The Bank Charges decision - where to now

[BankFodder]

The Consumer Forums - The Bank Charges decision - where to now.

[My Real Name]

That makes for pretty bleak reading, to say the least.

[BankFodder]

Yes it does.

 

I can't say that I'm happy about it.

 

Even the Supreme Court indicated that they weren'y entirely happy. Lady Hales said that the problem was caused by the lack of compeititon on the High Street.

Their Lordships also suggested that the problem was that our verion of UTCCR was not as far-reaching as that in some other EU countries and that maybe this should be a matter for parliament.

 

I think that their Lordships accepted that the charges are unfair. However because they wer held to be the banks' core business, nothing can be done about them on that basis.

 

I have to say that although I followed the Court's reasoning very well and although I can see that their logic is faultless, it was surprising to me that they accepted that the charges formed the core business.

 

That was the issue on which we lost the battle: the banks make so much money out of charges that they now depend upon it.!!!!

 

It was a bit like saying "I am a thief, I have always been a thief, I depend upon thieving so you have to let me carry on doing it.

[My Real Name]

There's no doubt that the supreme court's decision was perverse.

 

At the the same time, that the OFT's case did not do us as many favours, from the outset, that they intended.

 

This goes doubly, considering their limp withdrawal, which has left the consumer hanging out to dry.

 

I would like to see a case go to court from an individual's perspective. And for that case to head to the ECHR - Fairness being a right, after all.

[BankFodder]

It will never happen.

 

I think that we all need to re-align our expectations.

 

I think that bank customers should concentrate on taking control of the behaviour of their bank and showing the banks that they are the customers and that they are capable of insisting on proper standards.

 

I do not think that anyone should use the Ombudsman. People who use the Ombudsman give up their control.

 

The courts is the only way.

 

Anyone who has a judgment which upholds a complaint of unfair treatment has a good basis for a complaint to the FSA which will be taken seriously.

[Bookworm]

It was a bit like saying "I am a thief, I have always been a thief, I depend upon thieving so you have to let me carry on doing it.

Well, that was the essence of their lawyer's summing-up wasn't it? "If we lose, it's going to cost us a fortune, not just in charges, but also look at the ghost of retribution"...

[Bigdebtor]

I'm not sure this is all bad news. Surely we are just back where we were befor the OFT inteference - with every single case needing to be considered by the bank on its merits - then by the FOS if no joy - then pressing ahead via Small Claims (minimum risk to us?) at which point they take a big risk in defending i.e. back to early 2007?

 

BD

[BankFodder]

No, we have come on since the test case.

 

Before the test case we frightened the banks into repaying their customers £3/4bn. -- Quite a laugh really, when you think about it.

 

Now the banks aren't scared.

Also, theyt have learned and they will meet trouble head-on rather than let it get out of control again.

Also, I think that the Claims Management companies have done a lot of harm because they have encouraged a gold rush - not so much on bank charges, but on CCA agreements - and I dedect a hardening of judicial attitudes.

 

I think that for people to bring complaints against their banks, there hs to be a solid basis for complaint.

Unfair treatment is now specifically forbidden be new FSA regs. It was there anyway under the Banking Code but now it is a much clearer requirement.

 

Of course, the banks haven't responded or changed their behaviour so it now up to us to teach them a few more lessons about respecting their customers.

 

So it is up to YOU LOT, the customers.

If you are fed up with being the butt of your bank's arbitrary treatment, then there is a way forward.

But it is the courts - not the Ombudsman: definitely not the Ombudsman.

[adamc6671]

A couple of questions, relevant to continuing our fight-

 

Is there still likely to be revised / new Particulars of Claim published to help us with that, or have the Govan Law Centre 'et al' ceased working on that now?

 

Will the statutory interest at 8% that has been accruing on our claims whilst stayed count towards taking claims above the Small Claims track limit?

 

I'd love to think that there was still a realistic way forward to obtain reasonable recompense for the unfair way in which the banks have, undoubtedly, been treating us, but it's hard to see precisely where that way now lies. I believe that 'the Establishment' is working against us on this - having had to bail various banks out massively in the recent past, I don't think there was any way they were going to allow it to happen again over bank charges - we're talking billions of pounds! Can we come up with a 'rock-solid' unfairness case against which the banks would have little or no defence, and against which the Judiciary would find it virtually impossible to rule? I hope so!

Edited February 4, 2010 by adamc6671
spelling!

[BankFodder]

I can't really see that there will be a new POC which seeks refunds on the general basis that the charges are unfair.

I don't think that we have an argument anymore.

 

Interest is included in track allocation calculations.

 

 

I don't think that there is any basis for charges refunds wihtout specific evidence of unfair treatment and a causal link between the unfair treatment and the charges you are asking to be refunded.

[pencil]

The Bankers have won the battle but lost the war. They've just taken another £30 off me for a £12 overdraft I paid in the next day. The OD was not paid by the bank or anybody else, no one lost money, it was a blip on a screen and Virgin will claim it next month instead. Still the bank has taken £30 from me. I can't tell you how absolutely INCENSED I am with these people and anybody who sides with them. THEY.WILL.FALL.

Edited February 5, 2010 by Rooster-UK
Libellous comment removed. Also language

[welshperson3]

What about starting a library of all the letters that people have from the banks admitting that the charges are penalty's, then when in court produce these letters from bank x.

Even if the letter is not address to you personally you can still show proof that the banks were using charges as a penalty at the same time you were charged ?

[BankFodder]

Good idea - start a thread for it and hopefully people will join and post what they have got.

 

However, the letters will have more effect if they are addressed to the person who is making the claim.

However they could be useful anyway

[tnook]

I think there will be a lot of scared people now.

[welshperson3]

What is needed now is a lot of help and advice for the first cases that go to court, Even in small claims it is of utmost importance that we win.

If weak cases go to court first and the banks start winning then the media attention will kill this campaign stone dead.

[BankFodder]

The only weak cases are those where the claimant is unable to evidence of unfair treatment

[welshperson3]

Is there any strength in the unfair relationship test were it says it is only up-to the debtor to raise the issue of fairness then it is up-to the creditor to prove it is fair not up to the debtor to prove unfair.

 

example

 

My neighbor never paid a bank charge in his life.

I pay bank charges (which bank now say are a price for service)

Effectively i am paying for my service and also that of my neighbor.

 

Now if i raise the issue in court how on earth can the bank prove this is fair ?

Edited February 4, 2010 by welshperson3

[renegotiation]

It was a bit like saying "I am a thief, I have always been a thief, I depend upon thieving so you have to let me carry on doing it.

 

They haven't always been thieves in relation to charges though. It started off slowly in the 1990's didn't it? Then, they slowly upped them like a credit card company upping an APR. If we had fought back sooner we could have stopped it becoming embedded in U.K. banking culture. It's a case of 'been a thief for a long time, not always; I am a greedy bastard; I don't really depend on it, but I like it so'. I have previously raised the issue of bank charges being seen as an indirect tax too, as well as the charges competition issue. The equation is simple. The banks are paying themselves a fortune, they are already making huge profits again, they are not reliant on bank charges. That's where Lord Phillips really got my goat, when he said they couldn't live without them. How did banks ever exist in the first place? Bankfodder, we need to devise a 'Citizens' Charter' and stick to it. We have to demand parliament to regulate on the basis of what we come up with. This should be done through mass, peaceful, public protest. I have aired ideas before, but not done anything formal. I will be glad to knock something up in full and start a thread. Others can then criticise, improve and add to what I come up with. I will do it based on one specific charge at a time for both bank accounts and credit card accounts. Do you support me in this plan or not? It's not worth my time otherwise.

 

For the record, I am not advocating conceding defeat on old cases. I am just in full agreement that we need to focus on the future now.

[Fred_Funk]

If you have any letters from your bank in which they have clearly tried to tell you that the charge was a penalty or that it was linked to actual costs of dealing with your account, then your chances of success are improved because the banks have now all admitted that they levy charges to cross-subsidise other banking services.

 

I've got a stayed case, involving NatWest, in which was seeking around 5k in charges plus the same again in compound contractual interest.

 

In 2004 I wrote to NatWest questioning how the bank could justify twice charging me £30 for an unpaid direct debit of £3.04.

 

The bank responded: "While I can understand your annoyance at the level of unpaid fee in relation to the amount of your direct debit [for your Credit Zone Protector], the fee is payable irrespective of the amount of payment being returned, as the amount of work involved is the same."

 

It seems to me, there is a clear implication here that the charge was linked to the actual cost of dealing with my account. Would you agree? And, if so, do you think I could use this as a basis to press on with my claim?

 

Thanks in anticipation

Grecian2000

[speedtrip]

Fred, im looking through my letters right now to see i have any along these lines.

 

ST

[BankFodder]

Fred, I agree that this is the implication and it does provide you with the basis for an argument.

It isn't at all as clear cut as one would like but if you have a claim in place already then there seems to be little to lose by amending and continuing on that basis.

Are you on the small claims track?

 

If you are then you could consider going ahead.

[Bigdebtor]

HBOS used to say something about "this causes us extra work and to cover costs we have charegd £xx". Someone posted up one of these letters afew weeks ago. I am going to search my loft to see if I can unearth some (but I think I ripped most of them up in temper!)

 

If people can get such earlier letters then one tack could be - early letters claiming extra work - total of these= £1000 (say).

 

Later letters (not saying this) charged £35 for going over limit - but the over limit occurence was actually the fault of the earlier letters lying about costs plus interest on that amount - so even later charges not justified (bank's fault due to earlier letters) and therefore reclaimable.

[srfrench]

Hi BankF

 

Bothy my cases are in the High Court (apparently) and my claim is historically with Abbey.

 

In their T&C's covering the entire periods of my claims and in their original defence they state very clearly, "that the charges levied are administrative costs...."

 

I take it as said that this would be a clear case of mis-representation and a good avenue for continuing my claims?

[BankFodder]

Hi BankF

 

Bothy my cases are in the High Court (apparently) and my claim is historically with Abbey.

 

In their T&C's covering the entire periods of my claims and in their original defence they state very clearly, "that the charges levied are administrative costs...."

 

I take it as said that this would be a clear case of mis-representation and a good avenue for continuing my claims?

 

Yes, that it very interesting and could give you the grounds that you need.

 

Please contact me by email on our admin@ address

[landy_alert]

Hi BankFodder,

 

I too am wondering if I have grounds for using unfair treatment at the hands of the bank (LTSB) to continue with my currently stayed claim with some chance of success? Apologies if I am barking up the wrong tree or clutching at straws here.............

 

My claim was filed at court late last year for around £9000 plus interest. The account in question had been used to service six LTSB loans all of which had PPI applied because my husband and I were told on each occasion that our loan applications would only be successful if we took out the insurance with each loan - naively we agreed.

 

The fact that our loan repayments included an element which shouldn't have been there (the PPI) meant that we found it difficult to meet not only the loan repayments, but also other commitments being serviced by this account. As a result these payments were returned and charges were incurred - which wouldn't have been had there been no PPI.

 

Now with the help of Cag we have reclaimed all six lots of PPI, although Lloyds have yet to pay up.

 

My point is that as LTSB have admitted (by upholding our complaints) that the PPI shouldn't have been there in the first place would this be considered as unfair treatment at the hands of LTSB?

 

I understand a direct link has to be proved between the PPI being charged and the loss it resulted in - which I am attempting to do by painstakingly going through my statements.

 

I have mentioned this on my LTSB thread, but wondered whether there is any mileage in this at all?

 

Your thoughts would be most appreciated.

 

Thank you,

 

Landy x