Letter I intend to send to my MP...

[Movingon]

Hey I never said that, Andrew did!!

[elsinore]

Sorry SL, having an old git moment!!

[andrew1]

So he's a lawyer then! ( thanks to Elsinore for the info ) - Where does that leave the second part of my question? What are the general implications if a bank used Hoons argument in court?

 

There are many points being tested, Seminole is in court on Wednesday testing the ' deliberate concealment ' argument by the banks - R.Hon Mr Hoon's might be another one.

 

Any general thoughts here?

[andrew1]

Sorry double posting!

[kateandpete]

His view on Default Charges are that the condition which prompts them is stated in the contract; and therefore there is no breach of contract and therefore these charges are NOT DISPROPORTIONATE PENALTIES. i.e. it actually says "If you do THIS you will pay THIS." If it did not say anything about defaults in the contract and THEN they levied charges for it, THEN it would be a penalty.

 

This is *VERY* worrying.

My thoughts are that surely there HAS been a breach of contract though. I have gone over my OD limit - that is a breach of contract. Therefore these ARE penalties for breach of contract. Am I wrong? Do any of the mods have a view on this

[Lula]

I think that the question here is "have the OFt ever made a ruling that has been successfully challenged and overturned in any court"

 

 

hmmm Mods and your pink pals, its over to you (did you get the Loyd Grossman accent there?)

[david.m]

OK, before I continue, a little info for you. The Right Honourable Member for Ashfield, the Rt Hon Geoffrey Hoon MP, is none other than the very MEP who drafted and brought forward the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. This should throw some credibility to his view; however with me it doesn't.

 

His view on Default Charges are that the condition which prompts them is stated in the contract; and therefore there is no breach of contract and therefore these charges are NOT DISPROPORTIONATE PENALTIES. i.e. it actually says "If you do THIS you will pay THIS." If it did not say anything about defaults in the contract and THEN they levied charges for it, THEN it would be a penalty. The argument centred around charges for services and the Sale of Goods and Services Act he completely ignored; at one point saying "You're not a lawyer are you? You've only understood half of it."

 

That was the BAD side of our conversation.

 

HOWEVER

 

As soon as I mentioned people on benefits losing half and more of their benefits due to bank charges he furiously started writing. He was unaware of this problem and he immediately undertook to write to the DWP on the matter; although I have no idea what the substance of that letter will be. He seemed genuinely concerned, and immediately mentioned that it was particularly salient in light of the government's forcing of people down the bank account route.

 

To be honest I would have felt more comfortable with others around me but an MP's surgery isn't that kind of forum unfortunately; I wasn't overawed but I certainly didn't manage to cover all the issues I wanted to.

 

p.s. I wasn't given chance to mention EDM 2227 but it doesn't look like he would have signed it anyway.

 

a assume he is staying in contact with you as regards your letter?,

perhaps the Rt Hon Geoffrey Hoon MP is in fact reading this thread as you pointed him to it?,

and if so welcome :8) perhaps you might comment here?.

 

if so you might also consider pointing out to him that the likes of A&L are, it appears, closing the majority of peoples accounts that have opened them purely for the fact that they need these benefits accounts to receave their benefitss and pay the DD to companys that dont accept any other form of payments.

 

he must have realised the moment he spoke it

"You're not a lawyer are you? You've only understood half of it."

 

but you could also point out that yes its true, your average person is not a lawyer, and hence, how come he's under the imprission that we should understand the points hes making, weres the protection for the average consumer in his view?.

 

in his view, are we as average people,expected to just take this, and let the banks use this Intimidation,closing of accounts (and almost imposible to open new ones),stalling,and abuse of the courts to keep our state benefits, while they place this money in compound interest rates to increase its value to them even more?.

 

how come in his view, given any part of the above, is it possible that the english MP's of this country have not seen fit to make laws to protect the state benefits once they are payed into these bank accounts, but the scottish MP's have seen fit to place protection in law for their constituants in scottish law?, how has that been allowed to happen ?.

 

how is it in his view, that the self regulating banking code while giving mention that the banks are not to

close peoples accounts that are in finantial trouble, the banks (such as A&L) are just ignoring that banking code to their own ends, were is the gov regulation to force them to abide by their own rules, and if they dont the gov can step in, why havent they?.

http://www.bankingcode.org.uk/bulletins/Bulletin%2021%2027%20Jul%2006%20PDF%20FINAL.pdf

 

as bookworm said

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/5478-can-they-really-do.html#post36140

"

Fact: Most means-tested benefits are supposedly untouchable. Anyone who's been on Income Support knows the form says: "the law says you need x to live on". To live on. Not to pay bank charges. We all know there's precious little enough in the first place.

 

Fact: Any other creditor HAS to have a court order before they can get a proportional part of your benefits. And it's often a very small proportion BECAUSE benefits are not calculated to tack debts on to them.

 

Fact: The banks do it anyway. They take the lot, tell you it's in your T&Cs, which they've imposed unilaterally. They do it without a court order, peremptorily and as we know now, unlawfully."

[rjstott]

Can I clarify some issues.

 

1) These terms could be considered unfair contract terms but this needs testing in court. They are unfair because they are one-sided (i.e. there is no automatic recompense where the bank makes a mistake), they are non-negotiable and do not represent the true cost of a breach of contract.

 

2) The breach of contract is when you the customer go overdrawn beyond your authorised limit. The bank has a duty to warn you and to recover any actual costs it incurs which we all know is less than one pound.

 

3) The charges are called liquidated damages and case law has established that such penalties must represent the true cost of the breach.

 

4) Each contract is individual and it is not reasonable for the bank to pass on costs relating to cover other customer issues or its possible loss of overall profits to you in such a way. It could however justifiably increase its service fees.

[david.m]

after reading Guy Fawkes' blog of parliamentary plots, rumours and conspiracy i found a link to the PM's office were you can email your thoughts to them

Email Tony Blair

 

and just for a giggle i started this CO-OP thread so people could post their thoughts about it

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/cooperative-bank/27116-tony-labour-party-unity.html#post211088

[Movingon]

I wrote to Geoff Hoon and asked if I could see him again; I said basically that the atmosphere emptied my head and that I didn't get across the whole of my story. He's agreed and has allocated a half-hour slot to me to discuss it!

 

I shall of course this time take notes with me, and I shall be drawing his attention to the abuse of process issue etc as well..

[pjdavies2000]

worth finding out if he attended the coomons debate on 16 January that was headed by a Lib Dem MP.

The jist of his argument is here

Peter

[Movingon]

This topic was closed on 11 March 2019.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group