pettition for a Cash Machine Act of parliment

[JOSH_IOU]

Due to the defence UK banks have been issuing in response of penalty charges I thought we need an act that regulates cash machines.

As you may no Cash machine operators must tell you before a transaction has taken place if you are charged for that transaction.

However It has become clear that banks are using Bank charges to partially fund the so-called free banking regime.

It has been publicly announced that in 2007 Lloyd's TSB bank has made a profit of 2 billion + pounds.

How can a bank possibly be loosing money when they are making 2 billion + a year.

I suggest that the government introduce a cash machine act. And make it illegal for ATM operators to withdraw after sale charges for misleading free bank transactions.

Please support me in this petition by signing this thread. Maybe the site owners will create a petition on the No10 e-petition website.

[Struggling_Simon]

hmm, interesting idea.

I think that the best that you can hope for is to have a cap placed on the amount that an ATM operator can charge for a transaction, as the bank would be able to argue the 'fee for a service' in that respect, as the machines themselve require maintenance which will not be free, i.e carries a demonstrable cost to provide said service.

[JOSH_IOU]

Yes but I am saying under the proposed act / amendment they "must" advertise what we are paying for. When they charge us.

Though I do think if i had to pay for a transaction then I would go back to cash. Or move my account abroad. I choose the free transaction cards for a reason. I cant afford to pay for a transaction.

But the problem is when they do provide a said service The amount we pay for the service is excessive. If they can not sort themselves out then we need an act of parliament. Its clear the threat of court action is not doing enough. It dose not cost them £15 -£35 a time simply to operate. Banks made a profit of 2billion + last year and are set to break that this year.

The only way forward I see is if they tell us "exactly" what we are paying for under the supply of goods act 1994. If were paying for a transaction then the physical good if you like is the Credit / Debit Card. If there calling this a service surely this is against the Advertising Industry Standards already.

[JOSH_IOU]

Supply of goods act 1994

Implied terms where transfer is by sample.

(1) This section applies where, under a contract for the transfer of goods, the transferor transfers or agrees to transfer the property in the goods by reference to a sample.
(2) In such a case there is an implied term—
(a) that the bulk will correspond with the sample in quality;
(b) that the transferee will have a reasonable opportunity of comparing the bulk with the sample; and
(c) that the goods will be free from any defect, making their quality unsatisfactory, which would not be apparent on reasonable examination of the sample.
(3) For the purposes of this section a transferor transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods by reference to a sample where there is an express or implied term to that effect in the contract concerned.

[JOSH_IOU]

11F Remedies for breach of contract.

(1) Where in a contract for the transfer of goods a transferor is in breach of any term of the contract (express or implied), the other party to the contract (in this section referred to as “the transferee”) shall be entitled—
(a) to claim damages; and
(b) if the breach is material, to reject any goods delivered under the contract and treat it as repudiated.
(2) Where a contract for the transfer of goods is a consumer contract and the transferee is the consumer, then, for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above, breach by the transferor of any term (express or implied)—
(a) as to the quality of the goods or their fitness for a purpose;
(b) if the goods are, or are to be, transferred by description, that the goods will correspond with the description;
(c) if the goods are, or are to be, transferred by reference to a sample, that the bulk will correspond with the sample in quality,
shall be deemed to be a material breach.
(3) In subsection (2) above, “consumer contract” has the same meaning as in section 25(1) of the 1977 Act; and for the purposes of that subsection the onus of proving that a contract is not to be regarded as a consumer contract shall lie on the transferor.

[JOSH_IOU]

The Govan Law centre states.

One may transfer proceedings to Scotland if the bank trades there.

Unfair UK Bank Charges | legal help from Govan Law Centre, Glasgow, UK

But only if you Have a chance of winning