Times article: "Student wins claim over bank charges"

digp

scour the banking web sites, journals etc for anything that might assist you in shredding their defence

tinalives

Hi DChurch,

How do you know where to even begin with proving their costs do not amount to £64?
I mean we all know that they don't, but I wondered how you go about actually PROVING it to a court? Also, is this all actually happening in a court room or is it done via post or whatever?

Best of luck, sounds like you're doing a great job.

x.

dchurch24

Well, Lloyds and HSBC have admitted publicilly that these charges are a penalty and thus not a reimbursement of their costs. Lloyds even went as far as to say "...like all the other banks..." - and this is documented by Which?

Also, of course, in this very thread (now deleted, but screenshots taken) - an employee of Abbey stated that they were part admin-part detterent - so again, a result.

I even have a copy of a letter (not addressed to me) from Abbey where they admit this to be the case. I think if they were to know of this letter they would quickly back down, although I have not mentioned it as yet. A test case could be good for all bank users.

Also, they have to prove it the other way around as well - how they can justify 64 quid for 2 letters is beyond me - it will be interesting to find out when it gets to court - and if they can prove this, then I will graciously admit that I am wrong.

digp

You could I suppose ask the judge to take judicial notice of the fact that it does not cost £x to issue a single letter. You need more information as to the process, e.g. is it computer generated, automatically etc? I assume you still have the letter(s). As to the letter you refer to, as you are in the small claims track, the concept of discovery does not apply, but there may come a point where you may have to disclose its existence.

digp

dchurch24 wrote:

....

Also, of course, in this very thread (now deleted, but screenshots taken) - an employee of Abbey stated that they were part admin-part detterent - so again, a result.

Can you find an ex-abbey employee (with an exemplary record and therefore no axe to grind as it were) to "shed the light"?

.... A test case could be good for all bank users.

Hmmmm. I wonder about that sometimes.

PS: this thread is being monitored by the powers that be at abbey. it was they who probably caused dcampbell (who has not since resurfaced!) to "mend his ways".

dchurch24

Hi, thanks for the reply. Sorry I haven't replied for so long, I've been abroad job hunting (emigrating soon!!!)

I sincerely hope that Abbey are monitoring this thread, but I doubt it. They seem far too arrogant to worry about what their customers think.

Regarding evidence that these charges are punitive and cannot be regarded as damages, I have an ace up my sleeve that I will reveal once the case is in court.

tinalives

Can't wait to hear about that!!!!

M_Thomson

dchurch24 wrote:

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.

This is truly becoming one of the wackiest threads on this website!!! As I have said before regardless of wether the charges are in proportion to the costs involved you are the one resposible for getting yourself in the situation of having to pay them. When you opened your account you were given a set of charges that lay out the costs involved. You are the one that should be responsible for paying them! I can understand you being upset with the charges if you are in genuine financial difficulty but you are obviously not.
As much as I am a fan of all things American this country is going down the American route of suing for every little thing and not talking responsibility for your own actions. If you don't want to be charged then make sure you have sufficient funds in your account.

digp

M_Thomson wrote:

This is truly becoming one of the wackiest threads on this website!!! As I have said before regardless of wether the charges are in proportion to the costs involved you are the one resposible for getting yourself in the situation of having to pay them. When you opened your account you were given a set of charges that lay out the costs involved. You are the one that should be responsible for paying them! I can understand you being upset with the charges if you are in genuine financial difficulty but you are obviously not.
As much as I am a fan of all things American this country is going down the American route of suing for every little thing and not talking responsibility for your own actions. If you don't want to be charged then make sure you have sufficient funds in your account.

that's your view and i am sure that altho you have spouted it quite a bit it is a pointless post! equally, many might suggest you put the view where the sun doesn't shine (altho i wouldnt say that). he is entitled to sue. he has done that. if it upsets you so much, why not emigrate?

pin

digp wrote:

that's your view and i am sure that altho you have spouted it quite a bit it is a pointless post! equally, many might suggest you put the view where the sun doesn't shine (altho i wouldnt say that). he is entitled to sue. he has done that. if it upsets you so much, why not emigrate?

No need to get personal mate. Personally I think your post is very rude.