Bank Charges Consumer Charter

[adamc6671]

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!

 

Midge

 

I very much agree with this, but would like to elaborate on it, if I may.

 

The whole point of the claims, and POCs, that countless people have used is to establish that these charges have been levied by virtue of the contract that exists between customers and the banks. By definition, once it is established that this is the case, then, as it IS a 'consumer contract' the UTCCR 1999 etc etc MUST apply, and that is, in part at least, what the 'test case' seeks to establish.

 

Moving on from that, the whole point of the 'Draft Order for Directions' that countless people have used in their AQ responses is to force the banks to reveal what their TRUE costs are in administering these defaults, and thus a FAIR cost for defaults could be set.

 

I do feel VERY strongly that we should be doing everything possible to allow that process to happen, in the Courts, and without pre-empting any decision and without offering the banks a 'get-out' of a much higher figure that many believe is actually the case. I am therefore unhappy with the idea of a 'Charter' that quotes any figure at all - we should be leaving that to the Courts to decide through forcing the banks to reveal their true costs. The rest of the Charter, though, I am quite happy with - showing a united front can, very often, achieve a great deal.

 

All the best - Adam

[muggyno1]

Hi all and good morning. Been in meetings 'till now so just joined the fray again!

 

Couldn't agree more Adamc and Patrickq.

 

If you have seen my posts on this and other threads you will know that my feelings on the charter are very similar to both of yours.

 

My main gripes are the fact that it quotes a figure for charges and that it appears to accept the six year 'limit'.

 

My main concern, however, is that it is divisive and, having already been posted as the subject of a government petition, already damaging our position with the banks.

 

I will continue to be part of the campaign that seeks to build public pressure on the FSA and OFT but will not contribute to anything that pre-judges any court decision.

 

Muggy

[adamc6671]

Hi Muggy

 

Thanks for the support, and I agree totally with your comment about 'accepting' the 6 year limit - if a bank charge is deemed to be unlawful in its current form, then that should be it. It doesn't make it any more lawful just because it was incurred over 6 years ago. Either bank charges are unlawful and can be reclaimed, or they are lawful and cannot be reclaimed. End of story - 6 years has nothing to do with it!

 

All the best - Adam.

[muggyno1]

Hi Muggy

 

Thanks for the support, and I agree totally with your comment about 'accepting' the 6 year limit - if a bank charge is deemed to be unlawful in its current form, then that should be it. It doesn't make it any more lawful just because it was incurred over 6 years ago. Either bank charges are unlawful and can be reclaimed, or they are lawful and cannot be reclaimed. End of story - 6 years has nothing to do with it!

 

All the best - Adam.

 

Well said Adam!

[Vital Spark]

And that IS sad.

[muggyno1]

What in particular Vital Spark?

[Vital Spark]

If we are no longer able to speak with one voice. That is sad. I think the bnaks will be laughing. Our strength was our unity with, of course, the data provided by those experts among us.

[jules1973]

I guess this is going to be one debate where everyone will never agree on.

[patrickq1]

hi vital i think generally we all speak with the one voice just different accents and me being deaf as well as daft i just dont agree to the wording and feel we are letting down the whole comunity ,as it stands this petition is a trojan horse i apreciate its good intentions ,but cannot support it..until changes are made and more thought is given surely the Mods should have sat done and worked on this ,this page could have been left open and a consecious formed as to the content ,i would rather the petition was removed for further ammendments ,in its present form it is what the Banks and others would like to see as they would agree that we agree that it is not penalty charges.this is your trojan horse as i see it

[muggyno1]

If we are no longer able to speak with one voice. That is sad.

 

You are right vital, it is sad.

 

 

I guess this is going to be one debate where everyone will never agree on.

 

You're right too jules. The issues here are so fundamental and many of us cannot agree with the charter.

 

Still, at least the fact that this debate is going on shows what a good forum this can be.

 

Muggy

[muggyno1]

hi vital i think generally we all speak with the one voice just different accents and me being deaf as well as daft i just dont agree to the wording and feel we are letting down the whole comunity ,as it stands this petition is a trojan horse i apreciate its good intentions ,but cannot support it..until changes are made and more thought is given surely the Mods should have sat done and worked on this ,this page could have been left open and a consecious formed as to the content ,i would rather the petition was removed for further ammendments ,in its present form it is what the Banks and others would like to see as they would agree that we agree that it is not penalty charges.this is your trojan horse as i see it

 

Patrick, I agree with all of that.

 

Unfortunately it's a Trojan Horse built for the banks by our side!

[jules1973]

I just hope that at the end of it, it doesnt matter who says they were right, that the outcome goes in everyone's favour. (Where's the doctor and his tardis when you need him), I only want to go into the future by a few months

[crfx250]

I would agree that the debate does reflect what a great forum it is.

 

But the debate does rather suffer from a relentless avalanche of posts that agree -again and again - with the same points and becomes less of a debate and more of a tiresome repetitive monologue.

[jules1973]

I have an idea,

 

To stop all the bitching that is going on, why dont we all just agree to differ on the point that is being raised about the £5.00 charge.

 

I am getting sick and tired of all the bitching and its starting to get personal now.

 

Lets just try and find some neutral ground and move on, we are playing right into the banks hands by internal fighting, not good.

 

if you want to sign, then sign, if you dont then dont.

[muggyno1]

I just hope that at the end of it, it doesnt matter who says they were right, that the outcome goes in everyone's favour. (Where's the doctor and his tardis when you need him), I only want to go into the future by a few months

 

Let's do everything we can to ensure a successful outcome. Unfortunately, it might be considerably more than a few months.

[jules1973]

Didnt want to go to far in the future, didnt want to see myself too old

[Perseus]

I have an idea,

 

To stop all the bitching that is going on, why dont we all just agree to differ on the point that is being raised about the £5.00 charge.

 

I am getting sick and tired of all the bitching and its starting to get personal now.

 

Lets just try and find some neutral ground and move on, we are playing right into the banks hands by internal fighting, not good.

 

if you want to sign, then sign, if you dont then dont.

 

Whilst I would agree that a unified and constant approach to this issue is greatly needed, the 3 sites involved in publishing this so called charter, may have their wish come true and actually get the banks to listen!

That is very worrying indeed - as no matter how much we agree/dont agree with its content, the basis of this document is flawed, the content is contradictory, and this is a representation of all UK consumers regarding a test case by our regulatory bodies on matters of law, agreement enforcement and restitution.

WOW - thats some big deal, just to say - hey lets not worry , we'll chat nicely between us and see what happens.

 

My credit agreements, banks charges and financial status rely on this test case outcome.

I will not sit back and have a charter raised, purporting to be my consented wishes, (if it is signed by or approved by enough), and do me a great injustice!

 

Nothing personal, but the glory of PR may win over those who are slightly less informed! No offence meant to anyone here...

[muggyno1]

Hi Perseus,

 

What is your view on what we should do now?

[caro]

I would agree that the debate does reflect what a great forum it is.

 

But the debate does rather suffer from a relentless avalanche of posts that agree -again and again - with the same points and becomes less of a debate and more of a tiresome repetitive monologue.

 

Whilst I do take your point, I think the posts agreeing indicate the strength of feeling, or otherwise, on the points raised.

 

With close on 160,000 users on CAG, plus many 1,000's on MSE and PC, it would be impossible to come up with something that everyone would agree on. The main thing at the moment is to make sure we're heard, and by uniting with other groups on this we improve our chances of this. We're all fighting for the same thing at the end of the day.

[muggyno1]

Whilst I do take your point, I think the posts agreeing indicate the strength of feeling, or otherwise, on the points raised.

 

With close on 160,000 users on CAG, plus many 1,000's on MSE and PC, it would be impossible to come up with something that everyone would agree on. The main thing at the moment is to make sure we're heard, and by uniting with other groups on this we improve our chances of this. We're all fighting for the same thing at the end of the day.

 

I absolutely understand the sentiments behind your second paragraph, caro. It would appear impossible to reconcile the wishes of 100s of thousands of users. However those, like myself, who have extremely strong views about the charter tend to object to very similar things and these are fundamentals rather than details.

 

I know that we are all fighting for fairness and restitution, which is why I have been trying to look beyond the charter for common ground on which we can all fight.

 

Any ideas?

[caro]

I'll ponder it.

[jules1973]

Whilst I would agree that a unified and constant approach to this issue is greatly needed, the 3 sites involved in publishing this so called charter, may have their wish come true and actually get the banks to listen!

That is very worrying indeed - as no matter how much we agree/dont agree with its content, the basis of this document is flawed, the content is contradictory, and this is a representation of all UK consumers regarding a test case by our regulatory bodies on matters of law, agreement enforcement and restitution.

WOW - thats some big deal, just to say - hey lets not worry , we'll chat nicely between us and see what happens.

 

My credit agreements, banks charges and financial status rely on this test case outcome.

I will not sit back and have a charter raised, purporting to be my consented wishes, (if it is signed by or approved by enough), and do me a great injustice!

 

Nothing personal, but the glory of PR may win over those who are slightly less informed! No offence meant to anyone here...

 

 

No offence taken, I am on the same side as you, I just think there has just been too much negativity from some people on here and it diviated away from what we were all discussing and were hoping to achieve.

 

I wish that before the charter was put up on the website for people to sign, that everyone was able to have a say and completely agree on what to put. Because of one point that is on there, I refuse to sign it.

[caro]

It was put up for discussion in draft form, but obviously it's important to try and get involved before the case goes too far, so not for long. There's no pressure for anyone to sign it if they aren't comfortable with the contents. You have to start somewhere, and this is what's been proposed and used in the petition.

[Perseus]

Like any one individual, I do not purport to have all the answers - but when you break the charter down by section - differing ipinions arise.

 

For me to post and encourage dissent is not right, nor fair in etiquette.

 

I would hope that Moderators, Marc/Dave, Martin Lewis and PCF will revisit this thread (and others on their own sites) and listen to the consumers they are attempting to represent with this charter.

I commend whole-heartedly the effort and sentiment in issuing this document, but as many others have said - it seems to be a 'rushed job' with little thinking outside the box.

 

 

Opening paragraph.

Neither the OFT, nor any other regulatory body are obliged legally or otherwise, to rely upon private consumer forums for consultation prior to launching a High Court challenge to a 90% representation of the UKs financial industry.

 

Item 1 - As has been said many times on this thread, the issue of suggesting a nominal £5 charge is outrageous. How to undermine the principle of the OFT case in one sentence.

A genuine pre-estimate of cost, or liquidated damage should be what is agreed. We should not pre-empt the OFT case failing, rather we should support and fight for it now.

Disproportionate to cost is just that, whatever the margin.

 

Item 2 - Batches of charges at the genuine or liquidated cost, is tolerable (unless you are reckless with overspending), therefore a batch of £0.75p for example x 10 occassions is £7.50. 10 x £5 is £50, 10 x £35 is £350. See where I'm going with this, item 2 is cancelled out because item 1 is irrelevant.

 

Item 3 - Bank charge competition. If the charges are genuine pre-est or liquidated costs, the competition is there to see on what the banks' administrative costs become. This creates choice for consumers. Again - answered by item 1 & 2 being resolved.

 

Item 4 - Agreed that their should be fairness and equality in treatment of consumers regarding waivers and stays. Providing of course that both parties are compliant with the consumer credit act!

 

Item 5 - Agreed that upon a decision to regulate any charging regime should allow retrospective claims, and automatic entitlement to overpaid reclamation.

 

Item 6 - 8% statutory interest is not what the banks have charged for unauthorised ODs or other failed charges. This opens the can of worms for a debate on s69 versus CI or AoP interest claims. The banks have re-lent the money levvied from consumers accounts, at a much higher rate than 8% per annum. Agreed that the interest re-paid should be compounded, but should be the contractual rate at which the money has been re-lent. (Account of Profits should be regarded heavily in this argument)

 

Item 7 - There should be an 'immediate moratorium (indefinite delay)' to all default entries...???? where comprised of wholly, or substantially of charges.

Why ask for an immediate indefinite delay, why not ask for all regulatory bodies involved in this case, to make an order to all financial institutions to immediately cease and desist all cases pertinent, involving adverse Credit Reference Agency reporting, until such time as the

test case result is finalised. Upon the OFT et al reaching a conclusion that charges are unlawful, therefore unenforceable - all such files holding adverse history shall be revisited and restored so as not to prejudice the creditworthiness or reputation of the consumer.

 

No mention of consumers on benefits, hardship cases, harassment or persecution of debts either.

 

 

I would urge a re-think on some of the content and/or phraseology in this document before it is committed...

[Perseus]

It was put up for discussion in draft form, but obviously it's important to try and get involved before the case goes too far, so not for long. There's no pressure for anyone to sign it if they aren't comfortable with the contents. You have to start somewhere, and this is what's been proposed and used in the petition.

I agree caro - but the point is, this 'petition' has been posted up without the people it is trying to represent, having a chance to comment.

 

'It's there, if you like it sign it, if not - dont'

Get the full support of the membership and consult, consider and revise.

Then - post it and get everyone (or as many as) support and endorse it!