Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pia
I'm not sure i totally understand this...
So, charging is illegal, so why are they still doing it? How come one of them regulation companies haven't put a stop to it?
And how come they are allowed to close the bank accounts of people that claim?
|
I did some research and it seems the regulator has took a tep back.
They enforcing it on credit cards at a date soon to come which is why we seen that barclaycard change in policy. But the overdraft fees are been allowed to continue.
To me this is sending a mixed message, we have 1000s of people claiming back charges on the basis they illegal and banks paying out which would suggest they illegal, but no regulator telling them to scrap the charges or at least reduce them to a proper level.
As for account closure it appears the banks can do what they like, however I did read that if closing the account means asking for a debt back in one go it could break some banking rules that they are supposed to be fair with debt repayments.
---------- Post added at 01:44 ---------- Previous post was at 01:39 ----------
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
For those taking (or considering) legal action to recover charges:
It is a wise move to open an account with somewhere like the Woolwich before you take your current bank to the cleaners. The Woolwich are "pretty cool" about new customers and don't do credit checks on many new customer accounts (depending on the type of account facility required). With many new accounts they also offer to rearrange all your Direct Debits, Standing Orders etc free of charge for you.
Some banks are getting a bit stroppy with customers who successfully claim (ie. everyone who has claimed to date) and are closing some successful applicants accounts. The legality of such actions are currently being looked into and I'm pretty sure that they'll have to stop doing this in the near future or face further legal action from customers (if not Government - who are hell bent on everyone having a bank account so they can keep tabs on all of us).
There is no legal (or logical) argument for any bank to close an account simply because the account holder has won a claim against them. The argument most commonly put forward is that the bank feel that the account is not "profitable" or "incorrectly managed". This is an interesting, if fundamentally flawed, defence of their actions.
Over the past few years the Government (bless 'em) have moved over 93% of benefit payments to BACS / EFT and benefit receipients must have a bank account to receive payments. Additionally, benefit receipient accounts are, on instruction from Government, to be treated differently from the accounts of working individuals in order that the socially disadvantaged are not further penalized by bank charges.
This raises the issues of equality and discrimination (yes, the old chestnut of human rights). I'm personally involved with two current cases where the plaintiffs have threatened (legitimately) to sue their banks for theft after they won back their charges, costs, and interest and their banks closed their accounts.
Guess what? Once the banks realized that charging illegal penalty fees was now the least of their worries and that people were prepared to instigate criminal proceedings for theft they quickly backed down and offered (sorry, "begged") the plaintiffs to reopen their accounts and let bygones be bygones. Neither plaintiff has taken them up on their offer and are currently considering proceeding with the theft charges.
Generally speaking if you take action against your bank for illegal charges it is worth mentioning to them in your letter before action that any attempt to defame or disadvantage you as a result of you exercising your legal rights will result in further legal action.
I find this works a treat since once they receive their summons in respect of the illegal charges you can pretty much rest assured that they'll get the message that you're quite prepared to go to court in the event that they do defame or disadvantage you as a result of you deciding to do so.
Be advised though that 99% of banks do not "roll over" once you threaten action, 99% do not roll over once you issue proceedings, 99% will drag on until the day of the hearing trying to wear you down or brow beat you with legalese and fancy letterheaded missives from their elected counsel. There is an upside though - 99.9% of them, to date, have paid up. The one exception being Lloyds who in one case used a cunning (see: lowdown / sneaky) interprative distraction which, if they attempted to use it again, would be entirely ineffective
Inspiration for all
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/5043154.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardian_j...524077,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...er/4810490.stm
http://www.lindum-marketing.com/pena...ess-120206.gif |
Yeah lloyds appear to be the toughest nut to crack.
So basically if one claims they should expect to lose their account and prepare for it, I noticed people who win their claim are closing their accounts anyway. So people claiming are more or less deciding they no longer want to do business with their bank.
What do you reccomend to people who have debts with the bank tho like a loan, would the bank close the loan also and demand repayment?
---------- Post added at 01:53 ---------- Previous post was at 01:44 ----------
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lemarsh
OK - have worked for LTSB (many years in a branch, but not at present) - so would like to just add a few things into this.
I am not going to comment on the rights or wrongs of returning cheques etc - only that can be agreed between you and the bank, and the history of the account. As I do not know (or want to know) - I will leave that area.
Standing Orders from other Banks should be sent and receievd within 3 working days - and this has always been the case. In some cases it will be quicker (i.e. from same banks in some cases - but should never take longer). Only change to this is when the credit has incorrect information on it, and needs to be manually processed to the account.
The credits will (for all major banks) leave your account the day in is sent - not 4 days later, to time in when the account is due to get to the other end.Banks may pay interest during this period - but it will have left your bank. Therefore, you need to get them to explain how a payment is 'ceared' 7 days later. Doesn't make sense if you are using major bank - or at least one using APACS.
Cheques DO NOT TAKE 7 days to clear. Fact. They have always taken 4 days (and same day sometimes). Only exception if not drawn on UK bank sort-code. The computer systems automatically make cheques as cleared on the 4th (or earlier) day. No branch involement can change this.
The systems do not lag. They will debit your account the moment they get the 'electronic' payment through. If you withdraw through LTSB Cashpoint (and I believe Link) the payment will show immediately out of your account. However, if a retailer holds onto a transaction, then (although it may have been authorised), until the retailer and their processessing bank process the payment, no monies will come out of your account.
Loan accounts cannot (I believe) be closed early - they are dealt with under the Credit Act. You have agreed to pay then £x over £y months. Providing you make these payments, you are not in breach of the terms, and therefore OK. However, as Alliance & Leicester are doing, they are within their right to ask you to close your account, and give you 30 days notice.
The majority of customers pay (unlike most of Europe) no fees for running their accounts - and therefore people are receiving a free service (which costs a fortune to run - but everyone expects something for free). If people run their accounts badly, they should expect to pay for it. After all, if you go overdrawn without getting agreement, you are taking something that technically does not belong to you (i.e. the bank's money).
Ultimately, if everyone goes down the line of askiong for refunds over the last 6 years, I can see the banks starting to get very pciky, and only operating accounts that are for good customers, and do not run their accounts overdrawn and outside of limits. Therefore, getting accounts in the future would be more difficult, and if people stray from the right side of the limit - accounts closed quickly. Or running accounts for free will disapear. Not going to haooen over the next few years, but at some time in the future, who knows.
All the above are personal opinions, and in no way reflect in Chrysalis. Just setting a few facts right, and then a general opinion on the banking at present.
|
Maybe thats how it should work but isnt happening here.
If I pay in a cheque on a monday, the earliest it will be cleared is friday morning at midnight but usually the following monday or tuesday.
If I use my debit card somewhere, my available balance usually goes down (not always) but the transaction doesnt show until a day or two later.
A transaction from another bank (not standing order) seems to take an age it should be max 7 working days I am told but usually 3 to 5 days, it took 10 working days for me, you saying it doesnt happen but it DID happen.
The transaction was in Lloyds TSB system for 3 or 4 working days doing what? dont know for sure but if they dont tell me soon I am reporting them to the financial obdusmen.
Lloyds TSB in the past have taken extra direct debit payments from my account for my loan without authorisation, I ring up and they refund, except guess what? a transaction from themselves needs 5 days to clear. If during this time a direct debit or standing order isnt cleared I am liable for the fees they wont refund.
It seems the banks are claiming that if penalties on the poorer people in society are dropped (they currently subsidise free banking for the rich) that free banking will end.
They convieniantly ignore monthly banking fees paid by many for certian facilities such as overdrafts (my select account is £7 a month) again people with large balances get these fees waived. They ignore that whilst money is been cleared they earn interest on it and its theres to use how they want, yes banks do make money this way, it was reported sometime last year that if they wanted to they could scrap clearance delays but in return would charge for ATMs to recover the lost profits so the idea got scrapped. Of course they also make money from lending out money with the interest they get back.