Retaliation by banks for being taken to court

[jon]

Note with interest the comments in FAQ about bank retaliation for people taking proceedings against them.

 

Does anyone have any feedback on - or know any stats (though these are early days for these campaigns!) - how often banks have been doing things like saying, 'we're shutting down your account/removing your card' as soon as people say they're requesting a refund (with interest) of historical charges goin' back 6 yrs?

 

I am interested in pursuing claims having been much ill affected by excess bank charges/costs, but it makes me a bit nervous. It's recommended to open another account 'while having a good credit rating' before taking legal action...I'd like to know more about this whether it is a full-proof way of self protection though. Probably it is and I just need to ask to have it confirmed (?). What if you open a new bank account, win your court action against the old bank, who then shut down your account/remove your cards there...surely those actions by the old bank would still affect your credit rating at the new bank, your ability to get credit, loans, mortgages, cards, with them? So you would suffer although you'd won the case? And not being able to get a mortgage, or on a much smaller scale, say a credit limit at the new bank that was to the same level as that at the old bank, would be major suffering...

 

Any experience or knowledge here much welcome!

 

nervous jock

[martinwhite]

I started a thread on this earlier in the week. I would have thought as we approach critical mass, the trend of accounts closed for "commercial reasons" where the acc holder just happens to have had a successful claim, would become obvious even to the OFT.

 

This sort of bullying behaviour will get noticed sooner rather than later.

 

I have mentioned this in my letter to my MP. Talk about taking the ball home with you if you can't win!!!

 

M

 

ps - Bookworm - do you want a copy of the letter to the MP?

[gothicf0rm]

i read an interesting report saying that bank charges and high bank profits (plus their 21% return on capital) is only possible because of a low customer churn of banks. if a third of the population sue the bank and the bank then closes their account thats a massive churn.

also, the bank is forgetting it may well be cutting its nose off to spite it's face. tehy tell us that bank charges make up almost no profits which means in getting rid of customers who get back money that is marginal to the banks they are depriving themselves of income streams for other things from the same customer for what is peanuts to them.

obviously all it takes is one very smart bank, or building society, to come along and say "oh our charges are 2.50 each" and everyone will go to them.

[rivendale0506]

Just a thought..... as some banks retaliate after being sued by closing your account and therefore possibly damaging your credit rating - how feasible would it be to put something in the settlement agreement that the bank agree NOT to close your account as a spiteful retaliation (or in bank speak "for commercial reasons")?

[BankFodder]

When the banks settle there are normally no settlement agreements. they simply pay you your money as a matter of "goodwill" without admission of liability.

 

On the rare ocassion that the banks are cornered yo may be able to force some concessions. The banks will only risk getting cornered if they go into court. This is why they don't normally go that far.

 

If a bank sues you for return of money which includes charges then you can easliy turn the tables - as Disneyman recently managed to do very successfully.

 

The most stupid procedural mistake that a bank can make at the moment is to bring an action for a debt which includes charges. They put themselves in great jeopardy.

 

Contact me if this happens to you.

[Maxie]

If you sue an bank for refusing to pay their unlawful penalty charges and then at the conclusion of proceedings terinate your account thats a breach of contract and I'd report the matter to the banking ombudsman for investigation.

 

Yes, its true that they can terminate anyones account at anytimes giving reasonable notice without having to give a decision as such. However, if it appears to be a 'revenge' for someone exercising there lawful right then the ombudsman could rule in your favour and if he did award some substancial compensation.

 

This is an issues that has bothered me for sometimes, its never happened to anyone I know who have sued for a refund but it in my arsenal just in case.

 

I'm not saying it would certainly work, but I do beleive someone making such a complant would have an arguable case.

[Robertxc]

I think that the bottom line is that they have a contract which says they can close your account within 30 no matter what, and anyone going down the recovery routes suggested in this forum is better off just opening a basic account elsewhere because there is every chance that they will choose not to do business with you any more.. At the end of the day I think that like everyone else the banks should be free to do business - or not - with anyone, subject to the law and the terms of the contract.

 

My wife recently got all her charges back from Halifax, and received a letter about two weeks later saying that if she ever incurred charges again them her account would be closed. A bit silly really, since it's a basic account with no overdraft and about £2000 a month going through it! If they don't want her business, I'm sure there are plenty others who do...

[gothicf0rm]

exactly robert. banks argue that bank charges are a fraction of their business, so why cut your customer off over a fraction of the business they generate.

[Spiceskull]

I don't think that banks are concerned about churn - after all, if everyone was to up sticks, the net effect to the banking industry would be balanced, with a net loss of zero customers (an obscene situation)

 

However, their 'good name' (crikey, that's the third time I have used that phrase) is going to take a battering, especially if it becomes common knowledge that they are acting in spite when someone stands up for their rights. This could cascade to the point that people will take their non-banking business (such as insurance and share dealing) away from the banks. This is what they need to pay heed to.

[Robertxc]

I think it has something to do with them not being able to handle defiance very well. After hundreds of years of domination they are not really able to deal with people using the law to defy them, so they have to do something to get the last word in (I have a four year old son who behaves in a similar way). I think there's also something about making an example of people who think they've got the better of them.

 

I must say that taking the time to stand back and try and look objectively at the way the banks are reacting to all of this is fascinating. I can't help but wonder what a psychologist would make of it if it were a person and not a company!

[Robertxc]

Ahhh, but remember that banks hire lots of blokes with ponytails to look after PR for them, and these guys could make Gary glitter look good. I think it will be very hard to damage their reputations, not least because because most people, when told how evil they are, just nod sagely and point out that they have always behaved that way, and what else do you expect?

[seylectric]

My wife recently got all her charges back from Halifax, and received a letter about two weeks later saying that if she ever incurred charges again them her account would be closed. A bit silly really, since it's a basic account with no overdraft and about £2000 a month going through it! If they don't want her business, I'm sure there are plenty others who do...

 

Surely they must then issue ALL their customers with the same warning? Otherwise it's victimisation!

 

 

As far as churn rate is concerned, it is true that in big businesses that it is accepted that customers will come and go for a variety of reasons, but these companies try to keep it within a certain percentage. A LOT of customers leaving over a short period of time would be more of a worry, but I would assume that, within a small percentage, most of the big banks gain as many customers as they lose.

 

However, the small working class customer is of no real concern - refunding a few of us a few hundred quid is a drop in the ocean to them, and it probably makes good business sense to do so. Although they would obviously be hurt if everybody claimed back their charges, as it stands it is not costing them much anyway (remember they are not actually giving you anything, merely refunding charges they had placed on the account in the first place).

 

To defend it in court would cost them a whole lot more, especially their legal expenses and that combined with the associated potential loss of business through the consequent bad publicity, is probably the real reason why those who had tried to recoup their bank charges have probably had a modicum of reltively hassle-free success to date.

 

So far so good then for all concerned then, but hopefully this site and others like it will help more and more people to make it a better day for us and a change in fortune for the banks and an end to their greed.

[vix2000]

The banks omnipotency has been escalated over the last few decades by this countries large companies. They now demand payment by standing order and all government benefits, allowances and pensions are paid into bank accounts. Penalties are charged for people paying by other methods and some companies give discounts for paying this way. We have all gradually had control of our finances taken out of our hands. It is difficult now to go and pay a bill with cash or by standing order over which you have control, as most local offices have closed, and you are penalised for doing so. In my opinion, if you pay a bill by the due date it shouldn't matter how you pay it. I pay as many of my bills by standing order as possible, as a matter of principle, much to the companies annoyance, as I feel I have a modicum of control over it. Try explaining a standing order to a customer services telephone department. Half of them haven't even heard of a standing order, they keep saying "you mean direct debit?" "No, standing order" about 5 times. Even then they're not convinced. Why is every agency intent on pushing us into this total relyance on banks? I think this is the fundamental reason for so many people being in this situation in the first place. And the banks have very clevery taken full advantage of the situation.

[Spiceskull]

And the banks have very clevery taken full advantage of the situation

Well, we can now give them a lesson demonstrating that perhaps they weren't so clever after all...

[vix2000]

a BIG lesson hopefully!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jon]

This topic was closed on 03/06/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group