Unorthorised overdraft charges

asandwhen

I had a current account with cahoot over a 3 year period between the years of 2001 - 2004 (ages 22-25) I would constantly go over my agreed overdraft every month and get charged £20 per month - I know this was my fault and I shouldnt have gone over the limit ect - I have since got a new bank account and havent been over since - I am now a keen mse and have been reading on here how some people have managed to get some of these charges back through the not a real reflection of cost penaulty thingy - What can I say/send to cahoot to try and get these back.

Just want to try to see what happens - we could be talking around £500

Thanks,
Matt.

johannamse

See this...http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=82599

jonesMUFCforever

asandwhen wrote:

I had a current account with cahoot over a 3 year period between the years of 2001 - 2004 (ages 22-25) I would constantly go over my agreed overdraft every month and get charged £20 per month - I know this was my fault and I shouldnt have gone over the limit ect - I have since got a new bank account and havent been over since - I am now a keen mse and have been reading on here how some people have managed to get some of these charges back through the not a real reflection of cost penaulty thingy - What can I say/send to cahoot to try and get these back.

Just want to try to see what happens - we could be talking around £500

Thanks,
Matt.

I think your chances are pretty slim but if you want to try contacting their Customer Services, they might advise further.As most if not all of these charges seem to have been incurred before the default ruling by the court on what justification can you start bleating about it now?
You confess it was your own fault that you broke the bank's terms and conditions.
Eric

Fedz

I fail to understand and am genuinely confused why people: sign-up and agree to the T's & C's for a current account and then want the charges back they agreed to pay for something they openly admit we're correctly applied

Reverse the situation to a personal level and you lent someone money (no charges) but they refused or kept putting off paying back wouldn't you be upset, distrust the borrower, not lend them money again ...etc.

I understand peoples argument that some bank charges are too high and don't reflect the banks costs - that's all well and good - they could lower them but then the age old argument still remains even if the charges were halved.

Where's peoples self discipline, accepting responsibility for your own actions and taking T's & C's seriously they agree too?

This post is a generalisation and not aimed at the OP personally

greenwich

As johannamse says above, look at the other thread. It is very long and sometimes way off the point, but as this is one of my pet peeves, I am going to write about it again here:

Sorry Fedz but your analogy is not applicable here. You and I as consumers are not subject to the same regulations as suppliers. Because suppliers are much more powerful than us, the government has given us The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 to try to make the playing field a bit more level.

ejones999: the fact that these charges were incurred before the recent legal ruling doesn't matter at all here. County court judgements don't create precedents anyway. And even if they did, the precdent would apply to past cases as well (unlike Acts of Parliament, legal judgements have full and automatic retrospective effect).

Becuase when you open a bank account you have no choice but to agree to the T&Cs (i.e. the bank won't negotiate with you about them) the regulations say you are not bound by them if they are unfair. This applies even if you have agreed to them: your legal rights can't be taken away by your bank's T&Cs.

The regulations say that consumers can't be charged a disproportionately high amount for breaching one of their obligations (in this case, staying in credit). Since banks charge overdraft interest when you go into the red, I have always taken the view that any further charge is unfair and have always managed to avoid paying these charges.

So, asandwhen, by all means have a go. The fact that you've left it late won't help you but you can try. You'll need to be persistent and probably let them know you know your legal rights. Good luck - it has been done (by me and others) so you may well succeed.

jonesMUFCforever

ejones999: the fact that these charges were incurred before the recent legal ruling doesn't matter at all here. County court judgements don't create precedents anyway. And even if they did, the precdent would apply to past cases as well (unlike Acts of Parliament, legal judgements have full and automatic retrospective effect).

I think you will find it does! In English law if a law is not there when the 'offence' took place then it cannot be applied retrospectively.
Eric

Fedz

Very informative and understandable post - appreciated.

Can't banks cap agreed overdraft limits where by if you have £500 agreed o/d limit and you are at (minus) -£450 and you attempt to purchase something at £51 it refuses the transaction - much like the VISA Electron. Would this sytem be acceptable in law?

greenwich

Fedz: the banks could lawfully do what you suggest (unless of course they have previously agreed with you to give you credit of £501). But they wouldn't want to. They'd want the flexibility to extend your credit beyond £501 if they think you are an acceptable risk. Don't forget, banks make their money by lending.

ejones999: If Parliament creates a new offence then of course it only applies to events after the Act becomes law (unless Parliament explicitly says it applies retrospectively). But it really is true that court judgements are automatically retrospective. The rationale of this is that the court is not making the law, it is 'only' clarifying what it means. A bit of a fiction I know, but there it is. To give you an example, since the 17th century it was thought that a man can't be guilty of raping his wife (because, people thought, she gave irrevocable consent to sex by taking the marriage vows). In 1991, the law lords ruled that that was wrong and a man could be found guilty of raping his wife. That ruling applies to all past events. Just in the last couple of years a man was jailed for raping his wife in the 1960s, i.e. before the law lords' ruling. So if tomorrow the High Court ruled that an overdraft fee of £35 was unfair, it would apply to fees already charged before the ruling. If you don't believe me, ask a lawyer!

dchurch24

This has been discussed extensively in another thread, but:

There have been many cases where the court has ruled that penalties are not enforcable, even if written into a contact - this was long before the 1999 Consumer Credit Act - unfair terms in contracts.

I would write to them stating the 1999 CCA and the 1915 Lord Dunedin ruling (you could also mention Murray v Leasureplay (2004) and a whole host of others that you'd have to google, or find the other thread on here - the one with the subject about the Student wins bank case' or something giving them 14 days to give your money back. After 14 days, because Cahoot is owned by Abbey, they will not have given your money back.
You will then start court proceedings (this can be done on-line) against them for recovery stating the 1999 CCA and the Punitive charges vs liquidated damages argument.
They will defend, stating that their charges are a reasonable pre-estimate of the loss incured by them by your breach of contract. This is good as it means that they are conceding breach of contract. If they don't respond, you will most likely win by default - A judge will still judge a case on it's relative merits, you won't automatically win (despite what banks may have you believe).
You will then be sent a court questionnaire that you will have 2 weeks to complete and return to the court.
Cahoot (abbey) will then probably attempt to get the court to hear the case in a 'multi-track' court. This is important as it means that they would be able to claim for costs should you lose. You most likely will not lose, as punitive v damages precendent has been set and followed for many years but the judge will indicate this before it goes to court.
In the meantime, Abbey will no doubt try to scare you off, which in essence is what they are doing by trying to get it to a higher court track.
Even if it did go to a multi-track hearing, I doubt the judge would allow a claim for costs on account of the fact that the case should never have been heard there in the first place.
Ultimately, they will not want it to go to court, as a win would mean that everyone would start to claim back these (very lucrative for them) charges. A lost would mean that the media would make it look like a big-bully type case where the little person has been downtrodden - a popular subject at the moment particulary with the Guardian suprisingly.
This is, of course, pure speculation ;-)

BTW: you can legally claim for the last 6 years, so the fact you have waited is largely irrelevant. If you ask for a list of penal charges added over this time, then they are legally bound to oblige you as per the 1998 data protection act, although they can make a nominal charge for this non-standard 'service'.

Go ahead and do it if you want. The OFT have just ruled that these charges are illegal when it comes to credit cards. My MP (and other MP's that I know of) are asking the OFT to investigate the bank charges too. The writing is on the wall for these charges and I think the banks know it - a fact I think is outlined by halifax (it might not be them) raising their charges to 39 quid - a 'grab it while you can' attitude in my opinion.
With Britons a trillion quid in personal debt, I can't see any responsible govt. allowing this to continue in this way.

catalonia13

greenwich wrote:

:

Because when you open a bank account you have no choice but to agree to the T&Cs (i.e. the bank won't negotiate with you about them)

Exactly! - as I've already said on other posts - we have NO CHOICE but to sign and agree and we have NO CHOICE even to not have a bank account these days, no bank account = no wages!

dchurch24

We also do not have the right to choose how we are paid OUR wages. You know, the money that WE EARN.
This right was revoked in about 1985 by Thatchers Govt. - you know; the one which had cabinet ministers on the board of directors of large banks.
...and what with this govt. heavily encouraging people to have benifits paid directly into a bank as well, the banking industry in this country needs a serious shake up - not the half-hearted 'consumer credit laws' overhaul at the beginning of this year.

I never wanted a bank account - I still don't - I believe that having a bank account is quite possibly the fastest way of depleting personal wealth, however, I am now more-or-less forced into having one - mortgage won't be paid unless by DD, some insurances(usually the cheapest) only accept DD, I HAVE to be paid by BACS etc...
So if I am bad at managing my account, so what!?? I didn't ask for it in the first place.
If there is not enough money in the account to pay a DD, then that is a matter between myself and the person/org. who has not been paid. Why the bank feel it is their business I have no idea.
A bit of common sense is needed.
If I held your money for you, and your friend asked me for £10 that you borrowed from him, but I was only holding your last £5, why would it be pertinant for me to charge you £39 because of it?

I would rather be paid in cash, and keep the money in my house and take my chances with the 'honest' theives.

Oh, one other thing before the old 'don't spend money you haven't got' argument is spouted again, let me reiterate for those that don't/can't be bothered to read and/or are unaware of the world around them:

You get charged for Direct Debits and/or Standing Orders that DON'T GET PAID - THEY ARE RETURNED UNPAID - THE BANK HAS NOT USED IT'S MONEY - THE BANK DID NOT PAY THE SUM PAYABLE - NO MONEY THAT WASN'T THERE HAS BEEN USED - Etc, etc.... in other words, no money has been spent - therefore not spending money I haven't got.

Slightly off-topic I admit, and for that I apologise.