Thread: Bank charge petition

I am absolutely disgusted at the long drawn out process the bank charge fiasco is getting. Banks are still charging extortionate fees for minor problems. They are also trying to enforce these charges using debt collectors if you cannot pay I have evidence of this from Natwest and their lap dogs wescot. The house of lords will make their decision in the autumn about the charges legality but I have been told that the matter could drag on further still.

I think the government has had a persuading hand in all this as the banks have been bailed out with our money. I do not think the government would like to see the money they paid the banks to be paid directly back to those who funded the bail out.

I totally believe that people who have suffered at the hands of the bank charge [problem] should now petition the government. So that the case is resolved now once and for all. The last thing the government needs now is hordes of people protesting about the banks behaviour. This could have been settled in the high court but you all know what the banks are like. It could be a long time before this is settled. So they need a little push.

Anyone know how to set up a massive petition, I have had enough of the banks destroying this country and fleecing the majority. What we need is a few less fat pigs at the top eating all the pie.

You could petition on the Number 10 website, but I'm sure there's already been a few very large ones which have STILL not been answered by the PM!

Hi rjex

Agree with you. It is disgusting how the banks (and other organizations) are allowed to trample all over us and effectively say we don't give a damn about you or the law, we will do just as we like.

When I was at college (many,many moons ago now) our law lecturer taught us that we couldn't make a penal default charge on a construction project. Any charge had to be based on the cost to the client eg. If a project overran by a month then the default charge had to be based on the cost of the loss (eg lost rent, interest payments etc.) and not just a figure plucked out of the air on a whim. I know a little knowledge is a dangerous thing but I see no difference with bank charges. If this same rule applied to the banks then the charge would have to be a proportion of the costs in setting up the original computer software plus the cost of the computer generating the charge and letter plus postage which of course would amount to pence rather than pounds and certainly not £30 to £40 which seems to be the norm. These charges are penal, unfair, and totally unjust. It does seem that justice is starting to slide down the scale in this Country and it is time we very polite and shrug our shoulders society started to fight back on mass. I can't believe I've just written that because I am a most unlikely revolutionary but justice is one of the few things that are at the very top of my beliefs.

I feel that a mass mailing to MP's would be good especially with an election not far away.

I will have a think as to how this can be done effectively.

So that's two of us. If we can make it a few thousand then this then starts to have a effect on Government.

Regards

John

Originally Posted by thegasman

When I was at college (many,many moons ago now) our law lecturer taught us that we couldn't make a penal default charge on a construction project. Any charge had to be based on the cost to the client eg. If a project overran by a month then the default charge had to be based on the cost of the loss (eg lost rent, interest payments etc.) and not just a figure plucked out of the air on a whim

Correct.

Originally Posted by thegasman

I know a little knowledge is a dangerous thing but I see no difference with bank charges.

The court has considered the question and decided there is a difference.

Originally Posted by thegasman

If this same rule applied to the banks then the charge would have to be a proportion of the costs in setting up the original computer software plus the cost of the computer generating the charge and letter plus postage which of course would amount to pence rather than pounds and certainly not £30 to £40 which seems to be the norm.

(The following assumes for the sake of argument that if a bank raises a charge it is for a service.) What you are arguing for here is that banks should not make a profit for providing a service. I think we can all agree that banks have made excessive profits out of bank charges. If you are going to argue that banks should not make excessive profits then you need to be fair and extend the principle to all businesses. For a start, just think how much it costs to produce a greetings card and what you pay for one in a shop. Whilst controls are in place to protect the consumer, the law does not and never has sought to place a limit on the profit a business can make.

What the law does do though is to restrict the damages recoverable for breach of contract to the loss suffered. So, as you have pointed out, under a construction contract if the builder is in default the customer can only recover his actual losses. The reason the court was unable to find that bank charges are penalties was because, on a proper analysis, it was unable to find that they arose because of a breach of contract by the customer.

Originally Posted by thegasman

These charges are penal, unfair, and totally unjust. It does seem that justice is starting to slide down the scale in this Country and it is time we very polite and shrug our shoulders society started to fight back on mass. I can't believe I've just written that because I am a most unlikely revolutionary but justice is one of the few things that are at the very top of my beliefs.

The forces of reaction want you to believe that justice is failing as it is part of their plan to persuade you you are misgoverned. The administration of justice is as safe now as it was 20, 40 or 60 years ago, mainly because it is in the hands of judges and not politicians or newspaper editors. Now of course social justice is not the same thing as justice according to the law. Judges must find according to the law. If you want laws that control the profits of banks or anyone else, then come the next election you need to be looking to vote for a party that is rather more left wing than any of the mainstream political parties.

Thanks Aequitus

Always interesting and informative to read other views.

When I personally talk about justice I do mean social justice which does not always tie in with the law in my view.

I don't know about other banks but the Halifax would never pay a direct debit (or anything else except their charges) which would take my account beyond its limit. I have no problem with this stance because any such payment would take me outside my agreement with them. I fail to see how then this is a service to me though. The charge is for notifying me of the situation and not for providing me with anything so I then see a charge of £35 for this notification as being a penalty far in excess of the cost of issuing the letter.

I am not suggesting in anyway that banks or any other business should not be allowed to make a profit but what I am saying is that they need to be fair. I would include banks in a group of essential services in our society today and as such they need proper regulation and the consumer needs proper protection.

I have worked for myself most of my life and assume like many others have my peaks and troughs financially but fortunately I have always managed to keep my head above water (sometimes by a very narrow margin) but how can it be socially just that people less fortunate financially should have to suffer even more in situations like this. This is just one of many instances in our society today where 'the rich get richer whilst the poor get poorer'.

Thanks for the comments; speak again later.

Regards


John

Letter sent to Prime Minister, my MP, my MEP's today-

10th August 2009

Dear ,

I write to ask your views on the unjust problem of penalty charges being applied by the UK High Street Banks and their apparent disregard of the guidelines set out by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), Banking Code, and maybe other bodies, when a customer disputes these charges. I also ask for your views on the prolonging tactics being used by the Banks and the Financial Services Authority by continued appeals and requests for staying of Court cases. The latest appeal by the banks appears to be little more than a begging exercise for mercy because it might cost them a lot of money if justice is served. This action is denying reasonably speedy justice to take place. All very serious charges and yet it doesn’t appear that anyone in authority is prepared to speak out and take action against this.

It has long been held under common law in this Country that contractual penalty charges which exceed the actual loss suffered are unlawful but it would seem from the High Court Appeal case last year that it is doubtful that this would be a valid legal argument with regard to bank charges. The judges obviously have to work within the law and I respect this but I see this situation as socially unjust and just another example of clever lawyers trying to circumnavigate true justice.

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 has confirmed that a disproportionate penalty would be an example of an unfair term and that this would therefore be unenforceable by law and the Director General of the OFT announced in 2005 that any penalty charge which exceeds actual losses is disproportionate.


Cont.

10th August 2009/ /pg2

Charging anything up to £40 for a computer generated letter informing you that a direct debit or similar has not been paid and then applying the charge to the account which then possibly takes your account into an unauthorized overdraft situation must be considered disproportionate by the vast majority of people. Yet despite all of this the Banks continue to apply these charges.

The Banks are making billions of pounds in profit from these unjust charges so they are unlikely to do anything about the situation so it up to Parliament to force the issue. A 2005 survey by the BBC and others concluded that 1 in 5 bank customers suffered from these unjust charges and I suspect this ratio is now much higher. This is an extremely large proportion of the electorate and therefore requires action if Parliament is to be truly representative of the people of this Country.

To get a feel for the anger being generated by this situation I would suggest you take a look at some of the consumer forums on the internet. Two such websites are –
www.consumeractiongroup.c o.uk
and
www.moneysavingexpert.com

To make matters even worse (and that is saying something) some banks are completely ignoring the Banking Code and Office of Fair Trading Guidelines by continuing to pursue payment of these charges after the alleged debt is officially in dispute. So on the one hand the Banks have managed to get all such cases stayed by the Courts but on the other hand they are still pursuing the alleged debts and even taking money from other accounts you have with them to settle this disputed debt. I find this situation totally outrageous and unjust. We find ourselves in a situation where justice is being denied us for a time but the banks can obtain what they perceive as justice with immediate effect. It seems to me that the Banks are implying that they are above the law. This is a totally unacceptable situation and must be addressed immediately.

My own personal experience of this is with the Halifax (a bank in which the Government is a majority shareholder) and I attach a summary of my experience to date so that you can see what is happening.

I look forward to receiving your speedy reply and your views on this matter and confirmation of what you intend to do to rectify this situation.

Yours sincerely,

If I commented I would here all day so I will keep it simple.

What are the Government doing?
OFT Vs.Abbey et al.

I await the above response to your letter thegasman.

Thanks yourbank.

Trying to draw out a reaction and commitment.
Anyone who just responds by refering to the OFT Abbey case will get an even longer letter.
Let's see what come back.

John

Do you want me to comment on the letter because personally I don't like it at all and you will simply get back a response with regards to what is going on in the OFT test case?
For example, Moore-Blicks who is the deputy master of the Rolls issued a statement in February 2009 stating that stays were a reasonable approach to the claims in county court while the OFT test case was ongoing.

Hi Yourbank.

Wasn't trying to draw a response from you but trying to draw a response from the letter recipients.

You, as with everyone else, are entitled to your views and I respect your right to hold them.

My own personal view is that from a social justice stance this whole situation is wrong and should have been dealt with by now. Moore-Blicks has made a legal decision which I am sure is right in law but that doesn't mean it is a just decision. We have ended up with a situation whereby claimants have to wait for their cases to be decided whereas the banks (or at least the Halifax in my case) have just gone ahead and taken what they consider a just outcome into their own hands by setting off the money.

I'm afraid I just cannot see true justice in this situation.

When I was on the local council I learnt that you sometimes need to shout to get your voice heard rather than just sit back and wait. Many good things would never have happened if it wasn't for people shouting metaphorically.

Originally Posted by thegasman

Letter sent to Prime Minister, my MP, my MEP's today-
Previously you asked for comments on your main bank thread but I will try here.
10th August 2009

Dear ,

I write to ask your views on the unjust problem of penalty charges being applied by the UK High Street Banks and their apparent disregard of the guidelines set out by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), Banking Code, and maybe other bodies, when a customer disputes these charges.
Three issues here: 2 are factual and one is a general comment.
1) Penalty charges in law has gone since we are now talking about unfair charges under UTCCR 1999.
2) OFT are the ones litigating against the banks and have set no guidelines and if we are talking about the FSA Waiver on bank charges then you need to be more specific.
3) The last bit "and maybe other bodies" seems to show that you don't know what you are talking about. Research it and then put it into the letter.

I also ask for your views on the prolonging tactics being used by the Banks and the Financial Services Authority by continued appeals and requests for staying of Court cases. The latest appeal by the banks appears to be little more than a begging exercise for mercy because it might cost them a lot of money if justice is served. This action is denying reasonably speedy justice to take place. All very serious charges and yet it doesn’t appear that anyone in authority is prepared to speak out and take action against this.
1) Factually inaccurate. The OFT are in court litigating against the banks and 4 judges have so far said No yet the banks petitioned the House of Lords which was granted and the appeal is currently awaiting the verdict. The FSA is not litigating but did put in place the waiver on the announcement of the OFT test case. You haven't read the House of Lords Transcripts which I have and so the paragraph is factually inaccurate.
2) The appeal is something that is regularly made by an opponent losing in Appeals court, for example, the 1999 McLibel case.

It has long been held under common law in this Country that contractual penalty charges which exceed the actual loss suffered are unlawful but it would seem from the High Court Appeal case last year that it is doubtful that this would be a valid legal argument with regard to bank charges. The judges obviously have to work within the law and I respect this but I see this situation as socially unjust and just another example of clever lawyers trying to circumnavigate true justice.
It is completely irrelevant. Bank Charges are either penal or unfair under UTCCR 1999. The OFT used what can be termed as the "shotgun" approach. Throw everything in and hope you get a hit which they did with UTCCR 1999.
The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 has confirmed that a disproportionate penalty would be an example of an unfair term and that this would therefore be unenforceable by law and the Director General of the OFT announced in 2005 that any penalty charge which exceeds actual losses is disproportionate.
That was the statement on credit card default fees. Again the OFT are litigating today on unfair bank charges.

Cont.

10th August 2009/ /pg2

Charging anything up to £40 for a computer generated letter informing you that a direct debit or similar has not been paid and then applying the charge to the account which then possibly takes your account into an unauthorized overdraft situation must be considered disproportionate by the vast majority of people. Yet despite all of this the Banks continue to apply these charges.
I do totally agree with you on this point with regards to the interplay of charges being unfair.
The Banks are making billions of pounds in profit from these unjust charges so they are unlikely to do anything about the situation so it up to Parliament to force the issue. A 2005 survey by the BBC and others concluded that 1 in 5 bank customers suffered from these unjust charges and I suspect this ratio is now much higher. This is an extremely large proportion of the electorate and therefore requires action if Parliament is to be truly representative of the people of this Country.
20% is in the OFT Personal Current Account study. It maybe 20% of the total current account market and not just population so the figure of the electorate may not be as high or could be higher than this.
To get a feel for the anger being generated by this situation I would suggest you take a look at some of the consumer forums on the internet. Two such websites are –
www.consumeractiongroup.c o.uk
and
www.moneysavingexpert.com
There is a lot of anger on certain parts of MSE that if the charges are unfair and the banks' make you pay for having an account which has been caused by irresponsible people(others' words not mine).
To make matters even worse (and that is saying something) some banks are completely ignoring the Banking Code and Office of Fair Trading Guidelines by continuing to pursue payment of these charges after the alleged debt is officially in dispute. So on the one hand the Banks have managed to get all such cases stayed by the Courts but on the other hand they are still pursuing the alleged debts and even taking money from other accounts you have with them to settle this disputed debt. I find this situation totally outrageous and unjust. We find ourselves in a situation where justice is being denied us for a time but the banks can obtain what they perceive as justice with immediate effect. It seems to me that the Banks are implying that they are above the law. This is a totally unacceptable situation and must be addressed immediately.
You kinda lose the argument to a degree becuase you can keep them at bay by the very fact that it is in dispute. There is the FSA Waiver on Financial hardship to protect the most vulnerable of people.
My own personal experience of this is with the Halifax (a bank in which the Government is a majority shareholder) and I attach a summary of my experience to date so that you can see what is happening.

I look forward to receiving your speedy reply and your views on this matter and confirmation of what you intend to do to rectify this situation.

Yours sincerely,

I have added comments for you but there are areas of the letter I totally agree with but you do need to do a bit more research to fine tune it.

Thanks yourbank.

Exactly what I needed to improve the letter and make sure the content was factually correct

Very much appreciated.

John

What about signing this one?
Petition to: resign. | Number10.gov.uk

He's going anyway cos Labour are not going to win the next general election. I assume the petition was started by a man.....cos we got no patience whatsoever, pmsl.