Author Topic: bank charges nightmare ? (Read 5793 times)

shofty · **Reply #45 on:** November 29, 2009, 23:16:12 PM

bank charges nightmare ?

Reply #45 on: November 29, 2009, 23:16:12 PM

Quote from: Sam

Since the court chucked it out, the charges are legal.

negative. you are wrong.
[/quote]

Quote from: Sam

If they were not legal, you would have no problem sueing them to get your money back.

which is exactly what you could do before the fsa blocked the procedure when the test case started. theyve now lifted it too.

Quote from: Sam

I think you are confusing legal and what you consider to be ethical.

i think youre confusing your opinion with the truth. please read up on it before you spout incorrect info again.

zpyder · **Reply #46 on:** November 29, 2009, 23:36:37 PM

bank charges nightmare ?

Reply #46 on: November 29, 2009, 23:36:37 PM

Quote from: bytejunkie

Quote from: Sam
Since the court chucked it out, the charges are legal.

negative. you are wrong.

I thought law worked on the basis that when the courts reach a decision that decision is legally binding and sets a precedent for any similar situations that follow?

Sam · **Reply #47 on:** November 30, 2009, 05:45:55 AM

bank charges nightmare ?

Reply #47 on: November 30, 2009, 05:45:55 AM

Quote from: bytejunkie

i think youre confusing your opinion with the truth. please read up on it before you spout incorrect info again.

Well Im sorry to burst your bubble sunshine, but since the court threw out the legal challenge, as the law stands right now, they are legal charges.
Now you might not like it, nor think its fair, but its the law. So please, make sure youre not a moron before you spout incorrect info again.

Sam · **Reply #48 on:** November 30, 2009, 05:53:22 AM

bank charges nightmare ?

Reply #48 on: November 30, 2009, 05:53:22 AM

Quote from: zpyder

Quote from: bytejunkie
Quote from: Sam
Since the court chucked it out, the charges are legal.

negative. you are wrong.

I thought law worked on the basis that when the courts reach a decision that decision is legally binding and sets a precedent for any similar situations that follow?

Yes thats (mostly) true. Mostly, in that further challenge can reverse the previous challenges (although unlikely). The courts interpret the law (which is often ambigious).

You see in this case, there is no law saying the banks cant charge what they like. Which of course is how it should be, if youre an idiot and agree to pay $100 overdraft charges (you agree by signing when you open the account), you shouldnt complain later.

Now since there is no specific law AGAINST this, and no other existing law has been used to show its illegal, its therefore legal. Just like there is no law saying I cant call bytejunkie a donkey if I so desired.

So, someone/group/org mounted a legal challenge, which in this case is a challenge arguing that the charges at that level break the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, which say consumers must not be charged "a disproportionately high sum".

The courts did not agree that it was a "a disproportionately high sum". I personally think it is a "disproportionately high sum" but Im not the judge in charge. I sympathize with those who have been ripped off by banks.

Now furthermore the tricky part is that people like bytejunkie, who it seems dislike these charges more than most, are claiming that they are "illegal" without really realizing what illegal means. I think he (and others) are confusing illegal with "I dont think its right" and are getting annoyed when I point out that these charges, however annoying, are legal.

I dont think its right that Barnsley is allowed to exist, but it is certainly legal.
I dont think its right that people should be allowed to walk a dog when I go running, but its legal.
And since no one has yet mounted a legal challenge against Hip Hop, its still legal.

shofty · **Reply #49 on:** November 30, 2009, 09:18:22 AM

Re:bank charges nightmare ?

Reply #49 on: November 30, 2009, 09:18:22 AM

your spiel is all well and good sam, but people have taken banks to court, in the small claims court and won. there have only been a couple of people taken it that far, the banks usually back down, since they know they are going to struggle to justify the charges.

zpyder · **Reply #50 on:** November 30, 2009, 10:29:40 AM

Re:bank charges nightmare ?

Reply #50 on: November 30, 2009, 10:29:40 AM

I was under the impression the banks backed down usually as they didnt want to risk it, with the few small claims cases to test the waters.

However now that the court ruling has stated that the charges arent illegal, I would have thought that any further small claims would be quashed at the onset, citing the cases findings. Yes appeals can still be made, but unless circumstances are very much different from the case law, the judges in question are more likely to rule in favour of the banks now.

Sam · **Reply #51 on:** November 30, 2009, 21:17:22 PM

Re:bank charges nightmare ?

Reply #51 on: November 30, 2009, 21:17:22 PM

Quote from: bytejunkie

your spiel is all well and good sam, but people have taken banks to court, in the small claims court and won. there have only been a couple of people taken it that far, the banks usually back down, since they know they are going to struggle to justify the charges.

Banks, and other companies, often back down because its easier to give the chavs 30 quid back than spend time fighting it.
That said, I notice you didnt respond to my post showing how your comments are nonsense. But youre a big man, you accept youre wrong, and I accept your apology.

shofty · **Reply #52 on:** December 01, 2009, 09:27:35 AM

Re:bank charges nightmare ?

Reply #52 on: December 01, 2009, 09:27:35 AM

Quote from: Sam

Quote from: bytejunkie
your spiel is all well and good sam, but people have taken banks to court, in the small claims court and won. there have only been a couple of people taken it that far, the banks usually back down, since they know they are going to struggle to justify the charges.

Banks, and other companies, often back down because its easier to give the chavs 30 quid back than spend time fighting it.
That said, I notice you didnt respond to my post showing how your comments are nonsense. But youre a big man, you accept youre wrong, and I accept your apology.

theyre backing down because they know they are wrong. terms and condition are not allowed to overwrite law mate, however much your google sponsired internet law course tells you.

zpyder · **Reply #53 on:** December 01, 2009, 09:42:54 AM

Re:bank charges nightmare ?

Reply #53 on: December 01, 2009, 09:42:54 AM

Quote from: bytejunkie

Quote from: Sam
Quote from: bytejunkie
your spiel is all well and good sam, but people have taken banks to court, in the small claims court and won. there have only been a couple of people taken it that far, the banks usually back down, since they know they are going to struggle to justify the charges.

Banks, and other companies, often back down because its easier to give the chavs 30 quid back than spend time fighting it.
That said, I notice you didnt respond to my post showing how your comments are nonsense. But youre a big man, you accept youre wrong, and I accept your apology.

theyre backing down because they know they are wrong. terms and condition are not allowed to overwrite law mate, however much your google sponsired internet law course tells you.

Is this the bit where we start critiscising each others credentials on being able to discuss the topic?

I did 3 years of environmental law. Yeah its environmental and not financial law, but the same basics apply, and Id have liked to think I understood them to a degree. I even sat in on a high-profile court of appeal (2nd highest court (To the supreme court) in the UK) case in London (http://www.royal-navy.org/lib/index.php?title=Court_victory_over_WWII_war_grave (most boring thing ever))

Note that because the MOD lost the case about designating non-military ships lost at sea due to military actions during WWII, it opened up the case law for similar wrecks to get designated. The case has set a precedent for future cases, just as the bank charges case has (unless it is appealed and the banks lose this time - unlikely).

The banks WERE backing down because they didnt know how the courts would decide (yes, maybe they did think they might actually be wrong), so effectively they were minimising the risk of having to pay back the fees if they lost. But now they have won the case, they no longer need to, though if the verdict is appealled, and the banks think they might not win, they might put the fees on hold again. Im guessing though its pretty certain with the economy that the court will rule in favour of the banks...

Eagle · **Reply #54 on:** December 02, 2009, 00:05:38 AM

Re:bank charges nightmare ?

Reply #54 on: December 02, 2009, 00:05:38 AM

Quote from: bytejunkie

"terms and condition are not allowed to overwrite law mate, however much your google sponsired internet law course tells you.

Terms & Conditions, my learned friend, are, most of the time, upheld in law unless the T&Cs break the law.

The banks could stipulate that every time you go overdrawn, theyll charge you £500 Billion. Its not not right, its not fair - but YOU AGREED TO IT WHEN YOU SIGNED! Its contract law and its tough titty.

:mutley:

shofty · **Reply #55 on:** December 02, 2009, 09:56:49 AM

Re:bank charges nightmare ?

Reply #55 on: December 02, 2009, 09:56:49 AM

Quote from: Eagle

Quote from: bytejunkie
"terms and condition are not allowed to overwrite law mate, however much your google sponsired internet law course tells you.

Terms & Conditions, my learned friend, are, most of the time, upheld in law unless the T&Cs break the law.

The banks could stipulate that every time you go overdrawn, theyll charge you £500 Billion. Its not not right, its not fair - but YOU AGREED TO IT WHEN YOU SIGNED! Its contract law and its tough titty.

:mutley:

so you agree then.

Sam · **Reply #56 on:** December 02, 2009, 13:51:02 PM

Re:bank charges nightmare ?

Reply #56 on: December 02, 2009, 13:51:02 PM

Quote from: bytejunkie

theyre backing down because they know they are wrong. terms and condition are not allowed to overwrite law mate, however much your google sponsired internet law course tells you.

Exactly, and when it went to court the judges said, "yes sir, these t&cs seem to be in good shape, carry on!"
Except you dont seem to accept the rulings of the court. You have your own ideas and stubbornly refuse to admit youre wrong.

Sam · **Reply #57 on:** December 02, 2009, 13:51:22 PM

Re:bank charges nightmare ?

Reply #57 on: December 02, 2009, 13:51:22 PM

Quote from: bytejunkie

Quote from: Eagle
Quote from: bytejunkie
"terms and condition are not allowed to overwrite law mate, however much your google sponsired internet law course tells you.

Terms & Conditions, my learned friend, are, most of the time, upheld in law unless the T&Cs break the law.

The banks could stipulate that every time you go overdrawn, theyll charge you £500 Billion. Its not not right, its not fair - but YOU AGREED TO IT WHEN YOU SIGNED! Its contract law and its tough titty.

:mutley:

so you agree then.

No, hes calling you out to be an idiot.

News:

Author Topic: bank charges nightmare ? (Read 5793 times)