The Bank Charges decision - where to now

[BankFodder]

Landy, this also sounds like a very interesting argument.

 

We have already had one very enlightened judgment in which a County Court judge held that the misselling of PPI invalidated an entire debt.

 

Maybe you would like to email me as well.

[landy_alert]

Landy, this also sounds like a very interesting argument.

 

We have already had one very enlightened judgment in which a County Court judge held that the misselling of PPI invalidated an entire debt.

 

Maybe you would like to email me as well.

 

Thank you very much BankFodder - will do!

[lookinforinfo]

Bankfodder, do you think there is any mileage in the Govan centres' method of claiming that bank charges are far from transparent. They mention charges on charges for instance, which are not apparent from the bank T&Cs, but my God they do hurt when they come into effect. When I complained to my bank, they were adamant that this never happened!

[BankFodder]

Bankfodder, do you think there is any mileage in the Govan centres' method of claiming that bank charges are far from transparent. They mention charges on charges for instance, which are not apparent from the bank T&Cs, but my God they do hurt when they come into effect. When I complained to my bank, they were adamant that this never happened!

I think th\t banks should very rightly be criticised for a lack of transparency. It is clear that they are not transparent.

 

However, are business actually required to disclose what their profits are and what they do with the revenue from fees which they impose? Probably not.

I can't see that it is unfair if you local publ doesn't tell you what they are making on a pint of beer.

 

What I do see as unafir is when companies tell lies about the fees they impose as a way of getting their customers to pay up quietly.

My feeling - to be proved in court - is that if a bank ha said that their charges cover their administrative costs, then this is probably a lie. If the customer has then agreed to go along with it because he has been mislead by the information then it seems to me that the bank has abused its dominat position, not acted in good faith to the detriment of the customer.

 

We have some very good material from Yorkshire Bank who seem to have stated quite clearly in court documents that their charges covered their administrative costs.

I would recommend that anyone with a claim against YB, to consider asking for the stay to be lifted and to ask for a hearing.

Of course, their claim will need to be amended - and we can help with that.

[BankFodder]

Landy, I just managed to delete your message. Sorry. Please resend

[lookinforinfo]

I don't think things are as black as some of you seem to believe. Obviously the Oft pulling out was a blow but all is not lost. Dave and Bankfodder showed the way several years ago and have mnaaged to adapt their strategies over the past few years to counteract the new moves that creditors have introduced.

The tactics that are used on this forum now are sometimes way different to back in the early days of the forum.

And it looks as if the tactics may need to change again. But that's life. And before long, there will come a way to challenge the banks. Now that may be by going for the PPI as opposed to bank charges. In time there may be other angles of attack.

 

I also include this article that I found on the Govan law site an article about liquidated damages which does point out at the end why perhaps the banks won. By knowing that, perhaps it can help us find another way back in.It may be that no one thing will suffice, but several factors together may tilt the balance and allow the Judge to come to a decision favourable to us. Who knows, it might be time to go down the in terrorem line of attack.

The Journal Online : If the cap fits

Edited February 6, 2010 by lookinforinfo

[BankFodder]

I think that any case of PPI misselling is capable of ivalidating any bank charges which might have been incurred while trying to make PPI payments.

Similarly, it would be interesting to try out a general challenge to a loan on the basis that it had been accompanied by missold PPI included in the loan

[landy_alert]

Email resent BF.........

[Falkirk1298]

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.

 

This is what BoS was saying in 2006:

 

[BankFodder]

Email resent BF.........

Nothing received. Lots of stuff for viagra etc - don't know who told them I need it, but nothing from landy

[missdpd]

Im having trouble understanding this administrative charge thing? Do banks say they are when they are not or do not when they are? Im asking because I have a covering letter from NatWest along with my statements in response to an SAR referring to the charges as 'administrative charges'.

 

xx

[BankFodder]

Falkirk1298

 

This is a very useful letter. Could we have a copy? a scan to admin@ - maybe without the blanking please. We will respect your confidentiality

Have you a charges claim going? If so, start a thread and link to it because this letter could help you.

[Falkirk1298]

Falkirk1298

 

This is a very useful letter. Could we have a copy? a scan to admin@ - maybe without the blanking please. We will respect your confidentiality

Have you a charges claim going? If so, start a thread and link to it because this letter could help you.

 

Already done.

[lookinforinfo]

perhaps the OFT should have goe to the EC Court for help.....

UK bank charges lambasted in EU report | This is Money

[BankFodder]

Falkirk1298 - nothing arrived yet

 

lookinforinfo - anyone got a link to that EU report?

[Falkirk1298]

Falkirk1298 - nothing arrived yet

 

that EU report?

 

Emailed 6 February 2010 16:44

[missdpd]

EU Report

 

Think this might be the one that was being referred to.

 

xx

[lookinforinfo]

Sorry Bankfodder, I only saw it in the magazine-no idea where they got it from.

 

Changing the subject..........as it is the case that those bank customers who are in the fortunate ituation of being able to run their accounts in accordance with the bank T&Cs, get free banking. Then isn't it unfair that those of us who

for whatever reason, cannot get their accounts to run the way we and the bank want [often since once started on the bank charges route roller coaster, it can be very hard to get off], as we can longer enjoy free banking, are doubly penalised because we do not get those charges offset by being paid a better rate of interest. At the moment banks are hitting us both ways. They are only paying notional interest [in return for free banking] but those who are not getting free banking are still not getting paid a higher rate of interest when in credit. And shouldn't the interest be backdated?

 

I know interest rates are low at the moment but that will not always be the case. And have the banks reduced their interest rates for those overdrawn

in line with the Bank of England base rate changes?

[lookinforinfo]

It might be this report Bankfodder-

 

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/rights/docs/swd_retail_fin_services_en.pdf

 

 

We all might find this part interesting-

The Commission's recent Consumer Enforcement Communication80 strives to bring down

barriers to cross-border trade within the EU by strengthening enforcement mechanisms so that

consumers may shop confidently in the knowledge that their rights will be equally protected

whether buying at home or abroad. The Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation

(CPC)81 offers the possibility to promote a concerted enforcement action between the

responsible national enforcement authorities to ensure the application of the UCP Directive to

non-transparent and therefore unfair bank fees.

 

Earlier in that article -

"A 2008 study by the UK Office of Fair Trading found that consumers basically do not know

what they were paying in bank charges, either before or after they were incurred. Over threequarters

of consumers did not know the credit interest rate of their current account. Two thirds

of consumers did not know what their bank charged for an unarranged overdraft. Overall,

the report found that the personal current account market was set up in a way which placed

consumers at a disadvantage compared with their provider."

Edited February 6, 2010 by lookinforinfo

[lookinforinfo]

I got the Eu url above from this site-

EUROPA - Press Releases - Consumers: Commission Report criticises “opaque” bank fee charges

 

and perhaps we should be looking more to the EU legislation for assistance

EU Consumer Commissioner Meglena Kuneva said: " Retail bankers are letting consumers down. There is widespread evidence that basic consumer principles are being violated with problems from complex pricing to hidden charges and information that is unclear and incomplete. Banks need to put their house in order with a culture change in the way they treat customers. And Member State Authorities need to fulfil their obligation to enforce EU consumer laws.

[rdm2006]

Hi BF.

 

Would this be considered as unfair.

 

Without going into a long story my bank did not pay me mortgage protection for 12 months, during this time I was charged by them £1,270. I then made a retrospective claim which was paid. the bank offered me £100 in compensation. I refused this and said that as they had claimed £1,270 in charges from me when they thought it was my error. I then wanted to claim that amount now that they had found it was their error.

 

Naturally they refused this.

 

I do have to say however that a complaint was put in to the ombudsman regarding this which was of course ruled in the banks favour

[BankFodder]

If the protecti0on money was not paid to you because of some unreasonable behaviour by them then I can imagine that you have a basis for complaint

[Falkirk1298]

Emailed the letter again last night. Any joy?

[BankFodder]

Nothing

[tedney]

Interesting Thread, thanks, subbing