Thread: Need some quick help ASAP

To be perfectly honest what ever you say or take in to show them they will disagree.

I would plead povety, and promise it wont happen again.

If that dosnt work I would serve an initial approach for payment letter on them there and then which I would prepare in advance.

The letter can be cut and pasted from the templates library, just add your details.

Then just continue as in the step by step guidelines.


Good luck

Originally Posted by aldino

Ok im with Natwest got 2 charges of £38 in the last 2 months and wana get it back.

went into branch today talked to some woman and told her the charges are excessive, she told me the usual 'its in the t&c's of when you signed up'

when i said the UK law says its illegal and the UK law is higher then the banks t&c's and that im happy to make a small claims court and will be guaranteed my money back she went to speak to a supervisor

she came back and said her manager is in a meeting now, as i had other stuff to do i made an appointment for 1pm tomorrow with the manager

anyway what im looking for is something that i can print out and take with me that can back up my arguement - i looked at the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 part 15 and thought i could show that, but where it says 'is not determined by the contract,' what if the manager says the price IS determind by the contract i sign when i sign up to the bank which states in the t&c's the charges?

how can i reply?

and anything else i can print off and show to him to back up my arguement?

have looked through the faq's etc

thanks

and i think its unlawful not illegal (big difference) just thought you would be better off using the correct terms if your trying to get someting off them! - good luck

Bank charges are not legally enforceable if they are penalties. Penalty clauses in contracts in English (and Scottish) law for breach of contract are not legal if the penalty exceeds the actual cost of the breach of either party. The law relating to penalties has been established through case law. The cases date back to the nineteenth century and the courts have been consistent in the way that they have ruled on penalty clauses.

Wilson v. Love (1896)

A tenant farmer agreed to pay an additional rent of £3 per ton by way of penalty for every ton of hay or straw that he sold off the premises during the last 12 months of the tenancy. The clause was regarded as a penalty because at the time hay was worth five shillings a ton more than straw.

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v. New Garage and Motor Co. Ltd. (1915)

In this particular case, the judges held that the sum specified in the contract was reasonable and was classified as liquidated damages. However, in this case, Lord Dunedin laid down rules which are still applied today in these types of cases:
i) The sum is a penalty if it is greater than the greatest loss which could be suffered from the breach – in other words, if it is "extravagant and unconscionable".
ii) If it agreed that a larger sum shall be payable in default of paying a smaller sum, this is a penalty.

Ford Motor Co. v. Armstrong (1915)

Ford were charging dealers a sum of £250 if the dealer sold the cars at less than list price and the Court of Appeal decided the sum was arbitrary and bore no relation to the potential loss suffered by Ford. It was, therefore, a penalty and did not need to be paid

Bridge v. Campbell Discount Co. Ltd. (1962)

In this case a customer bought a car under a hire purchase agreement. He paid the initial and first payments and then cancelled the agreement. The company tried to recover the sums specified in the contract for cancelling the agreement, but the courts held that the sums payable were excessive and constituted a penalty clause. It was, therefore, unenforceable.

Murray v. Leisureplay (2004)

Mr Murray was sacked by Leisureplay and he claimed three years' salary as per his contract of employment. The courts decided that this clause was a penalty clause and he was not entitled to this level of damages.

There have been several other cases over the past century. Nobody believes that it costs a bank £25 to £39 to return a DD, SO or cheque. It is purely a money making scheme, and a lucrative one at that - last year Which! estimated that the top 4 UK high street banks made £3 Billion from these charges alone.

Furthermore, I would point out that you will take further action against them in order to recover the charges and if it becomes necessary to issue legal proceedings then your claim at that time will include your court costs and interest pursuant to statute.

thats up to you - the principle of it makes me say chase thme for it - though as its a small figure its up to you weather its worth the hassel...however you could get soem more charges in the future and persue it then - your call!

Originally Posted by aldino

hey guys

had the meeting on friday, she sent a query to head office, said should get a reply on monday

went in today and she told me that they cant refund the fees as its in the contract blah blah BLAH but as a good will gesture they will refund half the fees, so basically one of the £38 charges

now do i chase up the other £38 or just leave it?

If it were me, I'd get it all. She is lying to you, read my post above, regardless of any contract the fees are unlawful.

A couple of months ago i had an unauthorised overdraft of about £4.46 or something like that.......a very small amount...later that month I received my statement which stated they would be charging me £30 for the overdraft and £20 as one of my standing orders was not paid due to there not being enough funds in my account!! I phoned and explained that I thought this was very excessive for an overdraft of £4!! After a lot of humming and hawing she offered to overturn the charges "on this occasion"!!! But I felt like she was giving me a slap on the wrists and saying do not do that again!!

Absolutely unbelievable!! Dunno if they would do that again, maybe I was lucky as I hadnt been in the red with my bank in the last 12 months and thats why they reversed the charges? But for goodness sake!! £50 for being £4 overdrawn???? A bit much dont u think?

Originally Posted by aldino

.......what if the manager says the price IS determind by the contract i sign when i sign up to the bank which states in the t&c's the charges?

Tell him that the clause that purports to authorise them to make the charge is unlawful as it requires you to indemnify them against your negligence contrary to Sec.4 UCTA 1977. An unlawful clause is unenforcable in it's entirety and, legally, simply does ot exist. It dosen't matter that you have signed if it's unlawful it's void.

Also, unless the bank proves to you that the charge actually, and accurately reflects their costs then it's a penalty. Penalty charges are unlawful in English law, simple as that.

P.