Times article: "Student wins claim over bank charges"

deijath

If the costs incurred by me going over-drawn were proportionate to the cost to the bank i.e. <£5, I would not complain. That's what I believe the people (myself included) that are upset by the banking costs, are upset about. There are times when my financial situation has been really bad, (through no fault of my own - my brother lost his job, and we lived together, and were jointly liable for bills, rent etc). When times are like that, £28 can be a lot of money.

digp

davidcampbell wrote:

digp, i couldnt give a toss frankly what your view on this topic is, but i do object to a comment made which is nothing but abuse.

kindly retract it

DC

no.

i'm sure the abbey will be impressed with the free publicity they are getting because of you.

pin

Have to agree completely with what M Thomson has said. People need to take responibility rather than expecting others to do things for them. People need to read T&C's, but people time and time again don't.

Also an overdraft is not a right, it is something that a bank gives to you "on demand". You should never treat it as your own money, it isn't. A bank can call back that money when it wants to, and you have to pay the money back.

Finally, please don't turn this thread into yet another slanging match, there are too many of them around already.

digp

agree as much as you like. till you're blue in the face, if you wish. it won't change the law of the land!

dag_2

A recent example includes Laura Saunders, who did the same thing with Yorkshire Bank Plc, who, again didn't turn up at court and she won dy default.
The bank refused to pay, so the baliffs were sent in, and sure enough, they paid up.

Is that actually true? Maybe Yorkshire Bank did pay up - but to wait until the bailiffs turn up reflects very badly on the bank indeed! Doesn't exactly inspire you to open a savings account with them, does it?

A bank could very well legally turn round to you today and say I want my money back now. You would have to repay them straight away.

However - I'm sure that's only true as long as they can provide an account of authorised, legitimate transactions. In other words, a bank can't just turn round and say "You were £100 in credit, but we then took £3000 out of your account, because the branch manager has developed a crack habit recently, and needed his next fix. So you're now £2900 overdrawn. And we're within our legal rights to insist on the money straight away."

If they did want the money straight away, but you're not prepared to pay it, they have to fill in a county court claim. They're not allowed to send round a pack of big men with baseball bats at no notice.

digp says

a positive judgment against them is potentially more damaging than a judgment in default which they can simply attribute to non-service or some other equally "plausible" excuse

Good point. Prohibitively high administrative costs of defending the claim compared to the actual amount of the claim would be a plausible excuse - but they probably wouldn't want to say that, in case thousands more people see it as a green light to make claims of their own.

digp also says

i'm sure the abbey will be impressed with the free publicity they are getting because of you.

Very good point. I think digp has got the upper hand on this one - and davidcampbell stands to lose far more by persisting in the argument than digp.

davidcampbell - If you don't want to be abused - then retract from posting insultingly sanctimonious comments about the customers of the organisation you allegedly work for. Start treating those customers with a bit of respect. They pay your wages.

pin

Guys, please, please, please, stop this turning into a slanging match. If it continues, I'm going to ask the mods to lock this thread.

davidcampbell

what upper hand? digp can have his/her opinion but nothing gives him/her the right to be abusive towards me. end of. the post is gone, please drop it.

dchurch24

Details of the Laura Saunders case can be found at http://www.bankchargeshell.co.uk.

As far as I am aware that fact that the baliffs were sent in is true.

Rafter

If the fees are illegal and forced right down what is the incentive for someone to pay back what they owe and stay within their credit limit or overdraft limit?

All that will happen is that if you go over your limit you will be charged 'penalty' interest to cover the increased credit risk for the bank which is very real plus and admin charge for the letter.

If this guy really has amassed £2000 of charges he is obviously incapable of managing a current account and should have been offered a basic bank account instead.

dchurch24

I think everyone assumes that if an attempt to pay something isn't covered, then the bank will/should/are obliged to pay it. Why do the banks have to be involved at all?
Why, if I choose to pay by DD and the money is not in the account to cover it, does it become the banks problem?
Surely this is between myself and the person I am attempting to pay?
I understand that there may be a minor cost involved notifying both parties, and that is fair enough. However, to charge a disproportional amount is immoral and illegal.

If I legally had the choice, I would choose not to have my wages paid into a bank at all, and would pay for all services in cash, as by using a banks 'services' you can never really know where you are. Cashpoint machine balances are unreliable, as is my banks web banking service. They only open for 3 hours on a Saturday (the only day I am not working).

I cannot comment about the chap being incapable of managing a current account, as I do not know his particular financial circumstances.
However, I found myself in a similar situation through no fault of my own, and yet ended up with charges of similar amounts. The charges started out as about 200 quid, then of course the following month I was 200 down, plus the fact that my employer had screwed up again, which quickly caused a spiral. Did the bank want to know? - not in the slightest. Their answer each time was to increase my debt to pay their charges. My (not extinct) employers answer was to tell the bank that I wasn't going to pay.
The banking code states that they (the banks) will deal with people experiencing financial problems with sympathy and help if they can.
When, through a problem with my employer and no fault of my own, I notified the bank of my forthcoming financial difficulties for a limited time (a period of 6 weeks, when the money owed to me would be back-paid), their answer was to increase my overdraft to cover their imposed charges that would become payable in the not too distant future.

Sympathetic and helpful?

I would say not.