Bank Charges

[madstock]

This is how so many people's finances spiral out of control the robbing bastards. Like someone has already said a one off monthly charge should be the penalty for going over your overdraft.

 

I agree with that, and with the earlier statement that was similar.

[Fugitive]

I know of one lad who went into hospital with an illness and was there for three months. He only got half pay while he was off work and understandably struggled to cope financially. He ended up with £450+ of bank charges and the bank basically told him tough shit. They really are horrible twats with not an ounce of compassion.

[Spy Bee]

What if you absolutely, positively have to buy every mother fucking battenburg in the shop?

[elvis]

Elizabeth! You know me better than anyone, and that ... hurt.

 

As a society we have the moral duty to look after those that are in need through no "fault" of their own. If someone has to choose between buying food and buying shoes for the kids, then the so-called welfare state should be intervening, not the banks. (Unless the parent involved is intellectually sub-normal, in which case I would advocate some sort of workhouse/correctional facility/gas chamber).

 

I am referring specifically to the bank customer that overspends out of want and greed as opposed to need.

 

Sure, the banks have extended credit to people that they really shouldn't have; they aren't blameless by any stretch of the imagination (and I do generally lump them with undertakers as my least favourite profession as they are always willing to jump onto misfortune), but my ethos is simple : if you can't afford it, and it isn't a necessity, then don't buy it.

 

I wish the school curriculum could be extended to incorporate essential life-skills such as "thinking for yourself", "financial planning" and "personal responsibility".

 

Karl Marx said "A Modern society is one which has capitalism as it's base"; he wasn't far wrong there. Not that I am moaning, as capitalism has served me well, although you know the moral problems I have at times with sites offering loans, credit cards etc.

 

Also, whilst on the subject, organizations such as Provident/Shop-a-check etc. should be banned, with some sort of government-ran "crisis loan" centre offering a fair deal for the worst off.

 

Fucking Tory indeed.

 

 

 

That's what I meant.

 

Regardless of what you say , they are run by heartless , ruthless cunts who would make Thatcher proud .

[madstock]

What if you absolutely, positively have to buy every mother fucking battenburg in the shop?

 

That's an entirely different proposition, and will be known as the Marzipan Exception. Would also apply to Simnel cake, too.

[Liam]

I work in a banks head office dealing with bank charge complaints. This is how the bank that I work for deals with bank charge complaints...

 

If you write/phone/email in trying to claim back bank charges then they are dealt with in one of two ways. If you are claiming any charges which are 6 months old to 6 years old then the complaint is put on hold until the test case is finished (including the appeals process).

 

If you complain about bank charges which are under 6 months old they are dealt with immediately and decisioned. Be warned though, if you stick legal terms in you complaint or state they are "illegal" then your complaint goes away in a cabinet until the court case is over! The on hold cases will take years to get through as there are so many of them!

 

Working for such a bad bank, I have read some brilliant complaints! The best one involved a bank manager taking a liking to a customer...

[Liam]

I know of one lad who went into hospital with an illness and was there for three months. He only got half pay while he was off work and understandably struggled to cope financially. He ended up with £450+ of bank charges and the bank basically told him tough shit. They really are horrible twats with not an ounce of compassion.

 

The bank I work for isnt great, but if a customer is in hospital for a any great length of time then they are refunded bank charges as a goodwill gesture. A lot of customers try it on though, so proving it is obviously vital.

[sir roger]

I'll also raise my head over the parapet. I'm a business manager with RBS . Despite banks being the nation's whipping boys , I don't think the service is too bad.

 

Basically personal customers can get an account opened , statements , cheque books , standing orders , servicecards & various other services for fuck all money. Name me another business who do anything like that for nowt. The only thing that is required of customers is that they don't take more money than they have in their account or than they have agreed by way of overdraft.

 

Don't get me wrong , I have a lot of sympathy with customers who make a miscalculation of a couple of quid & get stung ( luckily I have a fair bit of leeway with my portfolio and can refund these fairly sharpish but i know this is not always the case ), but I can honestly say that a lot of customers take the piss & then play the 'bastard bank' card.

 

To clarify comments before , RBS/Natwest charge £35 for a returned item or £30 for paying an item which takes the account beyond its limit. No item of less than £35 should now be bounced.

[gazelle]

I work in a banks head office dealing with bank charge complaints. This is how the bank that I work for deals with bank charge complaints...

 

If you write/phone/email in trying to claim back bank charges then they are dealt with in one of two ways. If you are claiming any charges which are 6 months old to 6 years old then the complaint is put on hold until the test case is finished (including the appeals process).

 

If you complain about bank charges which are under 6 months old they are dealt with immediately and decisioned. Be warned though, if you stick legal terms in you complaint or state they are "illegal" then your complaint goes away in a cabinet until the court case is over! The on hold cases will take years to get through as there are so many of them!

 

Working for such a bad bank, I have read some brilliant complaints! The best one involved a bank manager taking a liking to a customer...

 

 

Well this is just fucking great. I made such a school boy error not accepting the initial offer. Twat.

[Cath]

I'll also raise my head over the parapet. I'm a business manager with RBS . Despite banks being the nation's whipping boys , I don't think the service is too bad.

 

Basically personal customers can get an account opened , statements , cheque books , standing orders , servicecards & various other services for fuck all money. Name me another business who do anything like that for nowt. The only thing that is required of customers is that they don't take more money than they have in their account or than they have agreed by way of overdraft.

 

Don't get me wrong , I have a lot of sympathy with customers who make a miscalculation of a couple of quid & get stung ( luckily I have a fair bit of leeway with my portfolio and can refund these fairly sharpish but i know this is not always the case ), but I can honestly say that a lot of customers take the piss & then play the 'bastard bank' card.

 

To clarify comments before , RBS/Natwest charge £35 for a returned item or £30 for paying an item which takes the account beyond its limit. No item of less than £35 should now be bounced.

Business banking is where the serious money's made though. I have a current account at the same bank as my business account. If I have a problem with my personal account I phone my business banking manager. It's always sorted promptly. In my experience business customers are treated very much better than personal customers.

[sir roger]

Business banking is where the serious money's made though. I have a current account at the same bank as my business account. If I have a problem with my personal account I phone my business banking manager. It's always sorted promptly. In my experience business customers are treated very much better than personal customers.

 

Spot on Cath , but to be fair they/you do pay for the privilege through their transmission charges.

[The Chief]

It's good when they charge £35 for a direct debit attempt of £12 that they don't actually pay due to you not having the money in your account. At one time they would reject the DD and take the £35 charge out on the spot. I think now they have to wait a few weeks before taking the £35 out. And you might also get charged by whoever it is that the £12 DD is supposed to go to. And sometimes they'll send a letter saying they've charged you for your failed DD, but not to worry, they'll automatically try again in 3 days. They send that second class, so by the time it comes the DD's already failed again, so more charges.

 

Comparing that to Waitrose is like going to the till with your £12 worth of shopping only to realise you've not got your wallet and what you had in your back pocket was a tenner not a twenty. So you find yourself charged £35 for shopping you actually couldn't have, and on the way out you get charged another £35 for shopping you couldn't have as they try just in case to see if you've got that £12 yet.

 

Or something

 

Eloquently put young Jim. I've been twatted by the bank for £38 simply because my pay went in a day later than the DD was turned down. I was ONE fucking pound short, cunts. I understand that banks have to charge, but to refuse to pay a DD and then take £38 AND put me over my balance and then charge me for that is fucking legalised extortion.

[TwelveMonkeys]

You want more money than you earn, you pay the fucking price. Live within your means and enjoy free banking - in fact the bank will gladly pay you for the business of managing your savings.

 

More bleeding heart bollocks "..I spent money I didn't have...and the fuckin robbin bastards charged me!!". The charge is there to make the bank money, but also to act as a deterrent to prevent thick nobheads from overspending.

 

Not all banks are wankers with their charges. If your bank will not refund a charge incurred because you salary went in a day later than it has for the last year then move fucking banks. However, if the charge incurred is one of many over the last year then tough shit - sort your fucking finances out.

 

Amongst other things, I have been responsible for the strategy of automated bank charging and refunds for a bank- put simply - if it's your first offence it may be refunded - if not fuck off.

[LEF]

The ruling has now been made and the banks have lost the test case. They still have appeal rights which i think run till end of May.

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Banks lose overdraft charges case

[Spy Bee]

22nd I think.

[Spy Bee]

24 April 08. An urgent update on the Bank Charges situation from MoneySavingExpert.com

 

Today (Thurs) a High Court judge confirmed what bank charges campaigners have been arguing for two years, that consumer contract regulations do apply to bank charges meaning that 'fairness' counts. The next step is for the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) to assess whether they are actually unfair but as it's the one who took the banks to court, that seems likely. Then it'll try to reach agreement with the banks, and if not, go back to court.

 

To use a football analogy, before we were kicking the ball around the middle of the pitch, now we're at the penalty spot...though the judgement's massive and the nitty gritty may throw more up.

 

What happens next?

 

On 22 May 2008, there will be a case management meeting; at which point it's possible the banks will put in an appeal. Until then, all cases remain on hold. As explained above, my hope is, not long after that, the regulator will lift the hold on reclaiming that was apparently put in place to 'protect consumers' from inconsistencies.

 

Yet now the law is clear and binding - bank charges are required to be 'fair' - so hopefully it will soon allow people who think they're legally unfair to reclaim again, after all, the banks are still charging these charges!

 

If it's on hold, why put in a reclaim now?

 

Simple, the statute of limitations says you can only claim back six years' worth of charges in England, five in Scotland. The longer you leave it, the less far back your reclaim goes... as many people have had lots of charges stretching back over years, this means if you don't put a claim in sooner, you're less likely to get the old ones back.

 

Plus hopefully when the FSA ends the waiver on reclaiming, it means you'll be ahead in the queue, and should be dealt with more quickly.

 

What if my case is already on hold?

 

We’re still waiting for the FSA to end the waiver; as explained above, my hope is that this should happen in the next couple of months. Until then, sadly, you’ll just have to keep twiddling your thumbs. As always, all news will be included in the weekly email.

 

What I'd like to know, is how do you know that yours is on hold. Do you receive a holding letter, because I never did. I just presumed that it was on hold.

[CWD82]

What I'd like to know, is how do you know that yours is on hold. Do you receive a holding letter, because I never did. I just presumed that it was on hold.

 

The bank I work for has a reply policy.

 

It's just a generic letter saying thanks for your communication because of the test case it's on hold blah blah we'll update you as soon as their is any news

 

I would contact them if I was you just to make sure they've received your correspondence

[gazelle]

Any update on this - obviously i know they lost but what is the likeliness of me getting any cash this decade?

[LEF]

All this info taken from moneysaving expert. It should tell you what all you need to know about where the case stands and gives an insigt into future timescales.

 

Q. What was the decision of the hearing?

 

A. The High Court judge, Mr Justice Andrew Smith, confirmed what bank charges campaigners have been arguing for two years, that consumer contract regulations, known as ‘Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations’ do apply to bank charges, meaning 'fairness' counts.

 

While it's not the end of the line, it's a massive step and paves the way for the OFT to decide whether it thinks banks' charges are unfair.

 

In the second part of the judgment, to decide if charges are fines disguised as a service, and therefore are penalties, the judge decided in favour of the banks. While, for reclaimers, it would’ve been great if this was decided in their favour too, this was always a two pronged attack, with unfair contractual terms being of primary importance.

 

The judge also decided that the banks current terms and conditions were in, or largely in, plain intelligible language. Again, this could have been an additional plus if he’d decided they were not clear, yet it’s equally not too much of a loss that he didn’t.

 

Q. Where can I see the judgement?

 

A. The full 450 paragraph judgement is on the Judiciary.gov website. The following is the conclusion:

 

449. As for the position at common law, I accept the banks’ submission that none of the terms which I have considered (the terms now generally used by the banks for personal current accounts other than basic accounts and also certain of the terms used until recently by Clydesdale and RBSG) could be unenforceable on the grounds that they are penal (paragraph 323 above).

 

450. With regard to the 1999 Regulations, I conclude that, of the terms now generally used by the banks for personal current accounts (other than basic accounts), those of HSBC, Lloyds TSB, Nationwide and RBSG are in plain intelligible language, and those of Abbey, Barclays, Clydesdale and HBOS are largely in plain intelligible language but not so in certain specific and relatively minor respects (paragraph 293 above). However, I reject the banks’ contention that the Relevant Terms are exempt from assessment as to fairness under Regulation 6(2) of the 1999 Regulations (paragraph 421 above). This does not mean that the Relevant Terms are necessarily to be regarded as unfair under Regulation 5(1) or that they are not binding upon consumers under Regulation 8(1): those are not questions for me to decide in this judgment. For the reasons that I have explained, I decline to make any declaration as to the meaning and effect of the requirement of good faith in Regulation 5(1) of the 1999 Regulations (paragraph 448 above).

 

Q. What will the OFT do now?

 

A. The next step is for the banks and the OFT to review the whole judgment and for the OFT to assess whether it thinks bank charges are actually unfair, but as it's the one who took the banks to court, that seems likely.

 

If it does believe the charges are unfair, it will then try and seek an agreement with the banks. If that doesn’t work, it needs to go back to court to prove the charges are unfair.

 

Q. Can the banks appeal the court’s decision?

 

A. Yes. All parties will get together at a special ‘case management’ meeting on the 22 May, to say what they intend to do; appeal, pursue or come to an agreement. If the banks do appeal, this would hugely delay the whole case, as this just the first stage. Many have called on the banks to accept the judgment for the sake of clarity.

 

The banks have already said they believe their charges are fair and they would win if the case is taken further. Yet to assess fairness. the banks will need to supply their internal costs, something that, until now they’ve refused to do as they don’t want their confidential commercial undertakings being made available to all.

 

Q. What’s the next key date?

 

A. After the meeting on the 22 May, we will know more, and an exact timetable should be put in place. Full details on the result, and what to do will be in the weekly email.

 

Q. What will happen to the hold on reclaiming?

 

A. When the test case was announced, the regulator, the FSA, also put a hold on all reclaiming. This meant neither banks nor the Ombudsman had to deal with claims. It also requested that the courts put all cases on hold.

 

The FSA has said it will not be changing the waiver until the test case is resolved, although it is constantly monitoring the situation, so all cases will remain on hold for the moment.

 

My view is that pressure must be put for the hold to be lifted on the 22 May. The FSA argued that the hold was put in place to 'protect consumers' from inconsistencies. Something most campaigners rejected.

 

Now that the law is clear and binding, hopefully pressure will be put to allow people to try to reclaim again. After all, the banks are still charging these charges.Q. If it's still on hold, why put in a reclaim now?

 

A. It’s important to get a marker in as soon as possible, and there are three distinct reasons for this…

 

i. Get in the queue

 

It’s estimated there are already over 750,000 with cases on hold, so when the floodgates do open, the further ahead you are in the queue, the sooner your claim will be processed.

 

ii. Things change

 

The law is a strange thing. At the moment there is a precedent binding on lower courts that ‘bank charges are covered by unfair contractual terms rules’. That is not under any doubt. Yet it is possible the banks could put in an appeal, and while its unlikely, there is always a chance the Court of Appeal could overturn this (and subsequently the House of Lords and even European Court could then overturn that).

 

Yet the fact appeals could change the law doesn’t impact what the law is right now. So hopefully, the hold will be lifted soon, and people may be able to try to reclaim again. Therefore, simply because there’s a tiny chance things may change, and the decision is currently in reclaimers favour…. get your claim in now.

 

iii. Claim back as far as possible

 

The statute of limitations says you can only make a court claim for six years' worth of charges in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, five in Scotland. Therefore, on the surface there’s a worry that if you don’t get your marker in sooner, and you’ve got old charges to reclaim, you will miss the opportunity.

 

Yet the regulator, the FSA, has said it ‘stopped the clock’ on 27 April 2007, when it first put the hold on reclaiming and that this has frozen any ‘time bars’. This doesn’t have any power in the court, but the banks have agreed not to complain about time limits if a case goes to court, and judges in England, Wales or Northern Ireland shouldn’t consider the issue unless the banks request it (it’s slightly different in Scotland as judges there can consider time issues themselves).

 

Yet as this situation has never happened before, we do not know how it will pan out in court. As such, while hopefully things will run smoothly and this won’t be an issue, for belt and braces safety, assume the clock is still ticking.

[gazelle]

Thanks - 22nd May we will know more then...

[gazelle]

I have just heard something on the radio. The FSA are allowed to ignore complaints or something until next year - does anyone know if that is new complaints or all complaints. My claim was at the court stage before everything was frozen - any one got a clue what is going on? I WANT MY MONEY!

[Bubble]

If you've made a complaint on the basis that the charges are illegal (ie rather than saying they've been wrongly applied) I'm afraid you won't get a response until at least January. It applies to complaints already made.

[gazelle]

fuckity fuck fuck. Years this has been going on. Gutted.

[gazelle]

WHERE THE FUCK IS MY MONEY?????

[Bubble]

The banks lost another court case and as far as I know they're now hoping to appeal to the House of Lords. In other words, don't hold your breath.