Bank Charges Consumer Charter

[patrickq1]

Until the banks declare their true costs, we should claim it all back

"this is a neccessary clause that should not be romoved

also all proccessing of personal data and defaults to any other party without going through the proper chanells of ie judge tax and police "

i support this as well

patrickq1

[zootscoot]

The Charter is now up on the petitions website for those of you who would like to sign up.

 

 

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/BankCharter/

[steven4064]

It still has the £5 in it!

[patrickq1]

cant sign that details and content have been rushed and like said £5.00 is still their ........so in other words this is a non negotiatable petition because the input has been decided from day one only a couple of weeks and all the red additions have not been considered from the other threads ,Bankfodder did point out a particular one but has that been added to this petition no thanks no sign end of

[crfx250]

I can't understand why people are so hung up with the inclusion of the £5.

 

As a consumer group we will have no imput whatsoever on what the final

default charge will be so why worry about it? It's merely there to show

we are not unreasonable and unrealistic in our demands and gives us a better chance to negotiate with the regulators.

[patrickq1]

be it .99 p or .0099 p their is nothing unreasonable in having a reasonable bank if for figures sake you overspend on your account by 0. 10p and you think this a reasonable action to charge £5.00...The Bank gladly took my money when i had it they did not get charged by me for every pound i lent them they were in my debt then could nt be nicer now we are in their debt with ficticious charges that they refuse to account for is this not unreasonable not a penny more than zero pence

to charges

[zootscoot]

The £5 figure is there to prevent the OFT coming up with the ridiculous figure of £12 as it did with credit cards. It also says MAX it doesn't say that it should be £5 just that we will not accept anything above that figure.

 

If people are refusing to sign on those grounds then the other factors such as the stay on imposing bank charges and removal of defaults will not be given the weight of support needed.

[steven4064]

The £5 figure is there to prevent the OFT coming up with the ridiculous figure of £12 as it did with credit cards.

But if we had put 50p it would have stopped them coming up with a ridiculous figure like £5

[patrickq1]

the 12 pounds figure was not set in stone it was meant to be a temporary guidline and only to aleviate the multitude of complaints they were getting they could nt cope with the overload Five pounds is a fair maximum amount for bank charges you are accepting the five pounds period ...you are also accepting the twelve pounds ,banks are having a laugh at this they see a way forward where they can still charge sooner or later the charges will mount up and another charge due to the collapse in the housing market and they decide the charges are becoming pitiful they must increase with inflation or creep in by another guise ...no charges unless the charges are costed and shown how they arrive at the figures perhaps it is 35p possibly 65p then yes i cannot escape that but certainly not a penalty charge as is being proposed here

[muggyno1]

The £5 figure is there to prevent the OFT coming up with the ridiculous figure of £12 as it did with credit cards. It also says MAX it doesn't say that it should be £5 just that we will not accept anything above that figure.

 

If people are refusing to sign on those grounds then the other factors such as the stay on imposing bank charges and removal of defaults will not be given the weight of support needed.

 

Hi zoot,

 

I imagine that you already know my views on this.

 

I too, however, agree that the two points in your second paragraph are of vital importance. Unfortunately you are exactly right, because of the absolute insistence on including the £5 figure against the input and advice of myself and many others, the instigators and signatories to the charter have made it impossible for many people to sign. It has, as predicted, caused splits in the community against charges, which is a shame and plays directly into tne Banks' hands.

 

One reason, but not the only one, that I and many others cannot sign is that the very fact of conceding any maximum, particularly a generic one that does not take into account the actual costs of each type of charge, undermines the case we have all been making for many months.

 

I have signed the other petitions that pre-date this one and would urge you to do the same if you have not already done so. I believe that the charter is simply a distraction.

 

All of this is said in sadness as much as anger. I'm sure that you, I and most of the people on this site want the same thing, but this charter has ensured that we can no longer speak with one voice.

 

Muggy

[patrickq1]

ive seen all this before in 1992/03 when the "bank action group"and as a former member then begun to agree to certain things happening to the account and accepting the banks proposals but then the internet was not as readily available like it is now we relied on post and by the time your letter arrived it was usually too late we did not have the abilities to research data like we have now we certainly did not have some of the consumer regs we have now ,but through these type of actions things are changing ,i remember sitting in the managers office he did not sit me down and point out all these little miniscule charges.20 pounds 30 pounds he just couldnt wait to get his grubby little fingers on my money doh! another sucker (like that add on telly for shabby)its not worth an arguement but once you give up this right your rights then you might as well phone your bank and tell him you accept 5.00 charges

[MacBoy]

zootscoot

What's wrong with the trusty old negotiating tactic of waiting for your opponent to make the first move? I am much clearer now on the logic and strategy of much of what is contained in the 'charter' (although it's still misleadingly named, I feel); having read your responses last week. Thank you for that - it addressed a good deal of my concerns.

 

I am also fully supportive of the need to work with others with an agreed set of objectives. This makes sense.

 

But why put figures in people's minds? My feeling is still that with the massive economies of scale these organisations enjoy (and I'm quite close to their world professionally, so this is not pure conjecture), the data processing costs are probably in the pennies, as are the paper, printing and mailing costs for the missives.

 

What some don't seem to realise is that the banks save millions with bulk mail discounts from Royal Mail and downstream access providers, for example. They pay nowhere near what you and I pay for a letter. Furthermore, this is a completely automated process we are talking about - run on donkey's years-old mainframes.

 

With this in mind, I still don't feel there was a reason to mention six years, nor (however unintentionally) to invite others to put a floor under what may be charged - particularly when for some people, even this floor may be too high.

 

I do now understand however, that merely by proffering a figure you are not necessarily condoning penalty charges. But on the other hand, by appearing to regard them as conscionable, you surely run the risk of influencing the outcome?

[zootscoot]

I fully understand your concerns, I'm not sure I have the answers to your questions. I suggest you take them up with the authors

[muggyno1]

Hi all,

 

putting aside the charter for a moment, zootscoot, and accepting that there is much common ground here, it would be great if we could all find a common voice to speak with. Any ideas?

 

Muggy

[patrickq1]

Although we believe the charges are fair, transparent and lawful, since we last wrote to you the banks have became involved in legal proceedings with the Office of Fair Trading ("OFT") in relation to the charges which we believe will resolve the legal issues regarding the fairness and legality of your charges. the banks love this statement because they are ommiting the TRANSPARICY PART at the end and looking at the OFT they also ommit TRANSPARECY so it wont go in our favour as this was not or is not going to be discussed in court

looking at the OFT complaint they will not be looking at the TRANSPARENCEY so any case now must be based on transparencey and that input should have been in this charter proposed by the action groups everyone knows the charges are unfair and are penalties this is what it was all about so the OFT have done no better than agree to the banks will and to this proposed charter/petition...it is mis leading to attempt to pass this of as acceptable

OFT...

1. The OFT and certain banks have now announced an agreement to start legal proceedings in the High Court of England and Wales for a declaration to resolve legal uncertainties concerning the level, fairness and lawfulness of unauthorised overdraft charges (the "test case"). Those banks have also announced that they will seek a stay of all current and future court proceedings against themselves regarding these charges (a "court stay") and will request the Ombudsman not to proceed with consideration of the merits of the relevant charges complaints referred to him until the resolution of the test case.

[Perseus]

Although I have to commend any effort to act unilaterally against the prejuidced announcements of the OFT etc, I have to agree with Muggy, and others - this 'Charter' is not only contradictory to every claimant using common law, or UTCCR principles, it smacks of a potential pyrrhic victory.

It rides roughshod over the limitations act of concealment, and is worded with the same finesse as one of Martin Lewis' morning tv ads (ooh sorry - news items)... oversimplified and disjointed with little effort for the prescence of proffessionalism.

 

I'm sorry to be the dissenter here, and I'm sure other informed and aware consumers would chose to avoid condoning or supporting such a document as a blanket representation of consumers.

 

A wasted opportunity in my opinion.

[midge61]

I may be being simple here but isn't the most important thing at the moment to get the waiver lifted or altered so that the banks stop taking charges and make it even ground until the result of the case. All the time the waiver is in place we the consumer are back to square one and the most vulnerable are left to struggle with no light at the end of the tunnel.

I don't think we should be agreeing to any amount as being fair as this then makes a mokery of the re-claiming done so far in my eyes. IT IS WRONG for the banks to make any profit from penalties and if these are proven to be penalties in accordance with the UTTCR then we have already contradicted our stance by saying well actually £5 is fair!

 

We should be working together to put an end to these penalties full stop.

 

I feel this has been rushed and more thought should have been given to what we ALL wanted put across.

[muggyno1]

I may be being simple here but isn't the most important thing at the moment to get the waiver lifted or altered so that the banks stop taking charges and make it even ground until the result of the case. All the time the waiver is in place we the consumer are back to square one and the most vulnerable are left to struggle with no light at the end of the tunnel.

I don't think we should be agreeing to any amount as being fair as this then makes a mokery of the re-claiming done so far in my eyes. IT IS WRONG for the banks to make any profit from penalties and if these are proven to be penalties in accordance with the UTTCR then we have already contradicted our stance by saying well actually £5 is fair!

 

We should be working together to put an end to these penalties full stop.

 

I feel this has been rushed and more thought should have been given to what we ALL wanted put across.

 

Couldn't agree more midge. By the way, have you written to your MP?

[midge61]

Hi muggy

 

not yet as have had a family bereavement to deal with but will do it tommorrow.

 

Hve saved Macboy's letter ready to do.

[muggyno1]

Hi muggy

 

not yet as have had a family bereavement to deal with but will do it tommorrow.

 

Hve saved Macboy's letter ready to do.

 

Well done midge, great stuff.

[midge61]

All done

 

Sent by e-mail.

[muggyno1]

Another late bird!

 

Up late, that is!

[midge61]

I'm on call tonight and it's sods law as soon as i go to bed I will get called out so mays as well stay up!

[patrickq1]

have just been reading through some threads then i happened to pick up an old contract 1999 and lo and behold what did i find,

the data protection act but it was in a box where you put your signature ,this is what is known as deception by stealth...to sign the contract you must first and lastly agree to their terms and RIGHT TO PROCESS DATA...forgive me this is not and neither is any other contract THE BANKS/FINANCE CO RIGHT to process your data .you may play the devils advocate moon my freind and i know you are quoting as corectley as you beleive and see things .but i question this statement of the right to process data for ever being on a contract as far as puting this into a contract it has no right because it has redressed the balance to what has become an inbalance to your rights you have no rights on this subject because 9 times out of 10 the statement you agree to them processing the data .because you have no choice but to agree,because it is normally the last words on the contract ,would not a fairer system be if this is so important a clause (as i feel it is) to your rights then it should come a week after any contract giving your informed consent to the process of data i would be willing to bet that at least 90% plus would never sign knowing now what we do the information is not being processed fairly nor honestly as and is being proven on a daily basis so this should be in the charter petition and for good measure a GOVERMENT AUDIT into the DATA PROCESSING COMPANIES should also be demanded as to the unfairnes and bordering on unlawfulnes,considering the associations between the data processing companies and the DCA or debt chasers

......the whole BANKING System needs a complete overhaul by law and goverment when you also consider the CREDIT CARDS at 12 pounds .we know this isnt fair and lets not forget the CREDIT CARD COalready profit from the shopkeepers by making a charge per sale of aprox 1.5%-2% i will again get of my griping and moaning box but i feel that we are being led down the path where it is too late to win anything by agreeing to charges and data processing.perhaps this is why the Banks are continuing with their still charging whilst in dispute is it a case of WIN WIN WIN for the Banks ,i for one will not lie down and accept this been fighting to long ,perhaps some of them here may want to allow the banks to whittle away what little rights we have left but that is all it is LITTLE RIGHTS ..we will be giving any right thinking judge no choice but to deem the majority of contracts legal and fair for the simple fact is we agree to penalty charges....i have had my say thanks to everyone for being here and taking part in this informed debate but i would ask that this petition however good intentioned it is thanks to michel but it is wrong

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

pyrrhic victory phew!!! will have to look that one up lol i aint that clever would nt even know how to pronounce it but thanks Per i just hope we can re write the charter ,their is over 10,000,000 bank and credit card accounts awaiting a fair and balanced charter/petition we all depend on it being right ,but as it stands it is a TROJAN HORSE and good morn midge and muggy lol