Thread: When are the banks going to fight back?

Originally Posted by alittleprince1977

My own claim is getting no-where (Natwest) - they won't even send me my data protection info despite all the proper letters being sent and several follow up reminders - and they've already closed my account.

Out of curiosity, have the exceeded the 40 days statutory period, and if so have you begun proceedings to take them to court?

Glenn

I think you may need to do a little more research.....

I thought much the same as you a few months back - ie, SURELY the banks won't let this go on for much longer - but the more you study the legalities involved, the more you realise that they really have'nt got much scope to fight back, no matter how many fancy lawyers they throw at the problem. If the banks were to find any sort of 'solution' to halt this flood of litigation, they would have found it by now, believe me!

What I think is important to remember is, that the successes acheived against the banks are not in any way due to the exploitation of some sort of 'loophole' which could be plugged. The bottom line is, that a penalty charge imposed for a breach of contract is unlawful - unless it does not exceed the actual cost of the breach. We all know, as do judges or anyone else, that an automated action to bounce a direct debit does not cost £3.50, let alone £35. Plenty of circumstantial evidance can be offered to support this, and if a bank went to court to defend their charges, they know that standard disclosure of their costs would more than likely be ordered by the judge - NOT good news for the banks!
THE LAW REALLY IS ON OUR SIDE!

So, what can the banks do?

Well, a couple are spitting their dummies and simply closing peoples accounts (Alliance & Leicester), but the FSA have recently issued a statement condeming this, so hopefully it won't go on much longer.

Some are trying to be pro-active in their defences by saying their charges are not penaltys, but legitimate service charges (Lloyds). To say this now though is, to coin a phrase, 'shutting the door after the horse has bolted' - they have previously issued hundreds of letters which directly contradict this arguement. The service charge argument is, IMHO, designed to intimidate and would not stand up in court.

Our biggest enemy (IMHO) is ignorance, over-confidance and complacancy. If we try to cut corners or make mistakes in the process of reclaiming our charges, the banks could try to exploit them. THEY are the one's relying on loopholes and technicalities, not us. An example of this would be if 'manual intervention' records were not asked for in the Subject access request. They could then argue that in that particular case, their costs were a true reflection of their charges becouse they were considered then levied manually by staff. Still probably would'nt stand up, and as far a I know it has'nt happened yet, but its just an example.

Gain as much knowledge as you can and be sure of your case, then follow the tried and tested procedures to the letter, and they don't stand a chance - and they know it!

Oh yeah, as Glenn UK said, if they've breached the Data Protection Act - ENFORCE IT!!!!!! They don't have a choice wether they comply or not, its not something they can do if they feel like it or not if they don't - its the law wether they like it or not!

To answer the thread titles, they are fighting back. If you find that your penalty charges are reduced to £12 but some other fee "co-incidentally" increases, you can probably claim that back as unfair too.

That article is a bit old isn't it June 2006 ???

In the long term, it looks like the banks will get rid of default charges and start to make standard charges for current account facilities, etc, in much the same way as they do in continental europe. Which, as far as I'm concerned, is a good thing as it means everyone pays an equal, fair and transparent price for the services they use. As it is at the moment, the less well off in society are paying for everyone else's Free Banking becouse they are the ones most likely to get caught in a never ending snowball effect of charges on top of charges. And, of course, the banks know this damn well - for this reason they are, in my eyes, scum. See the McNamara interview in the templates libery for confirmation of this.

Originally Posted by slyspy

I got a letter the other day saying my Capital One APR is going to increase by about 4%, so that's one way of them reclaiming their profits back.

You want to write to them saying that you will seek to reclaim the difference in interest in future, as if they are trying to recoup profits which are judged to be unfair, this measure would be also de facto unfair.

doubt that would hold true meagain, there is nothing to stop the cc company making whatever profit they like.

The interest is the fee they charge for providing the customer with the service and im pretty certain the the UTCCR dont try to regulate the price you pay for goods or services generally. In the sense that if you want to buy something and the seller want a million or a pound for it, its up to the two parties to agree whether its fair. even when that contract would be between a business and a consumer.

If the change in interest rate is only be applied to one individual then i guess it might make a difference, im not sure it is.


Be interested to see if their are other opinions or views which correct/support the views expressed.

Glenn

it's true that the CC companies are increaseing rates at the moment, but I bet they will soon start to come back down when one of them starts a undercutting war to get more share of the market!

Which is only good for us the customers in the end.

Well, as far as the banks go, people reclaiming their charges are not even a thorn in their side yet.

The money is of no object to them, the only thing is the staff being overstretched through DPA requests etc... and I'm sure the 'powers-that-be' in banks couldn't really care less about that, so it's my guess that it will continue.

Originally Posted by Glenn UK

dount that would hold treu meagain, there is nothing to stop the cc company making whatever profit they like.

If they are raising money through unfair means which is then lost to them, then any means by which they recover those funds must be de facto unfair. Think about it - if you steal £5 from someone, you don't get to keep that money, regardless of what business you do with them.

I'm with Glenn UK on this one,
a) you'd never be able to prove a link between the two in court, and b) even if you could, for a pre-agreed service the banks can charge what they like - as a consumer you can then either take it or leave it.

Originally Posted by GaryH

a) you'd never be able to prove a link between the two in court

You wouldn't have to for civil matters. All you need is to convince a judge that the reduction (abolition? we can dream ...) of the penalties and the almost-immediately subsequent increase in other charges is more than just coincidence, and that several banks have done it.

"Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, the third time it's enemy action."

b) even if you could, for a pre-agreed service the banks can charge what they like - as a consumer you can then either take it or leave it.

Here too, you can argue that because it's not just one bank that's doing this, if you "leave it" you have nowhere else to go because of the effective cartel we have in the banking sector.

Very interesting, and I do see your point. I'd love to see a case brought, but personally I think the link might just be a little to ambiguous. I certainly think that any claim brought for that reason would be fiercly defended by the banks.

Originally Posted by GaryH

Very interesting, and I do see your point. I'd love to see a case brought, but personally I think the link might just be a little to ambiguous. I certainly think that any claim brought for that reason would be fiercly defended by the banks.

... and then hurriedly settled out-of-court

I suppose the biggest problem is that both points can be argued both ways. In a criminal investigation, the defendant gets the benefit of the doubt (and thus the outcome is known). In civil cases, because of the lighter standard of proof, doubt just means the judge could take it either way (so neither party knows where they stand).