 5 times. i dont see the analogy?

since youve already called with no joy all you can do is await the outcome of your letter.

Originally Posted by Mattster
... why not just charge smaller penalties in the first place - a couple of quid and no-one would bother complaining or feeling aggrieved...

as grumbler says this wouldnt be a detterrent (and i also know from dealing with hundreds of such cases of the past years that it would not stop people from complaining and querying it.)

yes people (generally) dont deliberately go overdrawn but they do need to take more care (generalising here, not just you). if you dont have enough money to pay for your shopping in tesco you wouldnt sneak it out under your jacket so why would you put it on your card when you know there arent any funds?

I'm glad someone else agrees that the banks do act in a less than pleasant way sometimes and that they shouldn't simply be able to hide behind the small print. It's not like we take out bank accounts because we want to, is it? They have us over a barrel.

they dont force you too take an account that has credit facilities you can easily ask for a basic account on which you cannot go overdrawn (well you can but not easily)


if first charges meeting you(r wife) halfway would be a good gesture.

DC

grumbler

Investico wrote:

Not everyone is as fortunate as this and makes the odd innocent mistake. Is it fair that these people are fined more than other people who commit deliberate crimes?

Usually banks refund (fully or partly) fees for first innocent mistake. However, as I already wrote, if banks do this automatically, this will not stop people from repeating these mistakes in future. Tangible fine is needed for most of them to begin to think that there is something wrong with the way they manage their accounts.

lipidicman

Alfie_E wrote:

No. The relevant clause in the T&Cs is a statement that the bank believes it has the right, not that it necessarily does have the right.

Is this right? I am not disputing it, I have just never read it that way? Do you have an excerpt to hand?

Alfie_E

lipidicman wrote:

Is this right? I am not disputing it, I have just never read it that way? Do you have an excerpt to hand?

Don't be afraid of throwing down the gauntlet to banks - Richard Colbey, The Guardian

That's one barrister's opinion. The banks' lawyers may genuinely believe the contrary - that they could persuade a court to back them. Alternatively, the banks may accept that they are in the wrong, but, like any "good" business, will carry on, until they're stopped.

lipidicman

Interesting. Thanks for that, could come in useful one day.......