Charged but not guilty - you can bank on it!

[embee]

Yep, law is law, it might sometimes seem strange and not necessarily fair, but that's the way it is. If a Bank (or any other concern) goes against the law, then tough.

I don't agree with certain laws which prohibit/limit me from doing certain things, but it's the law. If I do it and get caught, I'll accept the punishment.

I seem to recall there was something like a "Winding-up order" which you could serve against a company which didn't honour its debts to you (after going through various stages). Basically says pay me or you're out of business. That would be a good one to try against a Bank worth trillions.

Originally Posted by Viney

Im sorry, i dont get it. When you sign up for a bank account, you AGREE to thier terms and conditions, including thier charges and this bloke has won an agreement to get them refunded when HE broke these terms and conditions and he didnt agree with them.

As regards signing and agreeing to the bank's terms and conditions, well the charges aren't shown in these, they're simply referred to, plus what you must realise is that there is no true competition, the banks act as a cartel and prices are deliberately kept high and thus there is no alternative option.

The banks also deliberately engineer the system so that they earn a large percentage of their revenue from unwarranted and (truly) unlawful charges.

Then into the equation we must put the fact that charges must be "reasonable and reflect the bank's costs", where currently they do not IN ANY WAY. Therefore they are punative (which makes them illegal) and unfair, which then falls foul of the Unfair Contracts Terms Act 1977. So let's not pretend that the banks aren't acting unlawfully, because they are. And they get away it, with their power, influence, and big-time lawyers.

Now if you wish to be a flunky for the system, well that's fine, but me, I'm prepared to speak out and fight back. The banks are nothing more than legalised and government approved money lenders very much akin to organised crime. I'm quite serious about that, they just have a nice glossy image.


.

[arc123]

Quite agree with Jonboy.

Just out of interest - does anybody here have a history of bank charges?? I have. And to some considerable amount.

I am currently in the process of trying to recover these unlawful charges from two different banks (or at least a proportion of them), for a period of the last 6 years.

[northwind]

I do believe this guy's on Visordown- there was a big thread on the subject when someone started a case against LTSB, and the details are very similiar. If it is the same guy, he's an utter c***... He's in the right here, but he's still a feckless waster who paid for his nights out at uni by spending money he didn't have. Now he depicts himself as a hero for it.

Here's where it gets interesting. The bank hasn't a leg to stand on on this matter- the punitive charges won't stand. But, to get to this point he's had to admit in court to multiple defaults and breaches of a credit agreement. So, if LTSB decide to play that particular game, they'll refund the charges, but Mr Mullen will end up with counter proceedings against him for the defaults. These are a matter of record in the existing county court proceedings, so if it goes to court he'll lose, and end up with a series of CCJs- potentially hundreds of them- and a credit record like a black hole.

Good result though, this situation's absolutely nuts. And the way the banks deal with it is pretty much disgusting- most fo them, realising they'd have to refund more charges, raised the charges across the board- most people getting a charge won't ever dispute it, or won't take it further than an informal complaint, so they literally fund the loss of the ones they do have to refund out of the pockets of the ones that never get that far.

There's similiar proceedings on the go regarding high interest rates on lending products, which are less clear cut but equally interesting.

I was the easiest touch for refunding charges in the entire banking industry, back when that was part of my job

[arc123]

northwind wrote:

he's still a feckless waster who paid for his nights out at uni by spending money he didn't have.

He may be a feckless waster, but have you considered that he may have been spending money that wasn't technically his beacause of the charges?

So, if LTSB decide to play that particular game, they'll refund the charges, but Mr Mullen will end up with counter proceedings against him for the defaults.

Wrong in my opinion - if the bank have been forced by the courts to reimburce the charges, they are responsible also for any other costs incurred. This will include interest, costs of referring to debt collection, and the removal of defaults & CCJs from the persons credit record.

didn't I read in the original item that the bank didn't file a defence? Either they decided not to, or else their systems were seriously defective in not getting the defence in to the court office on time. It's really very very basic to get it right. Or they could have asked for an extension of time, given that the case raises some seriousand far-reaching issues.

So I don't see how Lloyds can reopen the matter unless they get leave to serve out of time. If I were the DJ I'd refuse, after all 35 years ago a man walked on the moon, and now a huge corporate can't get its act together and serve a simple defence.

[Viney]

Originally Posted by jonboy

As regards signing and agreeing to the bank's terms and conditions, well the charges aren't shown in these, they're simply referred to, plus what you must realise is that there is no true competition, the banks act as a cartel and prices are deliberately kept high and thus there is no alternative option.

The banks also deliberately engineer the system so that they earn a large percentage of their revenue from unwarranted and (truly) unlawful charges.

Then into the equation we must put the fact that charges must be "reasonable and reflect the bank's costs", where currently they do not IN ANY WAY. Therefore they are punative (which makes them illegal) and unfair, which then falls foul of the Unfair Contracts Terms Act 1977. So let's not pretend that the banks aren't acting unlawfully, because they are. And they get away it, with their power, influence, and big-time lawyers.

Now if you wish to be a flunky for the system, well that's fine, but me, I'm prepared to speak out and fight back. The banks are nothing more than legalised and government approved money lenders very much akin to organised crime. I'm quite serious about that, they just have a nice glossy image.


.

Surely, if you dont go over drawn, or bounce cheques, then you wont get charged?

Anyhoo, if these 'legalised and government approved money lenders very much akin to organised crime.' are so bad, i take it you keep all your money under the floorboards

Surely, if you dont go over drawn, or bounce cheques, then you wont get charged?

Well if you were a perfect being, no I suppose you're right. However being human (no honestly it's true) I do very occasionally make mistakes. That's when they pounce. And how about this, I put the account back into good standing and then a month or two later they put their charge through, which typically is just at the moment when the account's almost empty and then it goes overdrawn due to this, and guess what? they charge you - oh and bounce some other payment cos theirs always gets paid first, and then they charge you again - and so it snowballs. They really are an absolute bunch of f**kers.

But the point is, it's punative and illegal charging. Do you know the other day I had a phone call from GE money (more f**kers) who said they were going to charge me (for whatever) and I asked them was it punative? So I got a shilly-shally reply, but the girl said yes it's because you're late with your payment, so I said can you confirm it's punative, and she said yes. Now if I had taped that call, GE would be in very serious trouble, with a massive fine coming there way - sadly I didn't.

Legal and fair charges I'll quietly grumble over, but false and illegal charging I WON'T - not any more.

Anyhoo, if these 'legalised and government approved money lenders very much akin to organised crime.' are so bad, i take it you keep all your money under the floorboards

No, I don't have any anymore - the banks have taken it .


.

[northwind]

Originally Posted by Chief

northwind wrote:

He may be a feckless waster, but have you considered that he may have been spending money that wasn't technically his beacause of the charges?

Wrong in my opinion - if the bank have been forced by the courts to reimburce the charges, they are responsible also for any other costs incurred. This will include interest, costs of referring to debt collection, and the removal of defaults & CCJs from the persons credit record.

In answer to the first one, if it's the same guy, then no- he very deliberately ran up the debt using switch payments under £50, the debt due to them by the time he left uni was massively more than the charges. And similiarly for point 2, with the charges removed from teh equation he still had a large number of default incidents.

They also wouldn't be forced to reimburse debt collection charges, unless those were solely derived from charges- which wasn't the case, even without the charges he'd still have been in debt.

[northwind]

Originally Posted by jonboy

Well if you were a perfect being, no I suppose you're right. However being human (no honestly it's true) I do very occasionally make mistakes. That's when they pounce. And how about this, I put the account back into good standing and then a month or two later they put their charge through, which typically is just at the moment when the account's almost empty and then it goes overdrawn due to this, and guess what? they charge you - oh and bounce some other payment cos theirs always gets paid first, and then they charge you again - and so it snowballs. They really are an absolute bunch of f**kers.

In your example here, you'd not put the account into good standing... If you have prior notice of a charge and you don't deposit the funds to cover it, that's not the bank's fault is it?

PS you should never be charged for a charge that takes you overdrawn, on a personal account- this has always been illegal under existing usury laws, and (according to Moneyfacts) no UK bank charges under that circumstance. You're spot on that if they do bounce another payment, they'll happily pounce then though. They can charge ongoing overlimit fees but not transaction fees.