Times article: "Student wins claim over bank charges"

M_Thomson

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?

LOL! Might I suggest a spelling and grammar check before you respond to a post? My post is not pointless and I am entitled to state my opinion just as you and DChurch have done for the last 7 pages. Thanks and have a great day!!

Tim_L

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.

There's nothing wrong with a principled objection to these charges, and they are certainly wrong in principle. They do not reflect the actual risks or costs to the banks of a temporary problem, and they hit people with marginal financial problems the hardest (and it is also staggeringly inept in terms of customer care - bear in mind most of these charges are dished out completely automatically without any discretion at all). Calling a principled viewpoint 'wacky' really isn't going to anything other than raise the temperature of the discussion.

The actual costs to the banks of making these automated charges are no different from the costs of a targetted mailshot, and if this really is £25 then frankly I would settle for them adding, say, £12.50 to my account every time they run one rather than sending me a glossy leaflet on a dreadful value mortgage or underperforming savings account.

If there are unfair conditions attached to any contract, you have the option of challenging them - this is what Dchurch is doing, and there's a long history of people doing this sort of thing. At the limit, these charges aren't so very different from the arbitrary fees loan sharks tag onto their victims, and we all disagree with these - or at least I would hope we would.

What speaks volumes is that none of the big banks has yet had the balls to contest these charges in court. I think they know they're illegal. It most certainly is not going down a US style litigation for everything route to explain forcibly to the banks that if they attempt to make illegal charges, customers will not pay them.

I manage my finances extremely carefully, and lend a very large amount of money to my bank (and other savings institutions) for much less than they can make from it lending it on to others. On occasion I have slipped up, and on these occasions I do not expect to be charged, especially when I have cleared the matter up within a couple of days, and informed the bank about it. At the very least there should be a grace period after the problem has been notified equal to the time it takes to make a BACs transfer or clear a cheque to tidy it up (both of these activities being themselves ridiculously slow, also due to our wonderful banks). If a situation is being cleared up, if the bank has been informed about the situation, there should be no additional charge. Full stop.

And let's be totally honest about this. If it were the case that customers habitually slipping over the line were causing massive costs to the banks, the banks would simply close their accounts and get shot of them. But they don't, because customers running on overdrafts and paying these ridiculous fees are the most profitable. And no doubt the banks are quite happily sending through details of preapproved loans to the very same people.

dave80_2

I have recently taken out a claim against Barclays on the same legal argument regarding bank charges as being too excessive to be considered as liquidated damages and it seems they wish to defend the case. The defence sets out the view that charges are legally effective.

They are also seeking to apply to the court to strike out the claim or seek a summary judgenment, hmmm.

has anyone else here been to court over this matter yet?

tinalives

Charges may be legally effective - but PENALTIES are not.

dchurch may be able to advise.

dchurch24

They are just trying to push you to back down. Stand your ground. They know that these charges are punitive in nature and I would imagine, do anything to keep it out of court for fear of setting a bad precedent/publicity.

The fact is that even the OFT has stated that these types of charges are unlawful. So has Which!

What I really abhor is people who let govts and large organisations walk all over them, and then claim that they actually agree with their 'priniciples' like a sheep. More fool them I say. If people didn't stand up for their rights (which are sharply being diminished by this 'labour' govt.) then 2004 would become 1984 far faster than I could imagine.

>> I can understand you being upset with the charges if you are in genuine financial difficulty but you are obviously not.

M Thomson, I didn't realise you were privvy to my financial status. Could you please elaborate?

catalonia13

Interesting post! Today I have recieved an 'on-line' automated letter informing me that they (the Halifax) are charging me £39 (yes £39!) as I had insufficient funds to clear a cheque.
I would hasten to add that I had some expenses due in my account in time to cover the cheque, unfortunately (and without my knowledge) the expenses were BACS'd a day late, leaving me short, I am taking this up with the company that owed the expenses but still have an issue with the bank charging such an extortionate amount, they didn't even have to post or print the damn letter!.

Your thoughts appreciated!?

richiethekid

I recently was charged £35 by Natwest for having insufficient funds to cover a direct debit. I wrote to complain, saying it was their fault for telling me the money was in my account in the first place. This was three weeks ago and all I've had so far is a standard letter. Interestingly, Natwest state that if the same thing happens again, they won't bother telling me, but will still charge £35. Seems a tad ridiculous.

dchurch24

Just write to them telling them that these charges are illegal and request that they return them within 14 days. If they don't then start court proceedings against them.

Walletwatch

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.

Agree fully with you, M Thomson. It is irresponsible to get yourselves into such a situation in the first place, and then cry 'foul' at the banks and reclaim any such charges.

Walletwatch

pin wrote:

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

Well, some people like digp just don't learn do they? I would have thought given the acerbity of this person's posts historically, he (or she) himself should have become history by now.

Board mods / Abuse controllers

Please treat this as a request to review all posts from this member and take suitable action.