Times article: "Student wins claim over bank charges"

Pammy

Thanks for the reply. I dont, if this is such a big cost to Abbey National, they dont stop the persons cards, and account functions. If I dont pay my phone bill they cut it off, they dont charge me loads of money for not paying. Sure, they may charge a reconnection fee if I wanted back but they dont charge me admin costs for all the letters. They seem more than happy for the person to continue using the account, as in accumlating more and more charges.

How does this work abroad?

dchurch24

In France, if you bounce a cheque, you have to pay the money instantly to the person the cheque was made out to. Then you have to explain how it happened - if it was a genuine accident then no action will be taken. If you do it a second time - regardless of cause - you will be banned, by law, from having a current account for the next 10 years.

Harsh? Yes.
Fair? Probably.
Stopping people spiraling into debt - certainly.

My French bank account let me go overdrawn by 36000€ without charging me a penny (eurocent) once. I didn't even ask for it, they offered (it was only for a matter of about 7 days).
Don't get me wrong - their banking system isn't perfect either. But it is certainly fairer.

digp

it would be interesting to see your particulars (suitably edited).

whatever you do don't plead theft or any such like, stick to consumer legislation / common law etc.

dchurch24

digp, I am only using the punitive charges/unfair terms in contract argument in court.

The 1968 theft law - 'obtaining a pucuniary advantage by deception' I won't be using unless I really have to - although I do believe that it applies in the case of these charges. While researching the legalities of these charges, I found that rule and cases as well. I am obviously acting as my own solicitor as I cannot afford any legal help, and yet earn too much to be eligable for legal aid (I don't think it would apply here anyway).

The particulars are that I asked for the money back from both Abbey and HFC bank - HFC gave me the money straight away and actually quoted the fact that they 'thought' that the charges wouldn't be legally enforced anyway (over the phone sadly and not in writing), but Abbey insisted that they were entitled to the money and almost encouraged me to take it to court. So I have.

I am very encouraged by their defence. It seems very weak.

pin

Hold on. I'm presuming the a breach of the Theft Act would be a criminal offence. That would mean that the banks could be prosecuted by the CPS. Now who's with me in thinking pigs will fly before this happens.

dchurch24

Well, yes I agree. Although it doesn't make it right. Banks DO seem to be above the law.

digp

pin wrote:

Hold on. I'm presuming the a breach of the Theft Act would be a criminal offence. That would mean that the banks could be prosecuted by the CPS. Now who's with me in thinking pigs will fly before this happens.

It is highly unlikely they would be prosecuted. Without doing further research, I am not convinced the offence is made out.

digp

dchurch24 wrote:

digp, I am only using the punitive charges/unfair terms in contract argument in court.

I think your best point is the first one. Your second point is also meritorious though.

... I am obviously acting as my own solicitor as I cannot afford any legal help, and yet earn too much to be eligable for legal aid (I don't think it would apply here anyway).

Nope, no legal aid available.

The particulars are that I asked for the money back from both Abbey and HFC bank - HFC gave me the money straight away and actually quoted the fact that they 'thought' that the charges wouldn't be legally enforced anyway (over the phone sadly and not in writing), but Abbey insisted that they were entitled to the money and almost encouraged me to take it to court. So I have.

In what way did they encourage you?

By particulars, I meant your "particulars of claim" ...

I am very encouraged by their defence. It seems very weak.

Will you paste their defence here (suitably edited to remove any details identifying you). I would be interested to see what they say and it may give rise to discussion as to how you should respond.

digp

Have you seen: https://www.bankchargeshell.co.uk

Also, contact the Guardian's money editor, they have got a barrister who writes for them who might be inclined to give you free publicity! His name is Richard Colbey.

dchurch24

Thank you - I most certainly have seen the bankchargeshell site and have already been in contact with Richard (amoung others) - but thank you all the same. It was a result of one of Richards articles that started the ball rolling in fact.

I'd rather not post the particulars here in full - not least because it would take me a day to type it all out

...but the only bit in there that counts is:

Their defence is that (in essence) the charges occur through a breach of contract and are there purely as a pre estimate of their admin costs and not a deterent or punitive in any way.

It is now up to me to provide arguments that prove that it cannot possibly cost
£64 to return (and subsiquently pay) a £3 standing order, and send 2 letters.
I would say, at most, that it could cost them about £1.50 - if they were very unlucky.