Thread: TSB Defending and Winning

I really wouldn't worry about it beowolf. There's always 2 sides to every story, and so far, you've read the media side.

Here is the full article from the "Metro" Without full details of the case it is difficult to comment on what went wrong, but I would not let this stop you from fighting on. Each case is judged on its merits and what I find interesting about the article is that it mentions that Mr Berwick refused to settle??? I wonder what the settlement was..

Perhaps someone from the CAG knows more about this case and would like to comment?????


Thousands of bank customers have suffered a legal setback in their fight to reclaim 'rip-off' charges.
The blow came in the first court case to test banks' rights to charge overdraft fees of up to £39.
Customer Kevin Berwick was told by a judge that there was no legal basis for his claim for nearly £2,000 in fees and interest from Lloyds TSB.

Campaigners fear the ruling could deter many other claimants from taking legal action. If it is confirmed by a higher court, it will set a precedent which leaves them with no recourse.
Banks have been under increasing pressure for charging excessive fees when clients go over their overdraft limits.
Critics say the charges bear no relation to the few pounds it costs to send a letter.
In most cases so far, banks have settled claims.
On Monday they were warned by another judge that they would also have to pay damages if they continued to prevaricate over claims.
But the judge in Birmingham yesterday threw out Mr Berwick's claim after he refused Lloyds TSB's offer to settle the case.
Mr Berwick, who was given leave to appeal, said: 'I was expecting to win as I made a good job of arguing my case.'
Marc Gander, of the Consumer Action Group, said the judge failed to consider that banks were acting illegally by disguising penalties as a fee for a service.
But he added: 'I would urge the hundreds of thousands of people who are making claims not to be disheartened.'
Lloyds TSB said: 'The court has agreed with us that these are charges for a service and not default or penalty fees as has been argued by others.'

Don't panic! It is business as usual over at the Lloyds forum, so there is no need to worry yourself so!

Have a good read of Bankfodder's sticky: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...rspective.html

Marc Gander, of the Consumer Action Group, said the judge failed to consider that banks were acting illegally by disguising penalties as a fee for a service.
But he added: 'I would urge the hundreds of thousands of people who are making claims not to be disheartened.'
Lloyds TSB said: 'The court has agreed with us that these are charges for a service and not default or penalty fees as has been argued by others.'

What confuses me is the above quoted part. Are the banks disguising penalties as a fee generally, or was this just in their evidence? If the former then they are disguising a fee as a penalty not the other way around? The quote from Lloyds is confusing as they are charging penalties, literally, i.e. Mr Noseclean never gets charged as a fee and the banks have never positioned it like that formally have they?

HSBC have been calling their penalties "service charges" for about a year or so.

This really is a storm in a teacup!

Originally Posted by ladybird17

HSBC have been calling their penalties "service charges" for about a year or so.

This really is a storm in a teacup!

It certainly is.

Still, how can a bank say that when it selectively discriminates between customers taking the same products...

C'est la vie!

I think there's a geat possibility that there was no discrimination at all... because we don't have the details of either's defence - so how can we possibly judge?

If you read about two people being tried for murder and one got off and the other didn't, you'd think that was unfair wouldn't you? Until you find out that one was committed by an armed thief, and the other was committed by a woman whose violent husband was about to knife her death.

I am talking in general terms, not specifically related to this case. I.e. surely commonsense dictates that no bank can make an argument that it's fees issued for exceeding overdraft limits are service charges levied to all customers when they only levy them when an overdraft is exceeded.

Of course, if the banks are saying the service charge is for notification rather than penalty, then that is perhaps the answer I was originally looking for and it is a case of terminology rather than anything else I thought it might be.

Not with you - first you say that the banks argue that their fee/service/charge/penalty...whatever... are levied to all customers when they exceed their overdraft, then you say they only levy them when overdraft is exceeded.

Well isn't that the same thing? When else would they levy an "exceeded overdraft" charge?

Angel,

An "Exceeded overdraft" charge is I believe levied when the bank does honour the unsupported cheque. The other charge is levied when the bank bounces the cheque.

Quite a big difference. The second case has cost the bank nothing beyond the IT cost of automated bouncing, some say £3.

The first case involved bank staff time to manually consider their options, and paying the cheque has potentially committed the bank to a potential unsecured bad debt, i.e. it cost the bank more than the second case. This is the scenario with more claim to being a service charge.