Charging my bank with theft

[GotMugd]

I went online last week & discovered that I will be charged £75 this month for unauthorised overdraft. So I visited my local branch with a letter in hand. In my letter I asserted that this charge is not representative of costs incurred, and I will pay any costs if they provide a full breakdown of what the costs are & how they arrived at the sum. Otherwise, if they take £75 from my account at the end of the month, I will be calling the police & charging them with theft. Which I fully intend to carry out. I provided a copy of UTCCR 1999 & a printout of established jurisprudence. Lets see what they do.

[cbrundle]

great

[Guest peed orf]

Oh dear!

[livelylad]

I went online last week & discovered that I will be charged £75 this month for unauthorised overdraft. So I visited my local branch with a letter in hand. In my letter I asserted that this charge is not representative of costs incurred, and I will pay any costs if they provide a full breakdown of what the costs are & how they arrived at the sum. Otherwise, if they take £75 from my account at the end of the month, I will be calling the police & charging them with theft. Which I fully intend to carry out. I provided a copy of UTCCR 1999 & a printout of established jurisprudence. Lets see what they do.

 

 

On what basis would you call the police and accuse them of theft? How would you prove it was theft?

 

Have a read through this thread this will explain how difficult it would be to accuse them of theft.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/56427-theft-act-15a-there-2.html

 

Also please be careful when posting accusations that cant be proved this could be libelous. All such accusations will be removed.

[PhantomReclaimer]

On what basis would you call the police and accuse them of theft? How would you prove it was theft?

 

 

I think what the banks are doing could amount to theft, proving it to the relevent criminal standard is the problem though.

 

I think you could go a fair way to proving it if you were raising a case against Lloyds as you could use the evidence of their ex-chief exec, or whomever he was, who said in interview that bank charges were used to fund free banking for the entire Country yet they tell their customers who are being charged that the charges are to cover their costs.

 

Theft is dishonestly appropriating property with the intention to pernenatly deprive and telling someone that you are entitled to take money of theirs for one reason when you actually are not entitled so to do and actually intend to use the money for something entirely different looks rather like dishonesty to me.

 

If I came into your house and told you that I was lawfully allowed to take your telly, but I in fact wasn't, and you let me do so purely on my say-so then I've comitted theft.

 

P.

[livelylad]

I think what the banks are doing could amount to theft, proving it to the relevent criminal standard is the problem though.

 

This is my point exactly, what we think and what we can prove are two entirely different things.

[Guest louis wu]

Sorry GotMugd, but rather you than me mate.

 

The arguments already made will hopefully change your mind about this.

 

If you want to protest, open yourself a new account, empty your current one, and have wages etc paid into the new account.

 

When your bank come to charge you, there will be no money, you will be charged again.....ever decreasing circles time.

 

Commence a claim against the bank for unlawful charges, follow the process and get a full refund plus costs.

 

If your bank have wound you up so much, why would you want to stay with them any longer anyway? IMO they are all as bad as each other, but it tends to get personal with the bank you use, so try another.

 

Just my humble opinion.

 

Best of luck whatever you do.

 

Louis

[tifo]

i've read somewhere that a bank cannot be charged with theft or fraud?

[PhantomReclaimer]

This is my point exactly, what we think and what we can prove are to entirely different things.

 

But I can prove that the ex-Lloyds chief exec has said that the charges they make are to fund their business and not merely to cover their costs of your breach. It's a matter of public record. If that is the case then they have acted dishonestly because they have told you that they are charging you for one reason - which you have agreed to be charged for - yet clearly intend to use the money for other purposes.

 

Is money in an account property? - Yes.

 

Does it "belong to another"? - Yes.

 

Have they appropriated it? - Yes.

 

Do they intend to permenantly deprive the other of it? - Yes.

 

Have they "dishonestly appropriated" the property? - Well, that's a question that only a jury can answer but the standard is that it must be dishonest in the eyes of all "right thinking people".

 

Personally, I think there's a more than reasonable chance that a jury will decide that telling someone that you are entitled to take their money to compensate that person for expenses you have caused them when, in fact, their expenses are no where near what they are charging you and the money is actually intended for a totally different purpose, amounts to dishonesty.

 

P.

[PhantomReclaimer]

i've read somewhere that a bank cannot be charged with theft or fraud?

 

They can. Certainly individuals can be and if their chief exec knows that funds are being taken dishonestly.......................?

 

P.

[PKea]

"dishonestly appropriated"

 

No, they have told you they are going to charge you £30

They are open and honest about the fact that they are taking £30 from you.

 

Heres a link to the basics of the Theft Act

Theft - WikiCrimeLine

[PKea]

Have you got an agreed overdraft?

[boffybloke]

This is why these cases are heard in the County Court - it is a civil matter !!

 

Take it from me, no Copper will take a report of 'Theft' by a bank, they will tell you it is a civil matter and advise accordingly.....i like your thinking though !!!!

 

Are the banks being 'dishonest' - no......unlawful, maybe but not dishonest, and there is a difference.

[photoman]

From the wikicrime link posted by pkea:

 

Basic definition of theft

 

1(1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and "thief" and "steal" shall be construed accordingly.

 

 

Dishonesty

 

2(1) A person's appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest–

• (a) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person;

In assessing whether dishonesty can be proved, you should apply the twofold test set out in the case of (R v Ghosh 75 CR App R 154). Remember that a jury will have to consider the same two tests before they are entitled to conclude that an accused was dishonest:

• Firstly, according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people, was what was done dishonest?
  
• Secondly, if it was dishonest by those standards, did the accused realise that reasonable and honest people would regard his conduct as dishonest?

If the answer to either of these two questions is no, a prosecution will fail.

 

IMHO

We would have to first prove that they knew they were acting unlawfully.

Their constant denials of such, and the fact that no case has actually gone to court to prove the unlawfullness, (and that they also knew so at the time they took the money), would make proving that very difficult.

 

JMHO

[PhantomReclaimer]

"dishonestly appropriated"

 

No, they have told you they are going to charge you £30

They are open and honest about the fact that they are taking £30 from you.

 

Heres a link to the basics of the Theft Act

Theft - WikiCrimeLine

 

Yes, they are charging you £30. However, the letter they send out to you telling you why they are making the charge says that it's because you've cost them £30 which they are entitled to recover and that is the basis on which you are assenting to the charge.

 

If that £30 is not to cover their costs (which is difficult to prove unless they reveal their costs) then that means they have acted dishonestly. Given that the ex-chief exec of Lloyds has said that it's used to fund free banking, then that is evidence that they are acting dishonestly when taking the money from you because they are telling you that it's for one thing when it's really for something else. If they are intentionally using your charges to fund free banking then the letter they send out shoudl not make any mention of it being to cover costs, but they'd never tell you that you were being made to subside everyone else.

 

P.

[PhantomReclaimer]

Are the banks being 'dishonest' - no......unlawful, maybe but not dishonest, and there is a difference.

 

Of course they are dishonest. If they tell you that they are charging you to recover costs they've incurred because of your actions yet, in actual fact, their intent is to use the money to fund their business by giving somethign for free to other customers (i.e. for profit) then that is dishonest. It can't be anything other than dishonest because they know damn fine that you would kick up all holy hell if they said that they were using your money to reward other customers.

 

P.

[PhantomReclaimer]

From the wikicrime link posted by pkea:

 

Basic definition of theft

 

1(1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and "thief" and "steal" shall be construed accordingly.

 

 

Dishonesty

 

2(1) A person's appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest–

• (a) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person;

In assessing whether dishonesty can be proved, you should apply the twofold test set out in the case of (R v Ghosh 75 CR App R 154). Remember that a jury will have to consider the same two tests before they are entitled to conclude that an accused was dishonest:

• Firstly, according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people, was what was done dishonest?
  
• Secondly, if it was dishonest by those standards, did the accused realise that reasonable and honest people would regard his conduct as dishonest?

If the answer to either of these two questions is no, a prosecution will fail.

 

IMHO

We would have to first prove that they knew they were acting unlawfully.

Their constant denials of such, and the fact that no case has actually gone to court to prove the unlawfullness, (and that they also knew so at the time they took the money), would make proving that very difficult.

 

JMHO

 

Sec.2(1) dosen't get the bank off the hook. There is no right in law to lie to the customer in order to appropriate the property and no one will accept that the banks actually believed that they had a right in law to lie.

 

Indeed, the very fact that they are lying when they tell you what the charge is for is evidence that they know from the outset that they don't have a right in law to deprive you of it. If they were allowed to deprive you of it to fund free banking then why not just say so?

 

If they tell you that the charge is to cover their costs (which they are doing), yet are actually using it to fund their business by providing free banking for everyone else (which they seem to have admitted), then that cannot possibly lead any reasonable person to the belief that they had some right in law to do it.

 

P.

[photoman]

We've been here before.

This would be a criminal matter, and as such a much more contentious issue that would probably require intervention by Government body rather than an individual.

By no means discount the idea, there could be an angle here.......but it would be a much greater (and expensive and time consuming( fight than the Civil matters we are dealing with.

Take a look at this thread:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/47827-fraud-act-2006-time.html

[crfx250]

"dishonestly appropriated"

 

No, they have told you they are going to charge you £30

They are open and honest about the fact that they are taking £30 from you.

 

Heres a link to the basics of the Theft Act

Theft - WikiCrimeLine

 

I know where you're coming from but if a mugger told me he was gonna rob me next tuesday and did, he still comits a crime regardless of his honesty and openess.

[GotMugd]

Well on reflection, maybe this is a bit more than I can chew right now, but I will do my homework & be better prepared if this happens in future. Thanks for the replies.

[progenic7]

Hi all,

 

was going to post a comment but then noticed psoter crfx250 and thought, are you the person that threw £10000 over the counter and ran out of the bank...therefore forcing the bank to open you an account ?

 

and help you start a 50k claim using words like errrr no in the PoC ?

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

I think proving the banks have obtained money by deception, wrongful credit, wrongful money transer would not be too difficult.

However remember in a criminal case "we" prove nothing at all, the police do, we just make a statement.

Now the real problem ofcourse would be getting the police and more importantly the CPS (crown prosecution service) to take on the case.

I think its going to be a stand off between parties for some time, but in the end i believe criminal charges may be bought, and on good grounds under law and statute.

The police could use either or the theft act/ fraud act, i think both are clearly relevant.

I guess time will tell, would love to hear the judges "summing up" after the CPS "put the case" to to him

 

Johnny

[Todge]

Never mind the Theft Act.

 

I'm going for breaches of the Geneva Convention ... 'cruel and unusual punishment'.

 

No. Really. I am. Hold my coat a minute ...

 

;-))))

[Guest deep]

Behind the jest, I thinks could be the start of a long thread.

 

Regards

 

Dee

 

Bump for expert advice