Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges

[kennyh]

Fireprism,

If all goes well (and I pray it does -AND I'm not even religious), may I ask the 'idiot' question; will you disclose as much of your case as you might consider proper (if'n they don't put a gag on you!!)

[MARTIN3030]

No one wants to see any resurrection of flaming or insults we have seen in the past,so please lets not dwell too much on any possibilities.

Anyone found to be going down that road faces account restrictions and possible exclusion from the CAG.

[Guest]

 

btw, thanks fireprism for the update. (mods, you could've left that bit in )

Edited May 22, 2011 by Ford

[fireprism]

have i missed a comment somewhere that has been deleted by CAG?

[kennyh]

Sorry to have stirred unpleasant memories; I was just harking back to the times when folk helped each other to the best of their ability (Banky, Booky, Zootscoot and so very many others). Advice was not always palatable but, well, life's a bitch innit? However it was always offered in good faith and bitching ain't gonna help us.

I'm moving home and I won't be going on the deeds of the new place cos I AM going after these sonsabitches and, if I lose, then they can try taking it out of a pensioner's hide.

[Guest]

have i missed a comment somewhere that has been deleted by CAG?

 

 

i posted thanking you for updating re your case. but also commented (in cheek, but fairly) in agreement (i think) re BigD's post (not directed at kennyh though?). but my post, and BigD's, were deemed unacceptable by the and so were deleted.

hope this clarifies. no offence was intended to anyone!

imo

[Bigdebtor]

Ford

 

Thanks for your support - even although it didn't get seen by many (including me!).

 

I won't repeat what I said as it seems there are some really sensitive souls around who are VERY easily offended .

 

However I'm pleased to see the fears I mooted (subsequently censored) have (so far) not been realised and hopefully this thread can remain simply a source of advice, relevant information - and hope - to those of us who have followed it since day 1 and are eagerly awaiting the outcome of the great work GLC is doing - quietly, modestly and without seeking huge rewards or public acclaim.

 

Lang may their lum reek!

 

BD

[Guest]

Hi

Yes As Kenny says, everyone must feel free to contribute.(as in the old days) No matter how well informed (or otherwise) they may be perceived to be.

Discussion and debate is the key to acquiring knowledge and knowledge is power.

Can’t beat a good cliché.

Peter

[Aequitas]

Hi

Yes As Kenny says, everyone must feel free to contribute.(as in the old days) No matter how well informed (or otherwise) they may be perceived to be.

Discussion and debate is the key to acquiring knowledge and knowledge is power.

Can’t beat a good cliché.

Peter

 

Carefully considered opinions expressed in measured tones are not always well received: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?92975-Are-bank-charges-penalties.

[rdm2006]

Hmmmmmm

 

no comment

 

(sometimes less is more)

[Guest]

Carefully considered opinions expressed in measured tones are not always well received: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?92975-Are-bank-charges-penalties.

 

History does not have to repeat itself.

Wasn’t involved in the sharp end of this particular debate back then so I suppose it is easy for me to be detached, seems to me that you were proven to be correct contrary to what the rest of us expected to happen.

That being said we are now in the situation we are in and looking for a different way to fight the unfairness of these charges.

May I suggest that we all try to put the past behind us and move on?

Peter

[rdm2006]

May I suggest that we all try to put the past behind us and move on?

Peter

 

Like i said

 

No Comment - sometimes less is more

 

And don't forget 2 courts found that the charges were unlawful when they were administration costs.

 

Only when the banks changed their defence and disclosed their true nature were they found to be lawful

 

so no offfence to you or aequitas but that only proves that the banks will change the description of charges to suit their needs.

 

No One was proved right or wrong in my opinion. It was just changed to suit.

[Guest]

Like i said

 

 

 

And don't forget 2 courts found that the charges were unlawful when they were administration costs.

 

Only when the banks changed their defence and disclosed their true nature were they found to be lawful

 

so no offfence to you or aequitas but that only proves that the banks will change the description of charges to suit their needs.

 

No One was proved right or wrong in my opinion. It was just changed to suit.

 

Perhaps then we should concentrate on challenging the Supreme courts decision on the same grounds?

 

Think we have to acknowedge that ,that particular boat has sailed and look at new avenues.

 

Peter

[car2403]

I can't even remember last week, never mind 2007 - get with the program, folks

[rdm2006]

Perhaps then we should concentrate on challenging the Supreme courts decision on the same grounds?

 

Think we have to acknowedge that ,that particular boat has sailed and look at new avenues.

 

Peter

 

Challenging the supreme court would be a big No No (Although I would like to know how they managed to let that one slip by without question).

 

So onward and upward so they say ....................

 

Lets hope GLC's case doesn't suffer a similar shift in reality

[Bigdebtor]

Fortunately the GLC are not being "guided" by the OFT, and won't be pushed into the very narrow cul de sac that the SC ruled on! Even the SC sent out a pretty clear (and highly unusual) message that the "fairness of such bank charges could (should?) be challenged again - but on different grounds.

 

I have every faith the Banks will be well and truly thumped by GLC (and then by many others) in the Scottish Courts - but whether the English courts follow suit is another matter.

 

Perhaps if there was not such a built in right wing majority vote in England (after subtracting the Welsh and Scottish votes) that sees us now once again being "ruled" by an Old Etonian cabinet (history repeating itself?) then the banks might have behaved a bit more humbly (and honourably?) since the May 2010 election?

 

BD

[phatram]

Fortunately the GLC are not being "guided" by the OFT, and won't be pushed into the very narrow cul de sac that the SC ruled on! Even the SC sent out a pretty clear (and highly unusual) message that the "fairness of such bank charges could (should?) be challenged again - but on different grounds.

 

I have every faith the Banks will be well and truly thumped by GLC (and then by many others) in the Scottish Courts - but whether the English courts follow suit is another matter.

 

Perhaps if there was not such a built in right wing majority vote in England (after subtracting the Welsh and Scottish votes) that sees us now once again being "ruled" by an Old Etonian cabinet (history repeating itself?) then the banks might have behaved a bit more humbly (and honourably?) since the May 2010 election?

 

BD

Are you suggesting they behaved honourably during Clown Brown and Bliars reign?

[Bigdebtor]

OK - perhaps "honour" was the wrong word or sentiment to use as it doesn't exist in the Banks' vocabulary.

 

However I think they were being more pragmatic after the SC ruling (seeing the risk of their behaviour being attacked in other ways as actually suggested by the SC judges) and so they were starting to move in the right direction - many were abolishing these charges with these and any overdraft interest being replaced by £1 daily overdraft charges (still not great but much smaller penalties to most who incurred them) - and setting published limits on how much they would charge per month in the way of unfair charges - but this wasn't out of "honour" - more out of fear that a more left wing government would either bring in more taxes aimed at the banks - or legislation to outlaw such unfair charges. Now they feel very safe with the hoi ploi firmly in its place!

 

BD

[phatram]

I thought the banks did exactly as they pleased with Liebour in charge, I hope it's a bloody long time before they get back in !

[Bigdebtor]

I believe Alistair Darlings "bonus tax" and the threats to legislate if they didn't voluntarily start behaving more fairly were both steps in the right direction - admittedly too little and a bit late - but this old Etonian mob seem to be allowing the banks to pay huge bonuses despite still making losses, suggesting the Banks's previous (?) bonus culture was not in any way to blame for the current economic crisis - by claiming it should all be laid at the door of Brown and Blair.

 

These claims are made despite it being a world wide crisis affecting every developed country no matter how right or left wing their Government was at the time.

 

On your second point I've never understood the English predeliction to acquiesce to the "ruling classes" (as David Cameron's octagenerian uncle observed so accurately last week) - but lets agree to differ on this side issue and focus on the key topic here?

 

I presume we're on the same side in wanting the Banks to get their come uppance for fleecing their poorest and most vulnerable customers so badly for so long?

 

BD

Edited May 24, 2011 by Bigdebtor

[phatram]

We are very much on the same side BD.

[Guest]

Ford

 

..............even although it didn't get seen by many (including me!)...........

 

BD

 

I must be under surveillance!

[Bigdebtor]

Those of you not blessed with living in Scotland (or with easy access to The Herald) may have missed Mike Dailly's appearance on Saturday's Herald when it reported on him entering the Lions' Den and speaking to the British Bankers Association, making some very good points about bank charges.

 

Hopefully the link below will get you there.

 

BD

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/business/personal-finance/dailly-lets-rip-over-bank-complaints-1.1107418

[rdm2006]

Those of you not blessed with living in Scotland (or with easy access to The Herald) may have missed Mike Dailly's appearance on Saturday's Herald when it reported on him entering the Lions' Den and speaking to the British Bankers Association, making some very good points about bank charges.

 

Hopefully the link below will get you there.

 

BD

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/business/personal-finance/dailly-lets-rip-over-bank-complaints-1.1107418

 

 

Shame you have to sign in to read the full article

[GuidoT]

Dailly lets rip over bank complaints

 

 

Share

18 Jun 2011

Mike Dailly, the solicitor at Govan Law Centre who helped lead the consumer campaign against unfair bank charges, harangued bankers on behalf of the Financial Services Consumer Panel this week.

 

Mr Dailly told a British Bankers Association seminar: “Most consumers don’t like complaining. That may seem an odd thing to say when there were almost two million bank complaints ‘logged’ from customers in the UK last year, with one million of those relating to current accounts.”

 

However less than one third of consumers would pursue a complaint in the teeth of a bank response, with only 9% prepared to seek redress from the Financial Ombudsman Service. He went on: “So why do most people give up? Could it be that if the process of complaining is more time consuming and irksome than the cause of the grievance, most consumers will decide to cut their losses?”

 

Mr Dailly concluded: “Consumers deserve fairer outcomes and banks need to start rebuilding their damaged reputation by putting customers at the heart of their service, to retain their loyalty and money.”