OFT test case

[Son of Shoestring]

This is another area that needs to be explored to the full IMO. If we could get a list of all the services & best deals that do not require a DD, then we could get a great set of resources together to help people live without the need for a current account. That will kick the banker where it hurts most because regardless of what happens in this test case, there will be a lot less people to fleece anyway..

 

The problem s of course, that the DD system is slowly, but unremittingly, becoming the norm. IMO this system needs to be fought against to the bitter end before it is the only method of payment for essential household bills like utilities, rates etc.

 

I have been steadily fighting BT's charge of £4.50 for non DD payment of the quarterly bill since its inception. Every time they send me a bill they incude a charge of £4.50 plus a "late payment" charge of £7.50 covering the late payment of the unpaid £4.50. Each time I write to them (by recorded delivery) stating that I decline to pay the charge of £4.50 until they can demonstrate to me that this is lawful under contract law and that it represents their true costs of clearing a non DD payment - rather than being a penalty charge for not bowing to their diktat. I also argue that the "late payment" charge is voided by its very description... there is, de facto, no late payment involved as I absolutely refuse to pay the £4.50 on principal. More recently BT have stopped responding to my letters (I charge them £25.00 for each I have to write them) disputing their erroneous quarterly bill. It's a real pain to have to keep writing to them and I have now decided to write a pro-forma catchall letter to use n the future. So far as I am concerned I'm sticking to my guns for the foreseeable future. I expect at some point they will just pull the phone line and at that point I plan to progress the dispute to court.

 

Shoestring

[Gez]

There is petition about this Petition to: Abolish processing fees for non Direct Debit payments. for what its worth..

 

I believe that it is now illegal in Ireland to have only DD as a payment method..

[Son of Shoestring]

There is petition about this Petition to: Abolish processing fees for non Direct Debit payments. for what its worth..

 

I believe that it is now illegal in Ireland to have only DD as a payment method..

 

Thanks for that Gez. Pretty bloody sad that there are only 30 signatories to the petition. I think there should be a more comprehensive awareness campaign to move this forward...

[car2403]

There is petition about this Petition to: Abolish processing fees for non Direct Debit payments. for what its worth..

 

I believe that it is now illegal in Ireland to have only DD as a payment method..

 

This is in relation to making bill payments - nothing to do with bank charges.

 

For instance, BT accept payments by DD but if you pay by another method they charge you a fee - it's these fees this petition is about, not the bank fee/charge.

[Son of Shoestring]

Sadly, I don't think NR owning it will make any difference. They will have their eye on the bottom line - profit.

 

They won't see that by being 'better' or 'fairer' their profits will ultimately be up in any case. It will be investment bankers paying for it, and they will want returns fast. As always.

 

It's a nice romantic idea - but sadly, I don't think it will make a blind bit of difference. Fleecing the less well off is a lucrative business model. That's why they are all fighting it so hard.

 

Speaking from personal experience, the only motivating factor that senior bankers are attuned to is profit. There is no moral or ethical consideration other than, perhaps, getting caught for breaching self imposed "house rules" and, not infrequently, contravening the law of the land... In he latter case a junior head usually is severed in ritual fake apology to satisfy public demand, but the voracious beast continues drooling and feeding unaltered and unrepentant.

 

I actually don't think the mindset is simply to fleece the poor but a recognition that the poor or less well off constitute the majority and the majority are easy targets. They are also not members of the "club" are therefore are fair game.

 

Members of the cub are, naturally treated with a different set of rules.

 

There has always been an elite operating along these lines but today they are becoming more obvious because of the internet.

 

Shoestring

[Gez]

This is in relation to making bill payments - nothing to do with bank charges.

 

For instance, BT accept payments by DD but if you pay by another method they charge you a fee - it's these fees this petition is about, not the bank fee/charge.

Yes I know. Fortunately I understand English so I managed to work that out fairly quickly.

 

I was talking about trying to find services where DD is not required so that people can pay bills without the need of a current account, therefore avoiding completely the risk of bank charges of any kind..

[johnnymitch]

They are also not members of the "club" are therefore are fair game.

 

Members of the cub are, naturally treated with a different set of rules.

 

Haven't you just contradicted your own argument there SOS, . If you're not poor , you're a member of the club........If large businesses were being charged pro rata every time they went into 'unathorised overdraft' - you'd soon hear them squealing.

That's why large business is not actively supportive of this ...they're all members of the club:mad:

[dave]

I think what you have said Shoestring is spot on.

 

The banking industry DOES need a white knight, but I don't think NR is going to be it.

[patrickq1]

The problem s of course, that the DD system is slowly, but unremittingly, becoming the norm. IMO this system needs to be fought against to the bitter end before it is the only method of payment for essential household bills like utilities, rates etc.

 

I have been steadily fighting BT's charge of £4.50 for non DD payment of the quarterly bill since its inception. Every time they send me a bill they incude a charge of £4.50 plus a "late payment" charge of £7.50 covering the late payment of the unpaid £4.50. Each time I write to them (by recorded delivery) stating that I decline to pay the charge of £4.50 until they can demonstrate to me that this is lawful under contract law and that it represents their true costs of clearing a non DD payment - rather than being a penalty charge for not bowing to their diktat. I also argue that the "late payment" charge is voided by its very description... there is, de facto, no late payment involved as I absolutely refuse to pay the £4.50 on principal. More recently BT have stopped responding to my letters (I charge them £25.00 for each I have to write them) disputing their erroneous quarterly bill. It's a real pain to have to keep writing to them and I have now decided to write a pro-forma catchall letter to use n the future. So far as I am concerned I'm sticking to my guns for the foreseeable future. I expect at some point they will just pull the phone line and at that point I plan to progress the dispute to court.

 

Shoestring

hi shoestring you are doing excactly what i started doing in 1993 with nat west (trouble is they have nt made contact since then lol) stick by your guns mate

patrickq1

[djgordyp]

I would be questioning if there could be such a thing as an "unauthorised" overdraft & asking how the transaction could have been paid if it was not authorised. If the bank, or its computer had taken the decision to allow the payment, then they have authorised it. Simple argument.

 

Funnily enough I was thinking the same thing today at work (on one of the rare ocasions I get time to think ). As you say if it has been allowed then it must have been authourised.

[photoman]

Speaking from personal experience, the only motivating factor that senior bankers are attuned to is profit. There is no moral or ethical consideration other than, perhaps, getting caught for breaching self imposed "house rules" and, not infrequently, contravening the law of the land... In he latter case a junior head usually is severed in ritual fake apology to satisfy public demand, but the voracious beast continues drooling and feeding unaltered and unrepentant.

 

I actually don't think the mindset is simply to fleece the poor but a recognition that the poor or less well off constitute the majority and the majority are easy targets. They are also not members of the "club" are therefore are fair game.

 

Members of the cub are, naturally treated with a different set of rules.

 

There has always been an elite operating along these lines but today they are becoming more obvious because of the internet.

 

Shoestring

 

I agree,

and am under no illusion that the overriding motivation for a Bank is Profit, Profit, and more Profit.... either just to feed the voracious shareholders, or to attain a wealth and size that enables them to take over the less profitable in order to prevent themselves being taken over.

 

However, any Bank that realises that a lot of little but legitimate profits from a large number of satisfied customers, is more profitable and more stable than greater individual profits from a much smaller (and more volatile) customer base would be at an advantage.

[car2403]

Yes I know. Fortunately I understand English so I managed to work that out fairly quickly.

 

I was talking about trying to find services where DD is not required so that people can pay bills without the need of a current account, therefore avoiding completely the risk of bank charges of any kind..

 

Yeah, sorry about that - I clicked the "read unread post" link, or whatever it's called, at the top of the thread and it jumped the 2 posts prior to this so I got confused.

 

It's easily done - getting me confused, not clicking the wrong button! (But I wonder which is easier!)

 

[car2403]

Funnily enough I was thinking the same thing today at work (on one of the rare ocasions I get time to think ). As you say if it has been allowed then it must have been authourised.

 

They should use "unagreed".

 

But then, it is "agreed", (as they've paid it) so it can't be "unagreed"!

 

No wonder these QC's are clapping their hands...

[mailmannz]

Wrong. I'm not going to spend much more time answering this, but I will reiterate that I would not be arguing to the judge about who's fault it was, I would be questioning if there could be such a thing as an "unauthorised" overdraft & asking how the transaction could have been paid if it was not authorised. If the bank, or its computer had taken the decision to allow the payment, then they have authorised it. Simple argument.

 

Yes, yes, yes, you can question it as much as you like BUT at the end of the day it will come down to the fact that it was you spending money you dont have.

 

Your arguement really is this, you want a car manufacturer [banks] to stop you from running over pedestrians [drawing on money you dont have in your account] (even though the car is in perfect working order) when the reality is its not the car manufacturers [banks] behind the wheel [account holder].

 

What you are saying is that its the car manufacters fault you ran over a pedestrian even though there was absolutely nothing wrong with your car.

 

Of course you are I are both in agreement that this shouldnt happen anyway, and its also something the banks themselves could fix in a heart beat...but you and I both know there is no money in that for the banks!

 

Mailman

[Goldlady]

Your arguement really is this, you want a car manufacturer [banks] to stop you from running over pedestrians [drawing on money you dont have in your account] (even though the car is in perfect working order) when the reality is its not the car manufacturers [banks] behind the wheel [account holder].

 

Except when the banks make you go overdrawn by imposing unlawful, disproportionate and totally unfair charges which is very often the case:p

[photoman]

Funnily enough I was thinking the same thing today at work (on one of the rare ocasions I get time to think ). As you say if it has been allowed then it must have been authourised.

 

Likewise, I am sure I am not alone in having had an account taken EVEN FURTHER into "unauthorised" borrowing by the charges, than if the original payment (which for the sake of clarity, is frequently NOT a conscious overspend) had been allowed.

AND, also had an "unauthorised" overdraft increased yet further, simply by their own actions

.... which is like saying:

"we're not happy about the size of your borrowing, so rather than stop it, or call for it's reduction..... we have instead decided to increase it.... but only then by just enough to cover the charges we are making upon you to let you know this"

[photoman]

It's like a Monty Python sketch !

[JOSH_IOU]

i'm gonna step outa line but i think this is relevant lol

 

YouTube - Monty Python - Argument Clinic

[smutley]

Why do banks charge a fee on 'insufficient funds' when they know there is not enough?

received this as 'joke of the day' in one of those emails along with

If a deaf person has to go to court, is it still called a hearing?

[Conniff]

mailmannz wrote:

 

it would only be a 30 second fix by the banks to ensure you cant do that (but then again, there is no money in this for the banks is there!).

 

Well there you go, you have just shot your own argument down.

[darling1]

Last year I made a claim on behalf of my son and won

 

He and I were discussing the court proceedings yesterday - when he chirped up that he went into the bank TSB every time he got a letter telling him of his charges (i believe it was almost weekely) and spoke to a man and pointed out that if he was able to use his debit card in Tesco when he had not got enough funds to pay for his goods (only by a few pence) and the payment went through then surely it was authorised by them and it could not be called an anauthorised overdraft.

Each time they agreed and refunded him ...regularly! this was over 1 year ago - he also kept asking why the card allowed him to overdraw when he did not have an overdraft facility and that he wanted that facility (if it existed) stopped .

They told him that they could not stop it from doing this.

One day however they sent the big guns out (he said it was a lady - and they can argue their way out of anything:rolleyes: ) She said they would not refund him this time...he said if you give me a card that does not let me overdraw can you remove the charge - she did and he was given a cash point only card - problem sorted!!

....untill the dreaded mobile phone contract by DD only was started - but thats another story ....and another claim

 

Point being a young student with no experience of handling money and only a very part time income is given the "freedom" to go out and spend - he never asked for the "service" of a debit card - it was given to him and he definately did not have the money to pay the charges as he earned less than the charge!!!

[JOSH_IOU]

Last year I made a claim on behalf of my son and won

 

He and I were discussing the court proceedings yesterday - when he chirped up that he went into the bank TSB every time he got a letter telling him of his charges (i believe it was almost weekely) and spoke to a man and pointed out that if he was able to use his debit card in Tesco when he had not got enough funds to pay for his goods (only by a few pence) and the payment went through then surely it was authorised by them and it could not be called an anauthorised overdraft.

Each time they agreed and refunded him ...regularly! this was over 1 year ago - he also kept asking why the card allowed him to overdraw when he did not have an overdraft facility and that he wanted that facility (if it existed) stopped .

They told him that they could not stop it from doing this.

One day however they sent the big guns out (he said it was a lady - and they can argue their way out of anything:rolleyes: ) She said they would not refund him this time...he said if you give me a card that does not let me overdraw can you remove the charge - she did and he was given a cash point only card - problem sorted!!

....untill the dreaded mobile phone contract by DD only was started - but thats another story ....and another claim

 

Point being a young student with no experience of handling money and only a very part time income is given the "freedom" to go out and spend - he never asked for the "service" of a debit card - it was given to him and he definately did not have the money to pay the charges as he earned less than the charge!!!

 

 

I wish My mother would do that for me.

 

 

Hang on no i dont lol.

[WILKINSS208]

my mam has bailed me out many a time when i was younger, and even when just got married and struggling. now not so bad but she does let me use her visa if i need anything urgently and got no money, ie. new washer etc. i always pay her back though, thats why she does it. we love mums!

any way, getting back to this test case, any news today?

[darling1]

I wish My mother would do that for me.

 

 

Hang on no i dont lol.

 

Think that rather depends on your age!! Doesn't it??

I dont think I want to be doing everything for my kids forever!! LOL:p

 

The point I was making is serious though....the bank was prepared to accept the argument that it couldn't be unauthorised / as they had indeed authorised the transaction via his debit card in Tesco, last year......they could have just told him to go away! They did actually have a "service" that would have been completely free to use - but at opening of the account that was not "offered". Obviously that would not have made them any profit at all... so by giving youngsters the "freedom" to get into trouble and then make charges - and then charges on the charges that they obviously cannot pay - and then eventually offer them loans ....well there is a nice little earner - it seems rather calculated to me

[JOSH_IOU]

All Of 25 Darling still young and all the rest.

 

And the b****y banks are cutting into my social life so U rekon thats worth a few £100 of compensation don't you.

 

I agree whole Hartley with what ya saying.

 

Might try that argument.