on initial reading of this thread,it appears it could just as well apply to the NTL:TW £10 late payment unlawful charge?.
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...=appropriation
just the first post:read the rest there perhaps.
"
zootscoot 
vbmenu_register("postmenu_188086", true);
Classic Account Customer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 318
Take the campaign from unlawful to illegal?
Is it time to assert our rights a little more forcefully and attempt to show that what the banks are doing is illegal. This surely would give the banks more reasons to act and repay everybody with out them having to take them to court.
This could be done through writing to the Director of Public Prosecutions asking them to review the legality of the banks and whether it would be worth their while taking out a criminal prosecution against the banks or bringing a private prosecution.
I'm sure there is something about criminal convictions in their operating licences?
An outline of the relevant law of theft is below. Do people think it is worth a shot?
S1. Theft Act 1968 a person is guilty of theft if they dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive.
Dishonestly –
D is regarded as dishonest if their conduct is dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable honest people and D realised that their conduct was by those standards dishonest. R v Ghosh
This is a question for the jury to determine – Is it likely that reasonable honest people would regard the banks conduct of charging unlawful penalties and refusing to return them on initial request when knowing that the charges are unlawful as dishonest?"
Appropriates
Appropriation is assuming the rights of an owner (s.3 TA). By charging penalties they are assuming the rights of the owner by extracting money from their account.
S3 also includes where a defendant acquired the property innocently a later assumption can amount to theft. This would cover the situation if the banks did not know that the charges were unlawful at the time they took them, when they became aware of them being unlawful, their refusal to return them.
The fact that an owner consents to an appropriation does not prevent the action from amounting to an appropriation (R v Gomez) – Therefore the fact that customers agree to the terms and conditions will not stop the actions of the banks from amounting to an appropriation.
Property
The deducting a sum from a bank account may amount to a thing in action with in the meaning of s.4 TA.
Belonging to another
The banks may argue that the sums deducted lawfully belong to them. However, the legalities on penalty clauses indicate otherwise. Hence the charges have been paid by customers by mistake ie under the mistaken belief that they were lawfully due. Where a person receives property by mistake the property is still regarded as belonging to the giver (s.5(4).
With the intention to permanently deprive
The banks refusal to repay until being dragged through the courts is sufficient evidence in my view that they intended to permanently deprive