Reclaim Your Bank And Card Charges

The Banks must be or hopefully are getting a bit twitchy now......

Bailiffs raid Royal Bank of Scotland...........It's a heart-warming tale for anyone who thinks it is impossible to fight back against unfair charges by big banks. Last week, bailiffs raided a Royal Bank of Scotland branch in London to take control of computers, fax machines and a cash till after a customer won a court judgment over more than £3,000 in overdraft charges.

The Guardian

[Russ]

Can you imagine the level of satisfaction of being able to walk in to a bank with a shaven headed kuckle-dragger and mark things to be taken away unless they paid up?

One can only DREAM of that....

Do you think that court judgement will affect RBS's credit rating?

Originally Posted by Russ B

Can you imagine the level of satisfaction of being able to walk in to a bank with a shaven headed kuckle-dragger and mark things to be taken away unless they paid up?

One can only DREAM of that....

Next are the Inland Revenue

Boy would I get some satisfaction over that.

A step too far maybe

[Mr Angry]

""Millions of people are being ripped off by their own banks, plunging the poorest deeper into debt. The Office of Fair Trading has failed to act...".

This is where the confusion begins for most people. Many people are under the impression due to the OFT statement of last April that a charge of £12.00 or less is legal - this is not the case. I was one of a number of people involved in the legal lobbying of the OFT to look into these charges and we were decidely disappointed that they proved themselves, in the end, to be toothless.

The OFT, it became clear from the start, was not prepared to expose this racket for what it is because of the potential damage to certain business interests. We have asked, repeatedly, where the OFT arrived at the mythical "£12.00 threshold" fee and they have to date, in much the same way as the crooks who levy such fees, failed to respond with anything beyond "We estimate that....".

The OFT were well aware of the can of worms which had been opened and tried, unsuccessfully, to bring the banks to the table to come to an early resolution. The banks, in their naivety, thought that consumer rights could be trampled on and that those exposing their fraud would be written off as "crackpots" and derided with the usual cries of "But if it wasn't legal...". To a degree they were right. However, we now find ourselves in a very different scenario where banks and other companies are refunding tens of thousands of pounds a day because their previously sacrosanct legal teams know, and have advised them, that the game is up and they have been rumbled as complicit in one of the largest commercial frauds in modern histiory.

The one concession to the lobbying that the OFT did make, under extreme duress I must add, was their inclusion of the caveat "a court will certainly not consider that a default fee is fair just because it is below the threshold."

They included the above only because two previous precedents in consumer contract law were brought to their attention. The fact of the matter is that once a charge constitutes anything above and beyond the genuine costs of administration it becomes illegal under consumer contract law (this will cover most if not all contracts anyone reading these forae will encounter in their lifetime). If you have been charged a fee in relation to any default or late payment then you should write to the party involved asking for a full explanation of the breakdown, not some sweeping generalization, of that charge. If they, for whatever reason, cannot provide you with this then you can be almost 100% guaranteed that there is an element of profit involved in the charge (ever wondered why charges never consist of a "pence" element?).

Take it to court and, like the many thousands of others before you, you will win.

[Chrysalis]

I was going to ask you did the OFT explain why they refusing to enforce the law but it seems you did already try.

I take it this means now someone has finally gone to court and of course won? Before I heard the banks were just avoiding court.

It seems every regulator including the OFT will only regulate up to a limit and their main remit is to not disrupt large commercial profits, which isnt surprising the very people who set these regulators up wont want a economy problem.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I was going to ask you did the OFT explain why they refusing to enforce the law but it seems you did already try.

I take it this means now someone has finally gone to court and of course won? Before I heard the banks were just avoiding court.

It seems every regulator including the OFT will only regulate up to a limit and their main remit is to not disrupt large commercial profits, which isnt surprising the very people who set these regulators up wont want a economy problem.

It's a technical win by "default" (oh, the irony). What is interesting is that RBS didn't even come forward with threats of an appeal - Abbey did this in 2005 and I don't think they ever did appeal.

Lots of people have gone to court and won. The issue is that not one bank, card issuer or credit company has appeared in order to defend their charges and therefore the courts award the claimants a default win for their non appearance.

It's a matter of economics for the banks. For every customer who claims a refund there are still many thousands who don't. They'd rather milk the ignorant masses than explain their cost structures in court and lose the banking federations billions - not just annually, but on retrospective claims.

[Chrysalis]

By going to court I meant actually been in court both parties fighting it out. Has this occured yet?

[Alien]

Originally Posted by popper

it seems only the barrister used the right terms in the program, its unlawful (not illegal [theft) unless you can find the board member or accounts person that actioned the higher cost charge perhaps).

That's a shame, would be lovely to send the police after them.

Originally Posted by popper

some things to remember, the bbc special panel said that they could NOT get the cost of direct debit ANY HIGHER than £2.50 MAXIMUM.

that, direct debit is tantermount to a CASH PAYMENT in uk law, so if your being charged more for cash payments then its perhaps unlawful too.

I do wish someone would make NTL back down on their non-DD fee, They may only be charging £1.50 over what those experts determined was the maximum justifiable amount, but it adds up over time. [Though it would be nicer if they didn't charge anything at all for not using DD.]

Originally Posted by popper

regarding the BBC program , i was rather disapointed in that he could have put the banking code of practice to the woman and asked the question , given that the govt have instructed that all govt/state benefits be payed into your members products, how is it that your members (I.e the banks) are taking bank charges out of these accounts when the UK 'BlueBook' laws expressly forbid you to take these moneys in charges....

how could she possibly brush that aside on public TV and not have some MPs instantly try and get some soundbites and find a way to push the whole charges thing to front and center....

I don't suppose you'd know where I can find a copy of those "BlueBook" laws? I ask as I've been notified of an impending penalty charge by my bank.

Originally Posted by DarthYoda

My bank have just charged me a total of £60 for going overdrawn for a total of 2 days by about £5.

I am sure over the last few years LloydsTSB have had a lot of money off me. I really should look through and work out how much exactly it is and write to them.

I used to not have anything bad to say about LTSB, but with this charge they're trying to stick me with those bankers seem to be proving themselves a complete & utter wunch!

My DSS [or DWP as it's now called] payment goes into my bank every other Sunday. On the Friday before I was due to be paid I logged on to LTSB's internet banking site to check my account, only to notice that I'd gone 49p over my overdraft limit [which is only £100 anyway]. I rang up & apologised for going over, & pointed out that there'd be a payment going in on Sunday anyway, but was told that a letter had already been sent out.

Saturday morning I get a letter saying that I was going to be charged £30 for the heinous crime of going a whole bank-breaking 49p over. It also said that I would be charged an additional £30 for each day that the amount I was over increased. I checked my account again, & apparently the Co-op had been a bit slow to send through a charge from Thursday, so my account was now £3.18 over my limit, which by what the letter said means they're going to try & sting me for £60.

Originally Posted by luckybleeder

Seriously, try the FOS before you part with any money for court action. People say that they're a toothless tiger but they came up trumps for me

FOS?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Alien

FOS?

Financial Ombudsman Service

[Alien]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Financial Ombudsman Service

Do you mean the FSA [Financial Services Authority]?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Alien

Do you mean the FSA [Financial Services Authority]?

Nope
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/

[Alien]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Nope
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/

Thanks for that, I just had a chat with them on the phone. I also asked about the point Popper brought up, about banks taking charges from accounts into which benefits are paid. The guy told me that this is true if the benefits are the person's only source of income, & the amount the bank wants to charge would constitute a large portion of that income from benefits. As my branch has waived fees a couple of times in the past when I've gone in & talked to them about it, I'm going to try & do that next week. I'd rather not "get their back up", so to speak, by threatening legal action, if I can get it waived without doing so.

[VSPNET]

My partner had a direct debit with Hastings Direct but whenhe canceled the account with them they continued to debit me £48 a month for a period or 2 months. Taking me over my overdraft limit. When i finally realised i was overdrawn (one month later when I got a notice of bank charges) The insurance company would not refund me because i was not the account holder and they would not refund me when my partner tried, They claimed that they hadnt taken out the money eventhough i have bank statements.

My bank refused point blank to get the money back and also refused to wave the charges. I did notify them at the time that the charges were unlawfull and that i am entitled to have the money and interest paid back under uk law. However the bank has refused this and has been adding £38 a month charges for 7 months. They have now sent me solicitors letters.

Anyone in this posistion I advise they take their bank to small claims court!! And report them to the OFT.

[Alien]

Originally Posted by VSPNET

Anyone in this posistion I advise they take their bank to small claims court!! And report them to the OFT.

Actually, I'd speak to the Financial Ombudsman 1st [see link in TheDaddy's post, 2 posts up]. From what I've read, it seems the FO has more influence/power over banks than the OFT. Plus, I think I saw on the FO site that if you try the legal route 1st & a court finds against you [yeah, I know, unlikely, but still...] then you wouldn't be able to ask the FO for help [at least not on the same case], but if you go to them 1st you could always try the legal method later if you weren't satisfied with the FO's results.