Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
Just a quick thought I thought I'd throw out there...
Has anyone thought about starting criminal proceedings against a bank/building society? Surely since the OFT have decided bank charges are unenforceable under common law, surely the fact that the banks know this but are still taking the money comes under the headings of theft, and misappropriation?
Surely a criminal case against the managing directors is a possibility if someone was to report the matter to the police?
Any legal eagles out there wanna put me in my place?
Has anyone thought about starting criminal proceedings against a bank/building society? Surely since the OFT have decided bank charges are unenforceable under common law, surely the fact that the banks know this but are still taking the money comes under the headings of theft, and misappropriation?
Surely a criminal case against the managing directors is a possibility if someone was to report the matter to the police?
The police are well aware. This not the type of white collar crime that calls for police action. It is not criminal. The police never observed a crime. So, it is up to the attorney general to file a criminal charge so the police can effect an arrest. The attorney general of N.Y. is very active against financial criminal, so maybe he could file a case, but he has not revealed any intention to do so.
The real issue seems to be a civil (not criminal) matter. The banks cannot enforce their charges and they cannot make you a criminal for not paying them. However, the banks include the charges in their terms of service ageement which everyone signs as part of their application. The banks can and do ask you to pay, and the banks can refuse you future service if you do not pay.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act gives you some protection against the bank, which will try to ruin your credit rating.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act, also known as the FCRA, is an act that governs the credit rights of consumers. The FCRA regulates how consumer information is collected, shared and used. Thus, not all credit information can be retrieved in a background check.
Under the FCRA, negative credit information cannot be retained longer than a pre-specified period of time, generally 7 years. Thus, background checks will not be able to show late payments or bankruptcies past the pre-specified time. If background checks reveal any false information, then information providers will have to investigate any disputed data. Also, if a background check reveals negative credit information, and you use that background check information as a basis for not hiring or is used to fire an individual, under the FCRA, you are required to inform the individual.
masonette this is a UK forum not a US one. The laws you have quoted (and the web address you have linked) are American not British. Although you are right in that bank charges are a civil matter not a criminal one.
It would be a different matter if the banks continued to charge after the charges were found unlawful in civil law, but as yet the banks still contend they believe the charges are lawful so this may not satisfy the requirement of dishonesty given the burden of proof in criminal law.
Also the OFT has not decided the charges are unlawful. They believe they are but only a court can rule on this.
masonette this is a UK forum not a US one. The laws you have quoted (and the web address you have linked) are American not British. Although you are right in that bank charges are a civil matter not a criminal one.
Very true Rory but thinking outside the box a little all of the mainstream banks operate in the USA where they have shareholders & if it is found they have acted unlawfully, re charges, then it might be argued that they have failed in their fiduciary duty, not to the consumer, but to the shareholder by having to refund many millions of pounds which they did or should have known was being taken unlawfully
After all they may see a distinct drop in shares values as a result of the OFT case
Criminal Proceedings?
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by DorsetStrider
