"service" defence - an idea/question

[steven4064]

This is really a question for the legal experts.

 

We are all agreed that the "service" received is no differnt from that received by other customers who are not deemed to be in default. If a company charges for a service that has not been received nor agreed by the customer, wouldn't that constitute an offence under the theft act?

[steven4064]

The thinking might go like this:

 

Under Theft (Amendment) Act 1996 s15(A)2, because your account has been debited even if you have not paid the charge and somewhere else (debtors) will have been credited because of double entry accounting and the two match up, a money transfer has occurred.

 

The bank claim that the transfer is because a service has been provided knowing full well you have recieved nothing. That must be deception. Therefore under s15(A)1 a theft has occurred with a penalty up to 10 years imprisonment.

[PhantomReclaimer]

I've thought of charges in relation to criminal offences before, although not specifically relating to whether they were a service or not.

 

My thoughts go like this. The banks make the charges and present them to you as being lawful, fair and representative of their costs and you pay them on that basis. The charges are unquestionably none of the above and the banks know that, so I think they are comitting a deception offence in getting you to pay them in this manner. Also simple theft as well as they are dishonestly appropriating your property and intend to permenantly deprive you of it.

 

P.

[rbrears]

We are falling in to that trap again. Stating that the charges are unquestionably this or that. No-one has won a claim against the banks in court on this and it cannot be said (regrettably) that the issue is as clear as we might like. The fact that the bank settles the cases is not an admission that the charges are unlawful/illegal and/or that the banks know this or always knew this. This isn't really splitting hairs - there is no demonstrably clear ruling or admission in our favour.

 

As to the service argument the banks say that they provide a service that arises from the act of default - they "consider" the position, review the account, make a decision - (I know we don't think that they do) - and this is a "service" - most terms and conditions refer to "additional services" or some such phrase when lisiting the penalty charges tht can be imposed, so again, this area remains untested effectively.

[PhantomReclaimer]

We are falling in to that trap again. Stating that the charges are unquestionably this or that. No-one has won a claim against the banks in court on this and it cannot be said (regrettably) that the issue is as clear as we might like. The fact that the bank settles the cases is not an admission that the charges are unlawful/illegal and/or that the banks know this or always knew this. This isn't really splitting hairs - there is no demonstrably clear ruling or admission in our favour.

 

 

Hasn't a head/ex-head of a large bank (Lloyds) said in interview that charges are used to fund free banking? If so then that is some pretty powerful evidence that we have been decieved into paying themn because the banks tell us that they are to cover costs.

 

P.

[steven4064]

This isn't really splitting hairs - there is no demonstrably clear ruling or admission in our favour.

 

What you say is true rbrears but I was wondering if it could be used like this:-

 

Bank sends one of their ".....not unlawful cos they are for a service.....but please acccept £x as token of something or other ....." letters (x

 

"Thanks for offer of £x, which I accept as part payment..... with reference to your claim that these charges are for a service, you are fully aware that no service was in fact rendered and that the claim is merely to obscure the true nature of the charges, ie that they are a penalty. The claim therefore constitutes deception and, since you have transferred money from my account and the deception is with the intention of permanently depriving me of that money, I believe an offence of theft has been committed pursuant to s15 of the Theft Act 1968 and s15A(1) of the Theft (Ammendment) Act 1996." or words to that effect.

 

It might have the effect oif persuading them to climb down quicker. What do you think?