Bank Charges

[sharriso74]

One of my colleagues pointed this out to me, apparently you write to your bank asking for a its of all bank charges for the past 6 years. Then when they reply you write back asking to be refunded, they then refuse then you go through the small claims court which they won't contest as they are likely to lose due to the OFT ruling and don't want to risk setting a precedent.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/bag.php

Any legal eagles here can say whether this is would work?

[Mr Toad]

It's a lot less hassle to have a bank that doesn't levy charges in the first place :wink:

I've been with the Abbey National for many years - have an overdraft arranged with them that I can use any time (and often do :cry: ) and only pay interest on it, which invariably is only a couple of pence each time. Never had 'bank charges' :D

[Jabba]

I've been with the Abbey National for many years

Likewise - and their "agreed overdraft" rate is low, too.

[timwilky]

the banks will mess you about with stalling practices. and could ask you to leave. So if that is a possibility it might be an idea to get an account elsewhere first, get your money refunded and leave anyway as would you want to bank with somebody who had treated you badly in the first place.


My wifes joke of a bank(Abbey) did her big style, she had a direct debit she had forgot about that took her £2 overdrawn, for this they bounced the dd and charged her £30 for that and then wrote her a letter to tell her she was overdrawn and charged her a further £30.

So a week later they then issue another letter to tell her she is now £62 over drawn, charge her a further £30. When she demanded the money back, No you have a contract you know you will be charged. Whether the contract is fair is a different matter. So she has now got a current account with the same bank I use. A free £1000 overdraft and warnings from me that she will not be making use of that facility.

It is my opinion (And I have lots of them) that banks will rip off the customers that they lease value. My missus only works part time and as such earns beer money, the fools never looked at the bigger picture as to our joint income.

Best advice it to stay in the black.

[Ed]

I wouldn't get too excited if I were you. You might be able to convince the judge that the charges were unfair and a penalty, but banks will fight tooth and nail to defend these claims. I used to draft mortgage small print for a living (well someone has to). It used to be popular to challenge mortgage early redemption fees but I fought every single claim - successfully I might add.

Remember that the onus of proof is on the claimant, not on the bank. The OFT's £12 is helpful but not conclusive, I would think. Some plainly are fruity - I've heard of up to £35, and that must be easy to attack and hard to justify.

Best solution is not to incur the charges in the first place...

[arc123]

I have successfully claimed back 'some' charges from HSBC using this method, and am currently going through a claim with Barclays.

After just one letter and a few of phone calls I received just over half of the amount that I claimed for from HSBC - you can get template letters from the website link (after signing up to the forum), and also contact details to send through to.

The letter I received from HSBC was two pages long stating that they did not agree with the logic of my claim, and then the last paragraph saying that as a 'good will gesture' they would refund half the amount. This is obviously their approach to try and appease their disgruntled customer without admitting any fault or liability.

I am planning to stay with HSBC, so settled for half the amount without any further follow up - however, I will fight for every penny from Barclays who I no longer have an active account with.

Ed Wrote:
I wouldn't get too excited if I were you

Why not? Banks are multi-billion pound corporations who have been acting unlawfully and ripping off customers for years - they are making payouts because they know this, and would prefer to pay out to the few who make claims rather than have a precedent set that limits the amount of which they can charge.

[Kilted Ginger]

Ed Wrote:
I wouldn't get too excited if I were you
Why not? Banks are multi-billion pound corporations who have been acting unlawfully and ripping off customers for years - they are making payouts because they know this, and would prefer to pay out to the few who make claims rather than have a precedent set that limits the amount of which they can charge.

:? Sorry but I cant follow the logic of this (yes I did see the tv prog about it last night.) Yes the bank charges are expensive, its is a fine, its meant to put you off doing it again!, to become overdrawn without authorisation is spending someone else's money, Its like going into someones desk at work taking their wallet and helping yourself to THEIR money to pay for your lunch without so much as a by your leave. How happy would you be if I came and lifted money from your purse or wallet without asking??
anytine I've needed to spend money I dont have I either dont spend it, put it on the credit card (where yoy get charged for the privelage) or a quick call to the bank and they have always increased my overdraught when requested to get me out a tight spot. Its common decency. Whether its a person or a comercial organisation you are spending someone elses money without their ok. imo

And the reason they dont go to court is that the costs would out weigh the sums involved.

Sorry I'll get off my soap box now :oops:

[arc123]

Kilted Ginger wrote:
Sorry but I cant follow the logic of this (yes I did see the tv prog about it last night.) Yes the bank charges are expensive, its is a fine, its meant to put you off doing it again!
I didn't see the program last night, so cannot comment on this. You really believe that banks use these charges to put you off from doing it again? You don't think that they would prefer to keep making charges in order to maintain their profits each year?

Also, in the banking code of conduct, it clearly states that charges CANNOT be 'punitive' (which rather makes your statement look silly) - charges MUST represent the manual effort made on behalf of the bank to resolve the situation - i'm no expert but I wouldn't imagine an automated letter costs £35 - maybe you know better than me on this :roll:

to become overdrawn without authorisation is spending someone else's money, Its like going into someones desk at work taking their wallet and helping yourself to THEIR money to pay for your lunch without so much as a by your leave. How happy would you be if I came and lifted money from your purse or wallet without asking??
Now thats just silly - please let me know if you really need me to explain the difference between bank charges and your example above and I shall do - maybe have a little think first??

:roll:

[diamond]

I've gotta agree with kilted ginger on this one, i don't see a problem with bank charges.

Why don't people have a £50-£100 approved overdraft and then if they ever accidently go overdrawn by a few quid then there's no problem.
If you are constantly going overdrawn and being charged then you are clearly living beyond your means and should take a look at how you run your finances. Banks aren't there to let you dip your hand into there money box everytime you get to the end of the month and decide you need to buy a few more bits and pieces, they are a business there to make money like any other business.

Like some one else mentioned it only takes one phone call to arrange an overdraft it's not a big hassle.

[arc123]

I don't disagree with the fact that its easy to arrange a new overdraft, and this is the best way to operate your finances when required. However,

e.d wrote:
I've gotta agree with kilted ginger on this one, i don't see a problem with bank charges.

as stated previously - banks are operating unlawfully - IN PLAIN ENGLISH - THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PUNITIVELY CHARGE PEOPLE - A FINE CANNOT BE A PUNISHMENT.

Kilted Ginger has already stated that they do it to "put you off doing it again!" - unlawful, illegal - put it how you like.

I'm just stating facts here. As an estimate, I would say that 90% of people on the 'Consumer Action Group" forum have had unlawful charges refunded - the 10% that have been unsuccessful have probably not taken the correct approach. Banks are re-paying fines because they should not have taken them in the first place. Fact.

[diamond]

Don't get your knichers in a twist.

I have no idea about the legality of what they do or how they charge. I'm just saying i don't have a problem with the fact banks have charges because i don't spend money thats not mine, which is surely a simpler way to go about things than spending money thats not mine getting charged for it and then having to fight to get it back.

[Mr Toad]

IN PLAIN ENGLISH - THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PUNITIVELY CHARGE PEOPLE - A FINE CANNOT BE A PUNISHMENT.


If a fine is not a punishment, then what is it :lol:

Where is it written in law that banks cannot punitively charge people - break their rules and they'll eat you for breakfast, just like traffic wardens :evil:

I did incur bank charges once, a long time ago when I was a student. It was a painful experience, but one from which I learnt a lot. I changed to a bank that did not levy charges, made sure I had an agreed overdraft with them, and that I didn't break that overdraft limit, which required juggling things on credit cards from time to time. If you make the mistake of incurring bank charges, do something about it - moan & get your money back if you can - and then move to another bank.

[Kilted Ginger]

to become overdrawn without authorisation is spending someone else's money, Its like going into someones desk at work taking their wallet and helping yourself to THEIR money to pay for your lunch without so much as a by your leave. How happy would you be if I came and lifted money from your purse or wallet without asking??
Now thats just silly - please let me know if you really need me to explain the difference between bank charges and your example above and I shall do - maybe have a little think first??

:roll:[/quote]

Sorry, but its not silly, you are spending money that is not yours without however the money belongs to's permission. That is it, pure and simple. Its not your money, dont spend it, dont get charged!
Whether the cahrges ar to cover costs or are fines or are there to make money is irrelevant. Dont spend someone elses money without their permission + no charge!! or no punch in the nose in the example above :)

[akbarhussain]

Don't get your knichers in a twist.

I have no idea about the legality of what they do or how they charge.

lol, yet you still feel the need to comment on it. Pretty slick.

All the advice on how to run an account is great - but it doesn't detract from the fact that the banks are operating their multi-billion punitive charges policies illegally.

[akbarhussain]

Where is it written in law that banks cannot punitively charge people - break their rules and they'll eat you for breakfast, just like traffic wardens

The consumer action group forum is down right now; but the legislation that is being broken by the banks is referenced there, some Customer Services Act or other. I will look later for you.

[akbarhussain]

Sorry, but its not silly, you are spending money that is not yours without however the money belongs to's permission. That is it, pure and simple. Its not your money, dont spend it, dont get charged!
Whether the cahrges ar to cover costs or are fines or are there to make money is irrelevant. Dont spend someone elses money without their permission + no charge!! or no punch in the nose in the example above

Ok, replace "punch in the nose" with "multiple stabbings using a samurai sword". The response has to be proportionate to the origional action. The law states this both for self defense etc and also for Customer Services Acts that govern the banks procedures.

Your advice of not using other peoples money is very good - but is really irrelevant. The banks are operating illegally.

[akbarhussain]

I have successfully claimed back 'some' charges from HSBC using this method, and am currently going through a claim with Barclays.

Mind if I PM you about this subjet chief?

[arc123]

Feel free to Akbar - I can provide you with info/advice and links to templated letters if you want to follow up this course of action yourself...........

[mattSV]

There are two issues here.

1) Can the bank morally punish you for using their money without permission (i.e. going overdrawn) - I think that is OK, so long as they tell you (via their standard terms and conditions) what you will be charged for and by how much

2) Can the bank legally take a charge to cover their costs - yes they can. The key argument is whether the charge covers their costs or whether the bank does actually make a profit from that charge.

[akbarhussain]

Oh no cheif, I could never follow up with this kind of action myself. I mean, if your going to go over your overdraft limit then you're asking for trouble, the banks should be allowed to do what the hell they like. Maybe one of the following options:

- remove a finger/toe/ear for every breach of ToC
- when fingers/toes/ears have expired, start on other more important appendidges
- Make offending customers line up in their local branch once a month for a swift kick in the plums from the bank manager
- stamp the word 'thief' on the offending customers forehead using acid.

Blahh, blahh, blahh

[akbarhussain]

Ooops, sorry cheif. I just got a bit carried away after reading some of the other very helpful but obviously irrelevant posts on the thread. :wink:

[arc123]

e.d wrote:
Don't get your knichers in a twist.
my knichers are not twisted thanks (whatever you are talking about)
:?

I have no idea about the legality of what they do or how they charge.
agreed.

which is surely a simpler way to go about things than spending money thats not mine getting charged for it and then having to fight to get it back.
Agreed.

How is all this relevant to my posts and the original question?

sharriso74 wrote:

Any legal eagles here can say whether this is would work?

I am no leagle eagle, but simply answered sharriso74 question, and explained the situation. Best practice for how to run your finances are not what he asked for. :roll:

[akbarhussain]

There are two issues here.

1) Can the bank morally punish you for using their money without permission (i.e. going overdrawn) - I think that is OK, so long as they tell you (via their standard terms and conditions) what you will be charged for and by how much

2) Can the bank legally take a charge to cover their costs - yes they can. The key argument is whether the charge covers their costs or whether the bank does actually make a profit from that charge.

Hey MattSV - i think you summed this up very precisley.

Morally, maybe the banks should be allowed to do this.

Legally, yes they can cover their own costs. An automated letter is likely to cost close to 35p than £35 though.

But more importantly, legally overrules morally.

[arc123]

quick post before I go for lunch:

Mattsv: you're going off-topic (see my last post) all is irrelevant aside from the fact they legally are not allowed to do so. In your T&C, do they state what the amount per fine will be?? no, didn't think so.

[northwind]

The OFT ruling which is in teh press at the moment ONLY affects credit cards.

I'm very tempted to put out the HBOS response, because it's pretty disgusting- but I think it could get me sacked :) Suffice to say, the policy is "if people complain enough, cave in, but don't give a penny to the people who don't". I'm really glad I'm not in retail any more, stuff like that drove me nuts. Good people who'd accidentally got a charge but considered it fair paid, while feckless scumbags who knew the power of irritation got their money back.

as stated previously - banks are operating unlawfully - IN PLAIN ENGLISH - THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PUNITIVELY CHARGE PEOPLE - A FINE CANNOT BE A PUNISHMENT.

Not that simple. There's a difference between a fine, and a contracted charge. It does depend a lot on how much foresight the banks have put into their T&C. Frinstance, old Bank of Scotland didn't pay their lawyers very much, and worded the T&C very badly.

Here's how it works. You go overdrawn over any agreed limit, and they say "That'll be £30". If they use suitable flannel, that isn't a fine- it's an availability charge- they're making available to you a temporary additional overdraft limit at your request, as is covered in the terms of your contract with them. And you can charge what you want for contracted services. (otherwise, we'd all be suing plumbers)

Yep, I know this is ridiculous, it's a fee by any other name. But so far there's been no rulings and no test cases for these new T&Cs. There's loads of implications against the banks in terms of bankruptcy and debt recovery too, which will need to be worked out- you can't offer the overlimits as a service, then default someone for using them...

But then... It gets complicated, because of the legal standing of this sort of non-negotiable contracts- there's case precedent (I forget the legal term) that they're unenforcable. Almost certainly flawed precedent, and there's counterprecedents :roll:- If the previous precedent were considered correct, it'd impact something like 19/20 of all written contracts in the UK. But this is why it's less simple than you might think, and why lawyers and judges get paid more than me.

[mattSV]

Chief

Sincere apologies for going off topic :shock:

In your T&C, do they state what the amount per fine will be?? no, didn't think so.

Yes they do - on page 11 of 'A Guide to Personal Current Account fees and interest' (unarranged borrowing, unauthorised transactions, paid referral, default notice) - trust that clarifies this matter for you :roll:

[Ed]

Frinstance, old Bank of Scotland didn't pay their lawyers very much, and worded the T&C very badly.



Hey, neither did BM and mine still hold water :D

[akbarhussain]

"Yes they do - on page 11 of 'A Guide to Personal Current Account fees and interest' (unarranged borrowing, unauthorised transactions, paid referral, default notice) - trust that clarifies this matter for you "

Out of interest, do they mention the specific charges?

[mattSV]

akbarhussain wrote:-

"Yes they do - on page 11 of 'A Guide to Personal Current Account fees and interest' (unarranged borrowing, unauthorised transactions, paid referral, default notice) - trust that clarifies this matter for you "

Out of interest, do they mention the specific charges?

This page is broken down into 'Fee Type', 'When Charged' and 'Fee Amount' - it couldn't really be any clearer :lol:

[akbarhussain]

But so far there's been no rulings and no test cases for these new T&Cs.

Which appears to be because the banks do not want them testing. As chief quite rightly points out, and can be seen by reading the Consumer Action Group forums - around 90% of claims have been settled. I'm not aware of a bank that has yet turned up in small claims court.

To me (from a non law-specialist point of view) that says at least that the banks are quite happy to pocket their millions of squids every year without having to try defend them. Maybe they can, maybe they can't......... but if you have charges on your account and fancy a crack at getting them back, try now whilst the going's good.

[akbarhussain]

This page is broken down into 'Fee Type', 'When Charged' and 'Fee Amount' - it couldn't really be any clearer

someone tickling your **** with a feather young man, or just happy to answer my question? :wink:

But just because the bank includes these charges on T&C, doesn't make them any more legal.

[Ed]

But so far there's been no rulings and no test cases for these new T&Cs.

Which appears to be because the banks do not want them testing. As chief quite rightly points out, and can be seen by reading the Consumer Action Group forums - around 90% of claims have been settled. I'm not aware of a bank that has yet turned up in small claims court.

To me (from a non law-specialist point of view) that says at least that the banks are quite happy to pocket their millions of squids every year without having to try defend them. Maybe they can, maybe they can't......... but if you have charges on your account and fancy a crack at getting them back, try now whilst the going's good.

I wonder why the OFT said £12. I still think that a claimant would have evidential difficulties.

I went to trial on mortgage early redemption fees 3 or 4 times. Most times, claimants didn't have a clue what they were doing or what they wanted back and so incurred the wrath of the judge for not having prepared properly.

If you do have a pop - make sure you have your ducks in order. Don't expect to win simply by turning up and saying 'they charged me £20 for a letter and that's not fair' cos you won't get very far. To win you need evidence, like when, how many times, how much, do you have the letters in question, did they tell you about the fees etc. The killer blow would be to be able to say how much the bank makes on the letters, but this info would be very difficult to get hold of. The bank would have to say why their charges aren't unreasonable. Remember the burden of proof is on the claimant.

Whilst there may be a flurry of claims in correspondence, somehow I don't see the courts getting too busy on this.

[Carsick]

Why don't people have a £50-£100 approved overdraft and then if they ever accidently go overdrawn by a few quid then there's no problem.
Like some one else mentioned it only takes one phone call to arrange an overdraft it's not a big hassle.
The reason I don't is because they won't give me an overdraft. I don't live beyond my means, but my monthly spending is on average just below my monthly income. The problem comes when I get big bills, and I'm not talking about unnecessary things, I'm talking about rent, which was quarterly at my last place.
Once a big bill came in, I would then find myself struggling to get back into the black because the bank wasn't willing to give me that very small overdraft. With the overdraft I know that I would have incurred minimal charges over the past year.

I don't disagree with the basic idea of bank charges. I object to them when they become the punishment rather than covering the "costs" of my actions.

It's very easy for a lot of people to say that all we need to do to avoid bank charges is to keep our accounts in order, but I can only assume you don't have any recent experience of living/eating on virtually no money once things like rent/insurance have been paid.

[mattSV]

akbarhussain wrote:-

someone tickling your @rse with a feather young man, or just happy to answer my question?

:? :? :?

I was happy to answer the question - why the sarcy comment?

[akbarhussain]

Good advice Ed.

[stewboy]

banks are scum !

[akbarhussain]

I was happy to answer the question - why the sarcy comment?

I could tell you were happy, the 'laughing' emoticon showed this. My comment wasn't intended to be sarcastic - hence the 'wink' emoticon. :wink:

[akbarhussain]

It's very easy for a lot of people to say that all we need to do to avoid bank charges is to keep our accounts in order, but I can only assume you don't have any recent experience of living/eating on virtually no money once things like rent/insurance have been paid.

Carsick, try to ignore those coments. Some people seem to get a smug satisfaction from telling others 'what they should've done'. Everybody stumbles across tough times in their life from time to time - good luck with the bank. :)

[mattSV]

akbarhussain wrote:-

Quote:
I was happy to answer the question - why the sarcy comment?


I could tell you were happy, the 'laughing' emoticon showed this. My comment wasn't intended to be sarcastic - hence the 'wink' emoticon.

Hokey dokey no problemo - just checking that you weren't trolling :wink: :lol:

Right - lets get this thread back on topic before I get another bollocking from chief :wink:

[arc123]

Right - lets get this thread back on topic before I get another bo%**cking from chief Wink

U rated Mattsv - 3 strikes and you're out.

[northwind]

But so far there's been no rulings and no test cases for these new T&Cs.

Which appears to be because the banks do not want them testing. As chief quite rightly points out, and can be seen by reading the Consumer Action Group forums - around 90% of claims have been settled. I'm not aware of a bank that has yet turned up in small claims court.


My understanding of this- and I'm 9 months out of date here, so it could be wrong- is that since HBOS introduced the new T&C, not one case has got that far- there's been a lot of threats, every one's stopped after legal advice. Can't speak for other banks. You could argue the case, but it'd be potentially very difficult and time consuming. The huge majority of the small claims cases are historic.

[arc123]

Northwind - I'm not quite understanding what you are saying:

"since HBOS introduced the new T&C, not one case has got that far" - got how far?? to small claims court you mean??

As I stated - I have retrieved half my sum which adds up to hundreds of punds over 6 years. I am pursuing my case with Barclays currently also.

[northwind]

Yup- new terms and conditions docs began being rolled out to customer accounts as of last July, I think most of the standard current accs are amended now- should be anyway, if they're on schedule. Which they won't be, it's HBOS ;)

[northwind]

I meant to mention this earlier- if anyone thinks this is a victory for the consumer, they're deluded- the banks won't take a loss. If they lose one revenue stream, they'll either take it elsewhere, or they'll reduce costs... That means less interest for you, and probably less staff in branche and more call centres in sri lanka. It just shifts the burden from people who incur charges, onto everyone.

[akbarhussain]

I don't think anyone is under the illusion that this is a victory for the consumer - its simply an oppurtunity for anyone affected to potentially get back what was taken from them illegally.

[jenni]

Yup- new terms and conditions docs began being rolled out to customer accounts as of last July, I think most of the standard current accs are amended now- should be anyway, if they're on schedule. Which they won't be, it's HBOS ;)

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

8-[ 8-[ 8-[ 8-[ 8-[

[northwind]

Remember folks, your bank charges pay for me to surf SV650.org when I'm supposed to be working! And seemingly, for Jenni to actually work when she's supposed to be working- the fool!

[jenni]

yeah i'm a good girl and only surf from bed...you on the nightshift northy??

P.S. HBOS customers please don't claim from your bank cos i've got next years bonus earmarked already :wink:

[northwind]

you on the nightshift northy??


:lol: Last year's bank charges bought Northwind a nice new PC ;)

[jonboy]

This is the latest:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5056882.stm

and a deliberate tactic to psychologically prevent people from taking action. The solution? Move your accounts first! :evil:


.

[sharriso74]

Ok get your money back and move account bit sortsighted of the bank as they'll lose my custom as well. With most banks now sorting moving your direct debits for you it's not really a hassle unless your wanting to get a mortgage in the next 3 years.

[Demonz]

you on the nightshift northy??


:lol: Last year's bank charges bought Northwind a nice new PC ;)

:lol: :lol: My own point of view is I see the fee's as a deterrent and motivation to ensure you dont go OD. My wife and I had an account each and we used to bounce money between when bills came out to avoid fees. I think if the charges never occurred we wouldnt have changed to a single account and made things more efficient for ourselves to manage. Likewise others would move to a bank that was cheaper to run because of this. Personally I think charges are a good thing for a lot of people as it makes you look at it and take action if you arent happy.

For me however for the amount of effort involved with trying to claw back the fee's, my time is better spent trying to make money elsewhere - and I would find it more rewarding.

[Scooby Drew]

I don't think anyone is under the illusion that this is a victory for the consumer - its simply an oppurtunity for anyone affected to potentially get back what was taken from them illegally.

If the banks were levying an illegal charge, they could be taken to the cleaners, which they haven't yet. 'Illegal' is just a spin put on the whole issue to wind evryone up (the press do this regularly). When you sign up to the account, in the small print it says 'You will be charged if you yada yada yada' They've told you that they are going to do it, and no matter how distasteful you find it, they are within their rights to do it if you do not comply with the terms that you signed up to. If you don't like it, use your feet and go to a bank that wont do it.

Immoral is what I would call the charges and the banks have been getting away with it because they have been allowed to. There is now a consumer backlash and something is being done about it. Although I work for RBSG, I don't agree totally with some of the stuff that banks do and they need to be kept in line. My other pet hate, which has already been discussed under another topic, is making banking facilities available to the socially excluded...

[akbarhussain]

If the banks were levying an illegal charge, they could be taken to the cleaners, which they haven't yet.

Yet is the key word here my friend. :wink: So far, the banks are doing there best to avoid their big day in court.

'Illegal' is just a spin put on the whole issue to wind evryone up (the press do this regularly).

But if the banks ARE contravening Customer Services legislation, which many people seem to think they are, this is illegal. But i agree, there will be no confirmation either way until there is a test case in court.

Which is why if anyone fancies having a crack at redeeming some of the Illegally (sorry, immoral :wink: ) applied fees, they should do it no whilst the goin gis good.

[Scooby Drew]

Which is why if anyone fancies having a crack at redeeming some of the Illegally (sorry, immoral :wink: ) applied fees, they should do it no whilst the goin gis good.

And business as usal at the bank is to keep an eye on the issue and stop it from happening :wink:

It all started with this (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1672922,00.html). 'Illegal' or 'immoral' are degrees of interpretation and I don't see the banks losing a big case on the back of this and being taken to the cleaners in a huge settlement case.

A LAW student is expected to be awarded hundreds of pounds - an annoyance until such time as the banks close any loopholes in their T&C. He is the person behind this and being a law student, has the resources at his diposal to make a big thing of this. It doesn't look like a huge thing if the originator of the issue is only going to get 'hundreds' back

[akbarhussain]

and I don't see the banks losing a big case on the back of this and being taken to the cleaners in a huge settlement case.

Neither do I, which is why

if anyone fancies having a crack at redeeming some of the Illegally (sorry, immoral Wink ) applied fees, they should do it no whilst the goin gis good.

Having said that, there are quite a few people that have gone through litigation successfully:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=67

With regard to patching any loopholes in terms and conditions, it really isn't that simple. I adhere to the terms and conditions of my account at the time they are in place, so thay cannot be back dated. So if for example, I was illegally charged 3 years ago, T&C brought in last week would not apply. Only the T&C from 3 years ago would apply.

Also, it makes little difference if the charges are spelt out in T&C - if they are deemed to be illegal, having a customer agree to them would give a application for getting the fees returned further weight.

[Scooby Drew]

if anyone fancies having a crack at redeeming some of the Illegally (sorry, immoral Wink ) applied fees, they should do it no whilst the goin gis good.

As in Neil Hamilton vs The Sun newspaper, anyone want to tie themselves up in court for a while and when you lose end up paying a LOT in court costs? The banks sure have more resources to throw at this the you have and will tie you up for years...

[akbarhussain]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=67

9 pages of settled claims since Jan 2006.

[arc123]

Scooby Drew - for any claim under £1500 (or a figure around this amount), you can purse a claim through the small claims court for under £40. Of all of the cases listed on the Consumer Action Group, no bank has actually turned out to represent themselves thus far, or setteled before it gets to this stage.

Thus the banks are admititng no liability, and no precedent is being set. As has been pointed out earlier in the thread, its easier for the banks to pay out to the few who are re-claiming the 'unlawful' fees. If & When the time arrives where so many people make claims that it becomes necessary for the banks to answer the case in court - they will not win. £35 is not representative of the cost of manual intervention for an automated letter (and a representative cost is all that can be charged under their ruling legislation - no matter what they write on the T&Cs that you sign).

[Scooby Drew]

Oh dear, I have not been explaining myself properly. I am just arguing semantics quite likely.

I think that it is right that people pursue a claim against the banks if they feel that they have been treated unfairly.
The charges are not illegal as it stands at the moment, this is up to the courts to decide in the future. As people have signed a statement to say that the banks can take the money off them, it is a matter of interpretation of what a 'justified charge' is.

If the courts do deem the charges unlawful, the banks stand to lose too much and will close this avenue off, preventing them from liability.

And find another way to take the money off you, as the sensible Mr Northwind says. Big Brother is not a TV program and it's not the Labour government. Big Brother is the Banking system :wink:

[Carsick]

Big Brother is the Banking system :wink:
Many a true word said in jest.

[akbarhussain]

Big Brother is the Banking system

What do you mean by this Scooby, genuinely interested.

[Scooby Drew]

They probably hold more information on people than the government does. And it is all legal cos you sign up to them holding personal info on you when you open the account.

[akbarhussain]

oh ok, i thought it might be something a little more sinister with the reference to Big Bro. Ta

[jonboy]

Purely out of interest AH, looking at your posts and questions, are you using this forum as a means of information (in whatever context) as part of a PhD thesis?


.

[akbarhussain]

Nothing as interesting as that i'm afraid jonboy! ALthough 'the study of the effects of an obnoxious, opinionated loudmouth on forum posters' may make great reading for a PhD :wink:


Nah, just genuinely intereste din many subjects mate.

[sharriso74]

Nothing as interesting as that i'm afraid jonboy! ALthough 'the study of the effects of an obnoxious, opinionated loudmouth on forum posters' may make great reading for a PhD :wink: .

Self study it is then :wink:

[akbarhussain]

lol Sharisso, that is what I menat :wink:

[Scooby Drew]

The amount of MI driven by transaction history is phenomenal. The banks can tell how much you earn, where you live, where you shop, where you go etc. All the stuff in the movies about the FBI following catching people cos they are following the card transactions is quite possible...

This info is used primarily for Marketing but also for other things like fraud detection.

[sharriso74]

Damn now they know I'm an overweight, beer drinking, kebab eating biker. Anyone could have worked that out by looking at me.

[akbarhussain]

Damn now they know I'm an overweight, beer drinking, kebab eating biker. Anyone could have worked that out by looking at me.

:lol:

Know what you mean about the fraud detection Scooby - I sometimes work abroad, and the last two times I have been in the Netherlands, there was an automatic stop put on my cards, simply for the reason that I had been spending in Holland. I spose it is there for our protection, but in that situation was a complete pain in the ****.

[skint]

One of my colleagues pointed this out to me, apparently you write to your bank asking for a its of all bank charges for the past 6 years. Then when they reply you write back asking to be refunded, they then refuse then you go through the small claims court which they won't contest as they are likely to lose due to the OFT ruling and don't want to risk setting a precedent.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/bag.php

Any legal eagles here can say whether this is would work?

If you haven't done this yet then I would recommend you do so (if you've had any charges of course!)

It has taken us two months to recover charges we had about three years ago - and got our payback today almost to the pound that we expected following the BBC News link. YIPEE!

The banks sends a lengthy letter disagreeing with our complaint blah blah but made an offer as a gesture of goodwill. Funny it should equate to refunding the difference between the max charges the authorities say should be apllicable and the excessive amounts they actually charged! :thumbsup:

Power to the people!:smt045

[jamessunhill]

I got hold of my bank a few months ago and managed to get back just over £800 in charges (I had financial problems 2 years ago and got loads of charges from the bank - which made it worse).