Take the campaign from unlawful to illegal?

[Seany]

Looks like you beat me to it with the links! There's also this:
HSBC announces end of free banking
from the Which website.

It appears fairly obvious to all that the banks are panicking as they probably want to find an alternative, lawful, way off ripping off their customers. If my new bank start charging me regardless then I will close my account and open one of those simple accounts with the post office lol!

[JonCris]

When you think about who really needs tha banks.

I realize society and how it functions daily has changed a great deal but all we would really need is an account with a debit type card & into which our income can be paid & DD's set up

Cheques are becoming reduntant as many retailers will no longer accept them.

Also anyone see the banks claim that chip & pin has reduced fraud. Absolute rubbish. The fraud has yet to filter through & many victims (as predicted) are being told that they must have given their pin to somebody. Which is difficult to disprove when a signature can't be produced.

Also those denied claims don't register. Chip & Pin is a monumental disaster & the banks know it.

It was only introduced so the banks could deny victims recompense.

The Yanks won't touch it. They still sign even when visiting this country

[Mistermind]

The financial institutions cleverly play the psychological card to inhibit moves to retrospectively clarify their unlawful acts as illegal. Many successful claimants trumpet their joy on here, but many simultaneously half apologize for getting into trouble in the first place.

I am not opposed to charges for persons paying late or going over the limit. If charges were reduced to the strict IT cost (of possibly 50 pence per item) then everybody will not bother honouring the agreement, so that banks and cards can no longer run their businesses. My dispute with institutions is with degree, not with kind. The charge levels were so horrendous only Dracula and Shylock would approve. Until victims can become open and proud to claim their place in the sun and reclaim their own money unlawfully filched, this movement for justice will remain bashful, soft-spoken and half hidden in the closet.

Victims need to be convinced it was not their fault to be victimised. They were forgetful or short of the readies, but the institutions were criminal. The charges were outrageous exploitation, pitched higher than anywhere in the developed world. The following posting of mine has been copied from another thread under HSBC.

Originally Posted by Mistermind

I read that after Which Magazine ran a campaign on reclaiming unlawful charges, 30,000 of their readers started action. I can only assume Which did not tip off their readers about this admirable site, so that as yet fewer than 2,000 claimants have reported success, 4 months after 5th April 2006.

I suggest the banks and cards are working on the psychological angle. They insinuate that victims of unlawful charges brought their misfortune upon themselves, i.e. for being poor, forgetful, impunctual, for dishonouring cheques etc. That such miscreants should not complain when punished. They also drive a wedge between those victimised by charges and those not victimised. So much guilt trip has been laid on the victims that many are a little embarassed to reclaim their own money. Embarassed, ashamed and apologetic that they got into trouble in the first place. Successful reclamation is trumpeted on this forum, but perhaps not in all social situations, not in front of total strangers, in case they sneer why were you so disorganised to get into trouble in the first place?

I suggest this is the reason why, out of possibly ten million cards and bank accounts eligible for charges refund, only thousands have claimed -- as yet. This psychological battle needs to be won, the bloodsuckers still have the upper hand -- as yet.

[JonCris]

I couldn't agree more.

This site is great but instead of each of us fighting our corner I would like to see it going forward en mass.

I know it's trying on a number of fronts to bring the campaign to the greater attention of the media & the law makers but it's my opinion that we need a bit more of Barnum & Bailey approach.

Like fathers 4 justice we need to do something that whilst legal attracts media attention such as presenting the OFT with a petition. We could also do the same with each of the banks on the same day in the City of London & last but not least to number 10. That should get some attention.

The spokesman could be hooded to emphasize the need to hide their identity for fear of bank reprisal such as closing their account. This fact has already been evidenced by correspondence already received & cant be denied

[Mistermind]

A number of claimants banding together have more credibility, and attract more press publicity. A "Reclaim Unlawful Charges" demo -- to show up with pride in unison while the institutions seek to exploit a guilt trip, to divide and bamboozle.

The fact that thousands of claimants have now been individually paid out, while the institutions would rather die than face court judgement, surprised this telling reality has never been featured on TV reports.

[livelylad]

hi i have a question regarding my claim, i have recieved a defence from the solicitors for RBS. Their solicitor is asking me questions do i have to reply to these questions or will the court ask me these questions please help!!!

[Overdrawn]

livelylad - Please post any questions relating to your claim in your own thread in the appropriate forum, that way people can help you more quickly as your questions will just get lost if they are in the wrong place and it is impossible for people to follow your case and help you accurately. Once posted in the appropriate forum you will receive responses.

Regards, OD

[Mistermind]

Banks/cards make out that having once dishonoured cheques, claimants now want to dishonour charges they passively agreed to. Nothing about the fact that they exploited account holders' inertia -- read this fine print, and if you do not obeject in writing or close your account we shall understand you have agreed.

These moneylenders want to make out that claimants incurred charges because they were and are failures, and rely on the embarassment of individuals while they trumpet their own self-righteousness. The same exploitation of victims' embarassment which kept in child abuse under the carpet and in the closet for generations until recent years.

Would there be sufficient appetite for 100 claimants to ceremonially march through the City of London, handing letters and claims into the bank HQs? Carrying placards on which will be written the relevant laws of England, Oh yes, with children in tow, and TV cameras, and press photographers. Whether photogenic or not, I would not be averse to show my face on camera, not that I would enjoy it. All because the buggers want to do everything possible to delay paying out.

[JonCris]

Great Idea! Problem is I think the City Police are in the pay of big business & I don't think such a large demo would be permitted & is why I suggested lots of smaller simultaneous ones

Also I still think any spokesperson should don a hood to demonstrate the banks retalitory conduct when the consumer has the balls to fight back

Lets stop being nice

[meagain]

Originally Posted by JonCris

Great Idea! Problem is I think the City Police are in the pay of big business & I don't think such a large demo would be permitted & is why I suggested lots of smaller simultaneous ones

Which is all the more reason why perhaps you should hop along to the neighbouring city of Westminster, where the Met will happily provide you with information and support in organising a safe event (as the Live 8 organisers will tell you )

[meagain]

Originally Posted by hagenuk

HSBC appear to be claiming that not to introduce charges, for customers who remain in the black "is untenable in the long-run."

It's clearly untenable for HSBC, because it would mean a reduction in their profits from £13bn to a measly £12bn ...

[hagenuk]

Just £12Bn? Hardly worth getting out of bed for then.

[JonCris]

Originally Posted by meagain

Which is all the more reason why perhaps you should hop along to the neighbouring city of Westminster, where the Met will happily provide you with information and support in organising a safe event (as the Live 8 organisers will tell you )

Problem is the banks are in the City of London Plus any organised large demo can cost thousands for insurance

[Mistermind]

Tyler Watt never bothered about all that.
But then what happened to Tyler.......

[meagain]

I had a random thought on this idea, but I'm not going to put it into the "Legalities" forum, as my thought is purely a discussion point and I do not wish people to act upon it.

[Unholy Alliance]

If someone is advised that money is owed by them, merely the act of not returning it whenrequested to do so could be seen as unlawfully witholding someones property. When letters then try to hide behing the the very laws they are breaking in order to suggest we had agrreed to let them take it must be a deception if someonre is then taken in by it, and decides not to bother asking for their property again? Just a thought from another angle/

As far as the rest of these posts are concerned, I totally agree with these campaign ideas. Count me in!

[livelylad]

Count me in

[jb79]

This can be made into a HR issue, I posted elsewhere a question to which this thread is an answer.

I've been cautioning bank staff for weeks that they may be commiting a criminal offence however I feel it may be fairer on the poor sods to approach their unions making the position (in our eyes) clear.

I'm not sufficiantly legal to write such a piece however I would sign the thing.

[joebloggs]

Not a legal beagle by any stretch of the imagination but my logic syas they can't be accused of theft.
The tell you in advance that they will charge you set amounts if you go overdrawn etc.
I think it is absolutely fair enough that those charges are now subject to the growing number of claims on the basis they are punative and unfair.
But theft i think is a whole different ball game as each of us currently claiming were aware of the charges in that they were contained in the terms and conditions of the contract we entered into.

[Mistermind]

Rather than theft which is the unlawful seizure of other people's property and money by force or stealth, a more accurate description could be

Banking Fraud --

overcharging for services by wilful misrepresentation.

What do bank employees know, and when did they know it? Staff unions need to face the reality that in acquiescing with bank instructions to sign letters the contents of which they know to be false, bank employees lay themselves open to future charges of being accomplices in banking fraud perpetrated on customers.