Thread: Bank Charges - Direct Action

Bump

I like it! We take too much rubbish lying down. If we don't stand up for ourselves they won't stop pushing us around.

Large institutions are happy to push legality to breaking point and often beyond to make cash. They get away with it so often they have come to believe it’s acceptable business practice. If we allow them to continue we are tacitly agreeing with them. Isn’t it about time we held them to account?

We don't push back because as legally abiding citizens we we are concerned about the consequences and the implications of our actions on our good character and record. The banks even encourage this by keeping information on us that they can use to blackmail us with. In one letter I got from Capquest, I was encouraged to keep paying off a disputed debt to prevent my credit history from being tainted. Credit history is just a form of blackmail.

The banks know we can’t go anywhere else so they don't care about their reputation, character or record. No one at the bank will be held personally responsible for breaking the laws and stealing from us, the bank may receive a fine and a reprimand but nothing more and certainly nothing that will really matter to anyone at the bank. However, plenty of individuals at those banks got rich creating and implementing illegal policies to enable the theft of our money. Shouldn’t these responsible individuals who profited from these fraud schemes be held to account personally?

I'm not sure about the legality of the action I am considering but then the banks are happy to flout law and hope we haven’t got the time and energy contest their obscenely anti-social behaviour. They force us to test the legality of their action by spending huge amounts of time and money in court hoping that none of us has the resources or resolve to fight them. In which case by default they get away with breaking the law.

I am considering opening another account with a different bank and leaving the Halifax with the account overdrawn to the tune of the charges they illegally withdrew from my account. Instead of being the victim of a crime I propose turning the tables on the bank and let them wait till the end of the current legal case to see if they can claim anything back from

This seems infinitely more palatable than letting them sit on over £1,000 of my cash for years only to eventually find out what I already know, tat they took it illegally and should have given it back years ago when I really needed it. If the case goes against the consumer, I can then agree to pay back the difference but insist that the bank makes a claim in writing for the monies they claim I owe them. I can drag my heels like they do paying them back and generally make the process as slow and drawn out as possible to cost them as much inconvenience as possible and hopefully as much cash as possible just like they do to us.

Here’s another thing to ponder, once a case has been decided legally why the hell do we have to claim the money back? Why isn’t the legal responsibility on the banks to make reparation at their expense and prove to the courts that they have made all reasonable effort to redress the crime? The banks shouldn’t be allowed to keep any of it. While it’s still worth it financially for them to continue in illegal practices they will continue to do it. What about all the people who died and don’t claim back or the people who are too old, too tired too busy to bother. Most criminals have their assets frozen and the ill-gotten profits redistributed to the victims. What makes banks different?

V

I have suggested something along similar lines many times ages ago on the Nationwide Forum tomterm8.
Unfortunately when the last Board Member was elected, it was the 'endorsed' candidate who was overwhelmingly successful.
That is NOT to say that with a more concerted effort in the lead up to the next election of a Board Member, a mouse is unable to roar...

If a credible candidate could be found, endorsement by CAG would surely raise the public profile of CAG, even if the candidate eventually failed to gain a seat on the board methinks.


...

Hi JOSH IOU!

Originally Posted by JOSH_IOU

I dont understand the post.

There is a building socity involved in this action as well.

If I have read your quoted Post correctly, U are suggesting that U were unaware of Nationwide B.S.'s participation in the OFT Test Case??...

I find this strange, as it has been VERY well documented by various sources about which Banks/Building Societies were taking part in the legal action, even in the early days of the initial public announcement last summer.

That said, it has been known for even Site Team Members (...at the time of them Posting) to have made a similar mistake of NOT doing their homework before Posting on this well known issue...
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...ml#post1233467


...

Originally Posted by dave

...Can any member stand as a candidate?

Am NOT sure tbh dave
...I would have thought so though, just so long as they ALSO received enough nominations.

During the time of the multitude of de-mutalisations that took place amongst then Building Societies, Carpet Baggers were regularly getting themselves elected to B.S. Boards to effect often initially hostile de-mutualisations.

If nothing else, it could be a HUGE PR excercise for CAG...


...