any body heard the news today about bank charges ? , i for one have a claim in for unfair high charges for being charged at least £35 a time for being overdrawn by less than £2 . one time a direct debit went out a week early and they charged me £96 , this was at a time when i had just come out of hospital and on the sick . i was on £120 a fortnight and was left nearly nothing for food let alone bills
yeah it is crap, i was due a decent amount from when I was in college and skint all the time and getting £45+ charges all the time, but it looks like Im not going to get anything out of it. Oh well.
Did they decide on it yet? In the banks favour?
Yep in the banks favour, no suprise there really.
I wonder if the economy has been in a better state whether it might have been any different. I mean theres no way the banks would have been able to handle paying back all that money they made from their customers without pretty much digging themselves into another hole ><
apparently paying back all the charges would have wiped out HBOS.... again....
so now the courts are as bent as the mps ?
It would have almost certainly been the end of free banking services. Without these charges banks would probably have started charging fees for accounts like most do for premium accounts.
Im missing out on a bit but id rather than than have to pay for my banking.
forgot to say above but....
if the bank messed up and you ended up paying fees you shouldnt have then fair enough you deserve your money back...
other than that, if you go overdrawn etc.. then you know youre going to get raped by bank charges etc... and cant really expect to get the money back - tho I don;t blame anyone for trying !
but being charged 96 quid for being overdrawn by less than £2 , let alone not my fault cause the direct debit went out a week early . why is this country getting so greedy ?
^^^ totally not your fault if the DD went out early ! should have had a refund there
what I meant is, however much of a rip off it is, if its your own fault then you ca;t blame the banks ?
I thought the whole deal was about it being an usury or something, where the banks fees were unjustifiably high?
The ruling today said, literally, that bank charges do not have to be fair.
Aye, I guess at the end of the day its like all services. When you start an account etc you agree to their TOS and so you dont have a leg to stand on.
Quote from: GoblinThe ruling today said, literally, that bank charges do not have to be fair.
how much did the banks pay the sup court judges ? , it makes you wonder (house of lords)
Of course the charges are ridiculous, but they are lawful.
If I agree to lend you $100 for a week and you agree that if you dont pay me back within that week I can charge you $500 fee plus a packet of M&Ms, then however ridiculous that charge is, you agreed to it.
had a claim in using a third party for 3 years lol , nothing will come of this me thinks so good job with the no win no fee bit lol
In this or any economic climit they could not risk the possibility of banks being forced to charge the public for services.
Appart from whatever laws or economies that would be affected consider the following...
Banks charge the public...
The Public (Already pissed at the banks) would stop using them...
...People would withdraw their money, or at least stop depositing salarys.
I for one would insist on my employer paying me in cash or cheque. Then cashing the cheque.
People would return to paying for things in hard currency to avoid on bank charges (why use a credit/debit card that charges 0.05
% per transactio - for example?, or charges a monthly admit fee for just holding your money)
Banks would crash becuase cash-flow would dry up.
The only real income banks have is the difference between the interest they earn investing public money minus the interest paid to public savings. Public stop saving, banks stop earning, so the banks loose. They will never charge the general public for using current accounts, but credit services are a different matter....as the state has just shown.
:disappointed:
Quote from: GoblinThe ruling today said, literally, that bank charges do not have to be fair.
i didnt read that bit. please link me. cos if it did, its a green light to reclaim.
what was actually said today was that the OFT dont have the right to challenge the legality of the charges.
first paragraph.
http://www.moneysupermarket.com/c/news/what-now-for-bank-charges/0007544/?Source=CUR6&crmuserid=K5OJQ1|ZZ65Bi actually think that this means the stay that has been in place for 2.5 years is now over and is business as usual. i.e. those who were claiming need to progress with those claims sharpish. push the banks to see if they will give out a goodwill payment. threaten the ombudsman and watchdog etc.
Basically bank charges are stupidly high and a bit of a twat (I got stung £39 for going 17p overdrawn). It going to be a case, or already is, that people are going to open new accounts/move banks not based on interest rates or customer services but based on the penalty charges.
Its only a matter of time when banks start doing adverts based on it "We only charge £30 when you make a mistake!!!!!!!!" woo!
when I opened my HSBC account nearly 10 years ago one of the things they sold themselves to me with was
"yes we have charges for unauthorised overdraughts and such, yes they are high, but we wont actually use them unless you take the mick"
So far theyve always stayed true to that, Ive only ever gone into unauthorised OD 3 or 4 times, all by accident, all by small amounts in the low £s and theyve never charged me a penny.
Their credit interest is rubbish, but they didnt need bailing out (unlike almost everyone else) and their customer service has always been really good to me.
I thought HSBC was bailed out on the quiet weeks before the sh*t really hit the fan.... when they thought it was better to keep it quiet and it would all blow over ?
Quote from: Mongoosewhen I opened my HSBC account nearly 10 years ago one of the things they sold themselves to me with was
"yes we have charges for unauthorised overdraughts and such, yes they are high, but we wont actually use them unless you take the mick"
So far theyve always stayed true to that, Ive only ever gone into unauthorised OD 3 or 4 times, all by accident, all by small amounts in the low £s and theyve never charged me a penny.
Their credit interest is rubbish, but they didnt need bailing out (unlike almost everyone else) and their customer service has always been really good to me.
Had the same experience with them. Once I went overdrawn by £700 when I was younger as I miscalculated my pay day. HSBC allowed the payments through to the online shops and the products arrived the next day but the payments themselves were held for the best part of a week and came out of my account once Id been paid.
Always had excellent customer service from them.
Quote from: knightyI thought HSBC was bailed out on the quiet weeks before the sh*t really hit the fan.... when they thought it was better to keep it quiet and it would all blow over ?
maybe so, I dont know, but the rest of my post remains valid.
Im just saying, if you dont like the policy your bank has, perhaps you should consider switching to someone with a better one.
Quote from: Mongooseif you dont like the policy your bank has, perhaps you should consider switching to someone with a better one.
not all banks accept disabled people on the sick (dss) , not enough money in it for them
I got let of a £35 fine from HBOS a few months back when a DD went out and put me £1 over, though I was warned that I would not be let off again.
I think like a lot of people its not so much that they are charging you a fee if you go overdrawn, but the fact that in most cases it's so hugely disproportionate.
I remember giving HSBC 29 days notice that I would not be able to pay a DD, the lady said there is nothing that could be done, and I should wait for the recovery team to contact me.
A £60 charge later, and multiple complaints, I gave up.
at the end of the day in the uk the rich get richer and the poor get poorer
edit : interesting read below
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/announcement.php?f=105&a=169
Quote from: SamOf course the charges are ridiculous, but they are lawful.
maybe in your opinion. but lots and lots of proper lawyers (no offence) wouldnt be challenging this if they were legal. the banks themselves wouldnt have paid out already if they could justify those charges.
Matt
bah.... lawyers will fight anything..... most of them get paid either way...
the banks were just giving in because they didnt want it going to court.... if they lost in court, it would set a precedent and they would pretty much have to give everyone back there bank charges... it was cheaper for them to pay off the small percentage of people who were claiming than it was to fight it, and risk loosing and having to pay everyone back...
then as more and more people put claims in... it was cheaper for them to fight it and save giving the money out.... and of curse... there chances of winning increased massively because of the current economic situation :o
Quote from: bytejunkieQuote from: SamOf course the charges are ridiculous, but they are lawful.
maybe in your opinion. but lots and lots of proper lawyers (no offence) wouldnt be challenging this if they were legal. the banks themselves wouldnt have paid out already if they could justify those charges.
Matt
No not in my opinion, in the opinion of the highest court of the land. Hence the ruling we are discussing.
Quote from: bytejunkie...but lots and lots of proper lawyers (no offence) wouldnt be challenging this if they were legal. Matt
Eh? Laws are challenged all the time. Thats how it works. If laws werent challenged, women would still not have the vote, for example...
.
Quote from: SamQuote from: bytejunkieQuote from: SamOf course the charges are ridiculous, but they are lawful.
maybe in your opinion. but lots and lots of proper lawyers (no offence) wouldnt be challenging this if they were legal. the banks themselves wouldnt have paid out already if they could justify those charges.
Matt
No not in my opinion, in the opinion of the highest court of the land. Hence the ruling we are discussing.
and again, you prove you havent even read anything about it.
the court chucked it out because they deemed to OFT to be challenging the legality under the wrong clause of the law.
nothing to do with the legalityof the charges.
sam, if you want some links to read up on this issue, pm me.
Since the court chucked it out, the charges are legal.
If they were not legal, you would have no problem sueing them to get your money back.
I think you are confusing legal and what you consider to be ethical.
good ruling for me tbh.. as Id rather stick with my no-frills free banking - Id rather not have to pay to cash cheques, draw money from an ATM, make a debit card transaction or have paper statements or pay a monthly fee - if the banks werent able to make these charges then theyd have to find other ways to collect revenue as current accounts tend to be break even at best for highstreet banks.
Theyre not that bad either - almost all banks will refund you for the first time it happens - most will refund you all or 50% the second time too if you complain - this is pretty much applicable each 6months to a year so if you only go over-overdrawn every so often then chances are youll not have to pay the fees anyway. If people are living into thier overdraft then thats just silly on thier part - the odd mistake will get a refund anyway but to repeatedly breach the limit is the fault of the individual.
With the credit crunch weve all seen in the last couple of years what happens when banks allow chavs to borrow more than they can afford in order to buy houses so its probably a good thing that the banks can and do crack down on unauthorised overdrafts.
Meh, I was looking at getting a lot of money back from this (based on a point in my life when I didnt realise what money actually meant). My own fault yes, but difficult to say no at the time.
One of my few mates is moving into banking, and whilst he is 6 years my junior, his bonus every three months is more than I earn in 4 years.
Go figure.
Quote from: Davealmost all banks will refund you for the first time it happens - most will refund you all or 50% the second time too if you complain - this is pretty much applicable each 6months to a year so if you only go over-overdrawn every so often then chances are youll not have to pay the fees anyway. If people are living into thier overdraft then thats just silly on thier part - the odd mistake will get a refund anyway but to repeatedly breach the limit is the fault of the
you have never tried the yourkshire bank ? , no matter if it is their fault they still charge you . and not matter how much of a fuss you kick up they still as good as say f*** off its our money now
Id never even heard of Yorkshire bank until you just mentioned them - tbh.. it does seem silly and frankly bad business practice for them to not refund a fee for the first offense so to speak but if it was actually their fault somehow then just take your complaint further.
Firstly are you sure its their fault? If so then you could consider making a complaint to the financial ombudsman service, it will cost the bank about £300 quid just to represent themselves(in terms of man hours used in dealing with it etc..) so youre likely to get reimbursed simply by asking to speak to a manager, putting forward your complaint and mentioning that if its not dealt with youll be looking to go to the FOS.
have spoken to the manager more than a dozen times and no joy , so i have taken it further and may end up going to court over it . what gets me is when they charge you for no reason and that makes you overdrawn , then they send you a nasty letter telling you your overdrawn a week later . but by this time your over a £100 over your limit cause of the daily charges on top
I doubt they charge you for no reason. I would bet they dont have computer program running randomly debiting accounts.
they did and in the end they said it was a computer error or something but i still had to pay the charges as i should not let my account go overdrawn , how on earth can they charge me for a comp error ?
you might want to expand on that tbh...
what exactly was the error on the part of the bank?
If it really was their fault then phone up, ask to speak to a manager, tell them your complaint is still unresolved and if it isnt resolved by him youll be going to the financial ombudsman service. Then report back on their reaction in this thread - if it was an error made by them then youre very likely to simply get a refund then and there in fact even if its a bit debatable whether its their fault you probably will still get a refund doing that.
Dave is exactly right.
Quote from: Daveyou might want to expand on that tbh...
what exactly was the error on the part of the bank?
If it really was their fault then phone up, ask to speak to a manager, tell them your complaint is still unresolved and if it isnt resolved by him youll be going to the financial ombudsman service. Then report back on their reaction in this thread - if it was an error made by them then youre very likely to simply get a refund then and there in fact even if its a bit debatable whether its their fault you probably will still get a refund doing that.
i was not told the exact error , i nearly hit the manager as he spoke rudely to me saying i did not know what i was talking about and he did cause he is the bank manager . this is why i went through bankingrefunds
There is always an ombudsman you can go to and this should always be the first port of call when you are aggrevied with the response of a complaint.
Quote from: SamSince the court chucked it out, the charges are legal.
negative. you are wrong.
[/quote]
Quote from: SamIf 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: SamI 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.
Quote from: bytejunkieQuote from: SamSince 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?
Quote from: bytejunkiei 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.
Quote from: zpyderQuote from: bytejunkieQuote from: SamSince 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: bytejunkieyour 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.
Quote from: SamQuote from: bytejunkieyour 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.
Quote from: bytejunkieQuote from: SamQuote from: bytejunkieyour 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...
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:
Quote from: EagleQuote 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.
Quote from: bytejunkietheyre 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.
Quote from: bytejunkieQuote from: EagleQuote 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.