10pm this evening BBC2, Money Program on Unlawful Bank Charges

[delboyphil]

I love the part about it being a "service charge" lol that made me laugh lol

[skyap]

I'd just like to say about the whole 'service' thing that the banks are hoping to use to get out of calling them penalty charges... if charging me £38 (I'm with Natwest) to TELL me that I am over my overdraft, or to return a cheque, then I think I would like to opt out of having this service. I'd rather they didn't tell me, and didn't return the cheques/direct debits and then I wouldn't have to pay the £38 for a service I'd rather do without

[Enron]

Isn`t a service something that you have requested to the benefit of yourself, not to the detrament.

[PhantomReclaimer]

I'd just like to say about the whole 'service' thing that the banks are hoping to use to get out of calling them penalty charges... if charging me £38 (I'm with NatWest) to TELL me that I am over my overdraft, or to return a cheque, then I think I would like to opt out of having this service. I'd rather they didn't tell me, and didn't return the cheques/direct debits and then I wouldn't have to pay the £38 for a service I'd rather do without

 

Northern Rock keep telling me that refusing a DD is a "service" they provide and I keep telling them how idiotic they sound.

 

Refusing to pay something isn't a service, in fact, it's a specific refusal to provide a service. You wouldn't expect to be charged by the landlord because the beer you had ordered had run out - him telling you that is not a service he is providing.

 

Anyway, I've told them that if they continue to claim that then next time I'm in the branch and I'm offered a loan, mortgage, credit card, etc. I'm going to refuse and forward them a bill for £30 in respect of the "service" I've provided to them.

 

P.

[natwesttookmymoney]

"You wouldn't expect to be charged by the landlord because the beer you had ordered had run out - him telling you that is not a service he is providing."

I'll have to remember that next time my rosy-cheeked landlord runs out of Old Ratfancier's Cortex Licker. I may even charge him for the privilege. Shortly before being thrown out, I suspect.

Westy

[Tigs33]

Also how can the banks say it is a service when they do not charge us for services that they actually do (handling money, processing cheques) (unless you are a business) Can't really see how they can have it both ways, as they are penalizing people!!

[bram stoker]

Vamps was the one in the cloak and she was surrounded by Caggers, most of the others shown were from two other websites.

You spotted me!!! Fame at last - well, 2 seconds worth.

 

It was a good programme.

 

I am most interested in the guy from the Financial Ombudsman who stated something about he has told the banks to pay in full upon request or stand in court and justify their charges.

 

Not quite the quote, but I've got it on video and am going to disect his statement when I've a moment to see if we should be using it when making our request.

 

It was good to see Caggers and PCers together. It was a good day. Stephen Hone came across well.

 

The message in all was in our favour, but please please please UNLAWFUL not illegal!!!!!

[natwesttookmymoney]

Hi, Vampiress

 

I thought you looked rather fetching - and out in daylight, too! You been hangin' out with Blade?

 

The Ombudsman - previously known as the banks' poodle - was the surprise hit of the show, IMHO. What he has said to the banks is 'either justify the charges or pay them all back'. Currently the BOS has about 1000 complaints current. The banks had been referring complaining customers to BOS (probably expecting the normal stuff - accept the offer, have applied charges in accordance with their T&Cs, blah blah) so it must have come as a bit of a shock to hear that from him!!

 

He is in print on the subject already: it's in the newsletter for November. Link through here (Financial Ombudsman News)

 

Also, I loved Angela Knight squirming. Especially after she'd come back, all bright and bouncy, to say they weren't penalty charges, they were charges for service. one little question and she looked like she wanted to slide under the carpet!!

 

I wonder if I should call Cobbetts and ask them, after last night's prog, if they'd like to cough up now...

 

Westy

[Glenn UK]

A good programme, i got a little frustarted that they didnt explain the concelament/mistake aspects hence brinigng in claims older than six years but i guess you cant have everything.

 

Re the estimated costs, seems to me that the projected 4.50 and 2.50 were maximum values as discussed earlier, I wouldnt be surprised to see banks ultimately reduce their charges to such levels.

 

something occurs to me though is that the charges should actually reflect their costs, so a bit like the £12 issue i wonder at what level it would not be worth challenging the banks over?

 

Clealry in the ideal world the banks would all drop their charges to what it costs them individually rather than saying we will all adopt a fiver or whatever.

 

Just a thought.

 

Glenn

[bram stoker]

NTMM Your link won't work for me.

 

(Hanging out with Blade indeed. Hmmmm.....)

[Enron]

Vampiress, maybe you could get clarification in writing from the guy.

 

Link to the Financial Ombudsman newsletter:

 

issue 57 - October/November 2006

[PhantomReclaimer]

A good programme, i got a little frustarted that they didnt explain the concelament/mistake aspects hence brinigng in claims older than six years but i guess you cant have everything.

 

I wish they had done as well.

 

Re the estimated costs, seems to me that the projected 4.50 and 2.50 were maximum values as discussed earlier, I wouldnt be surprised to see banks ultimately reduce their charges to such levels.

 

I really would have liked to have heard a bit of detail about exactly how these figures were arrierd at. I'm not doubting them it's just that they still seem quite high. £4.50 for returning a cheque, I suppose I can believe but I'm sure it can't be the case in the vast majority of cases. Northern Rock have told me that they don't even get cheques from the bank they are presented to unless they are for more than £5K. So it must only be an automated request.

 

As far as DD's are concerned, I can't understand how it costs more than a tiny, tiny amount to retrun them - if anything at all. Surely it can't involve any more expense than an out of office auto reply on your email? I mean, thr bank computer just has to say "no" and that's the end of it. If it really does cost £2.50 (or £30 as the banks reckon) then surely it must be musch more expensive to actualy pay a DD as you then have to update the acount records and physically move money at some stage.

 

P.

[Enron]

Watchdog did a progam a year or two back, in which an ex-Nat West employee said that a direct debit refusal cost the bank a matter of pence.

 

She was not named as all employees have to sign a confidentiality agreement.

 

So interesting that Citi Financial Plc state that a late payment costs them £12.88. Something makes me think there's alot of pure profit in there, but that of course would have to be decided by a judge (just in case Brian there solicitor is looking in).

[Glenn UK]

I'm not doubting them it's just that they still seem quite high.

 

I think they were being very generous to the banks.

 

My view is that the infrastructure provided to manage our accounts is there for ALL functions not just the management of contractual breaches.

 

If I am right then the cost of carrying out an action electronically whatever it is, will be infinitesimally small, of the order of parts of a pence bearing in mind the number of transactions carried out daily.

 

The cost of the provision of the infrastructure would have to be ameliorated across all transactions not just the breaches.

 

The only significant costs would be if they wrote to the customer as a result of the breach and the majority of the cost would be of the paper, envelope and stamp.

 

although the machinery to stuff envelopes is I'm sure expensive, bearing in mind the volume of letters they would send out annually the cost per item would again be very low, of the order or parts of a penny.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

[gerryb2]

Good programme overall.

 

I think it gave an insight into what direction the million pound lawyers the bank's have hired are going in - "we provide a service and this is what the charges are for". I'm sure the Moderator's are up to it though.

 

By coincidence, my son received new terms & conditions leaflet from Natwest today, effective from 1/2/07 - wonder if they've changed all the wording to "service"

 

Also note that the bank's are looking to curry favour with the govt - opening up "free" cashpoints in poorer areas (all have sitting Labour MP)

 

And as for Brian over at Citi Financial - I don't think he realises yet what cack he has stepped in yet.

[photoman]

Quote from Walter Merrick (Chief Ombudsman) in Oct 06 Financial Ombudsman News

 

"Of course, the issue will become one for us – if the OFT’s work does not

result in a swift regulatory solution that deals with past charges as well as

with future ones, and if the banks stop settling cases.

It’s understandable that the regulators do not want to be accused of

becoming price-fixers. Nor do we. But for certain charges, the law on

contract variations and penalties demands a reasonable relation between

cost and price, and requires those who seek to justify the price to produce

evidence of their actual costs.

The FSA has rightly placed emphasis on the principle of ‘treating customers

fairly’. Treating them lawfully, and being prepared to stand accountable for

that, is surely an important part of that principle".

 

Can this be used in any way in Court Bundles?

Otherwise I'm sure it can certainly be qouted in correspondance with your Banks when they get difficult.

[photoman]

PS: I really like the bit about......."But for certain charges, the law on

contract variations and penalties demands a reasonable relation between

cost and price, and requires those who seek to justify the price to produce evidence of their actual costs"

...........I especially like the bit about produce evidence of their actual costs !!

[Enron]

That document may make it into my court bundle when I go up against Citi.

 

All the banks have been less than forthcoming with their figures.

[Falkirk1298]

The BBC have obviously decided that this is an issue they are sympathetic with, and that has to be a good thing. I think we may well see more from them, and in more popular slots.

[Enron]

Thought I heard on the grapevine that Watchdog have something coming up.

[JonCris]

You can include the ombudsman comments into your court bundle in the same way you do the case law. In fact I highly reccomend it as its very powerful stuff

[natwesttookmymoney]

JonCris - do you (or anyone) have a transcript of what the Ombudsman said? I have the newsletter but not what he said on The Money Prog.

 

Westy

[JonCris]

If you go back through this thread someone has posted a BBC link which you can download

[natwesttookmymoney]

Hi, Vamps

"(Hanging out with Blade indeed. Hmmmm.....)"

 

He's the DayWalker, your worshipfulness.

 

Westy

[natwesttookmymoney]

Weird.

 

Vampiress couldn't link to the Ombudsman thread from my previous post - and neither could I . but it is there.

 

However, for ease of use, I post the whole post up here.

 

wot it was, was

 

Yo, Guys!

 

I had a closer look at a recent (issue 57, October/November) edition of the Financial Ombudsman News, following a thread in the NatWest forum.

 

What do you think of this little beauty, taken verbatim from the column attributed to Walter Merricks, Chief Ombudsman:

 

"But for certain charges, the law on contract variations and penalties demands a reasonable relation between cost and price, and requires those who seek to justify the price to produce evidence of their actual costs.

 

"The FSA has rightly placed emphasis on the principle of 'treating customers fairly'. Treating them lawfully, and being prepared to stand accountable for that, is surely an important part of that principle."

 

And yes, he is talking about bank charges. Read all about it here.

 

issue 57 - October/November 2006

 

Westy