Times article: "Student wins claim over bank charges"

digp

davidcampbell wrote:

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.

whatever .... this is brilliant publicity for the abbey. esp. as they have got employees like you who help them get it for free no less. I wonder how many customers the abbey have lost 'cause of you.

dag_2

what upper hand? digp can have his/her opinion but nothing gives him/her the right to be abusive towards me. end of.

davidcampbell bleats on about how bad it is that people abuse him - but he fails to say what gives him the right to be sanctimonious, judgemental and abusive towards Abbey customers.

If you can't take the abuse - then don't give it. Simple. Treat Abbey customers with respect. Hey - treat all bank customers with respect. This has really got nothing to do with whether you work for Abbey or anyone else - though if you do work for abbey, then disrespecting their customers is that much the worse.

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?

The incentive is the interest. Both the debt and the interest can be enforced with a county court claim, if need be. But there's really no excuse for banks to slap on extra punitive charges. They're quite able to enforce their debts without them.

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?

Not saying that at all. If you've got a basic bank account with no money in it, and you stick your card in the ATM, it won't let you have any money. However, it won't penalise you for trying. So why should any other transaction be any different?

Sure, it's not nice when banks block transactions. But I think it's worse when they allow transactions that they could have stopped - but then charge you a penalty fee for it anyway.

dchurch24

Not saying that at all. If you've got a basic bank account with no money in it, and you stick your card in the ATM, it won't let you have any money. However, it won't penalise you for trying. So why should any other transaction be any different?

Maybe I didn't put it very well, but what I was saying, in essence, was the same as you, dag.

I didn't ever ask a bank to pay a direct debit or SO if there was not sufficient funds (the fact that it's in the t&c's is largely irrelevant on account of ALL banks doing the same). Since we legally have no right to choose the method by which we get paid our wages, there should be an OPTION to choose whether or not you would rather have the payment made (and pay a fee) or have the direct debit simply refused.

Former_MSE_Abuse_Controller

There is an interesting debate going on here and i would hate to have to close this thread because comments become directed at people rather than issues. I understand there are some opposing views here, but i think we can make our points without making it personal. I'm leaving this thread open for now as i think that if we can deal it facts it makes interesting reading, but i won't hesitate to close it if it becomes personal again.

Voyager2002

dchurch24 wrote:

I didn't ever ask a bank to pay a direct debit or SO if there was not sufficient funds (the fact that it's in the t&c's is largely irrelevant on account of ALL banks doing the same). Since we legally have no right to choose the method by which we get paid our wages, there should be an OPTION to choose whether or not you would rather have the payment made (and pay a fee) or have the direct debit simply refused.

In some cases the payment is refused AND you still have to pay the fee! At least this does not lead to interest charges.

cgnao

The distinction between penalties and liquidated damages has been developed by the courts to reconcile two competing public policy considerations – freedom of contract on the one hand and the prevention of unconscionable and oppressive conduct on the other.

It is one of the few remaining grounds upon which the courts will intrude upon the freedom of the parties to contract with one another on whatever terms they wish.

A clause that is found to be penal (i.e. a penalty clause) is generally invalid, and it is an unusual feature of the law of contract that the court will strike down penalty clauses, whilst (usually) permitting other clauses which have been freely agreed between the parties even if those clause are unduly harsh.

dchurch24

Under section 16 of the 1968 theft act, these charges could be interpreted as "Obtaining a Pecuniary Advantage by Deception".

The deception being, the charges are for admin (liquidated damages), wheras in reality, the charges are a penalty and/or deterrent. Thus a deception has occured.

They are most certainly an infringement of the The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, which state that an unfair term is:

(1) e. requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay
a disproportionately high sum in compensation.

and that:

An unfair term in a contract concluded with a consumer by a
seller or supplier shall not be binding on the consumer.


I wonder if this is the reason that David Cambell has deleted some of his posts on this matter?

Pammy

I can appreciate some of the comments about manageing money correctly. I have been with Abby for over 20 years and in the last 10 months went into turmoil following diagnosis of a tumor. Maybe I should of been more careful but to be honest my bloody bank account was the last thing on my mind whereas surviving was my top priority.

During that period I notched up over £1500 in charges

Despite Abbey national being fully aware of my situation they would not and will not budge.

This was a temporary situation for me and all I asked for was a little help. Now you say its fair but is it?

If I owe Orange £600 they have no choice but to agree to take my payment option. Its also clearly outlined what Im paying for ie phonecalls.

Abbey can come in and just snatch my money out, they dont have to agree to a payment method, infact they refuse to. The options they gave me would of sent me further into chaos.

I have been advised to take all my money out of Abbey National and shove it into another Banks basic account and get my wages paid into that. At that point I can tell Abbey Im going to pay you back £2 and month and they have no choice but to accept it.

What would of been nice would of been:

1. My bank taking into consideration my personal circumstances
2. Not being told 20 different things by 20 different people.
3. The ability to pay off over an agreed period of time without it affected my direct debits
4. An outline of exactly what the fees are for. Admin charges?? what is that exactly.

You say its fair but is it really? Like I say BT and other companies have been so understanding of my situation and have fone out of their ways to assist me. Im not looking for charity, I have a wage going in every month, I have a stable job with a well known organisation. All I asked for was a little help. What I have had instead is 80% of the people being totally rude, incorrect information, and at the end of the day no help at all.

digp

dchurch24 wrote:

...I wonder if this is the reason that David Cambell has deleted some of his posts on this matter?

perhaps his bosses at abbey have "spoken" to him?

the damage to abbey has been done in any event.

dchurch24

Pammy, my heart goes out to you.

The last thing you needed was a big, overbearing bank put pressure on you at a time like that.

I feel that we will never see the No.4 on your list, as 'Admin' charges, are as David Cambell pointed out, punitive/deterrents. As these are not enforcable in law, I doubt we will see an admission of this.

Although, that said, Abbey have responded to my court claim today, and they deny that the charges are punitive. So it will be interesting in court to see the evidence that proves these charges as 'admin' charges. I think that will prove somewhat difficult - in one instance I was charged £32 twice for not paying and then paying a £3 standing order at a time when my (now defunct) employer had messed around with my wage payments. I - and I believe a judge would also - see that charge as excessive and as an unfair clause in a contract and therefore not enforce it.
I'm looking forward to creating a test case against these charges - it's about time - the "big 5" make £1000 profit per second - at the cost of people like yourself and I. Even without these charges, the banks would still make obscene profits, and without driving people further into debt.

I think you should serously consider suing them for recovery of these (in my opinion illegal) charges.

It's relatively easy to do, as you can do it all on line - all you have to lose is the court costs, and I seriously doubt that you would lose those in the long run (the loser of the case will have to pay court costs, but if it goes through the small claim track - which it most likely will - the loser does not have to pay legal fees -generally that is the case unless the judge decides that you were just wasting everyones time in a foolish manner or some such)

It's about time the banks were told that they DON'T run the country as they seem to believe and are NOT above the law.

Some people seem to believe that these charges are justified...even if that were the case, the fact remains that the charges are unfair in law, unenforcable and certainly of questionable legality (punitive vs. liquidated, unfair terms in contract 1999, 1968 theft act etc...). So people who purport to support these charges must by definition support the reasoning that the law is wrong and the banks are right.

A strange thought imho; particulary as laws are there to protect and banks are there to make a profit.

Once these people have fallen on hard times, perhaps through no fault of their own, and are then penalised for it by their bank, maybe they will too change their minds.

On a lighter note - if everone stuck together on issues like this instead of fighting about it, we might have reasonably priced council tax bills, fuel duty, road fund licences, etc... ;-) - dare I say it - just like the French!!!