H.O.L Test case appeal. Judgement Declared. ***See Announcements***

[InformedSearcher]

Forget Halifax - Yes maybe getting a bit off topic BUT today I received the new LloydsTSB 'Banking Charges' guide. I've scanned pages 3 and 4 which show the charges for unauthorised overdrafts. OMG, these charges are higher than before the HoL case began. If someone wants the whole booklet scanned then let e know and I'll try and find somewhere to store it.

My consolation in all this is that we only have a basic account so this does not apply to me - Thank Christ (no offence to him).

 

Michael

(wondering how to apply to be a fat cat banker)

LloydsTSB_OverdraftChargesOpt_250909.pdf

[citizenB]

Cheers IS, I was even to lazy to google

 

Oh joy, I'm about to be hit by more fee's

 

S.

 

I like the bit where you need to keep £75,000 in your account to attract £5.00 interest.

 

If you could keep that amount of money in an account.. what on earth would you need an overdraft for !.

 

Answers on the back of a stamp:rolleyes:

[InformedSearcher]

I like the bit where you need to keep £75,000 in your account to attract £5.00 interest.

 

If you could keep that amount of money in an account.. what on earth would you need an overdraft for !.

 

Answers on the back of a stamp:rolleyes:

 

Yes agreed! Had to laugh thinking that's what called an interest bearing current account. Remember that's probably paid gross so 40% as unearned income should really be going to the taxman. :-| The real problem is that .5% is the base rate and how on earth could say LloydsTSB for being £101 overdrawn (unauthorised) charge 10 x £20 (max per month) plus £15 fee making £215? Just simply amazing with banks brazenly considering this to be 'fair'?

Michael

(thinking of being a [legal] loan shark)

[elsinore]

how on earth could say LloydsTSB for being £101 overdrawn (unauthorised) charge 10 x £20 (max per month) plus £15 fee making £215?

 

It gets worse. If you incur the £101 overdraft 10 days before the end of a month and it's still outstanding on the last day, you'll run headlong into another £215.

 

Els

[emmasot]

surely they cant get away with that can they thats crazy! tbh with seeing this i dont think anyone will be getting any money back at all they just seem to have been allowed to rip us off even more, or the banks could be getting as much out of us before the decision is made! either way i aint holding my breath.

[InformedSearcher]

surely they cant get away with that can they thats crazy! tbh with seeing this i dont think anyone will be getting any money back at all they just seem to have been allowed to rip us off even more, or the banks could be getting as much out of us before the decision is made! either way i aint holding my breath.

 

LOL No! They consider that they are helping us! That's the reply you'll get if you ask. Of course added to the fact you'd be told that, that's the penaly for overstepping the mark even if it was an oversight.

Personally I cannot see what the difference is between 'authorised' vs 'unautorised' in the way of warranting the variance of fees. So now the British taxpayers bank can charge (aka rip of) ... the British taxpayer.

 

Michael

(lost for words)

[car2403]

I thought they all agreed to not change their T&C's until the decision as part of the Waiver?

[Bookworm]

Now Chris, you don't think that the banks would let something like a solemn undertaking get in the way, do you?

 

Remember, they also said that they would cooperate fully in the test case to bring as early a resolution as possible in everybody's interests! 2 years + onwards, doesn't that make you chuckle (bitterly)?

[yourbank]

I thought they all agreed to not change their T&C's until the decision as part of the Waiver?

That's not entirely correct, they have to specifically ask if they can change their terms and conditions and specifically provide information to the FSA with regards to that. They can do but let's be honest, it still doesn't effect whether they are assessable for fairness or not.

 

Businesses of course are not affected by the charges so they are still be shafted for the same offence a personal customer will "benefit" from.

[car2403]

That's not entirely correct, they have to specifically ask if they can change their terms and conditions and specifically provide information to the FSA with regards to that. They can do but let's be honest, it still doesn't effect whether they are assessable for fairness or not.

 

Businesses of course are not affected by the charges so they are still be shafted for the same offence a personal customer will "benefit" from.

 

So, it's more accurate to say that they did agree not to change their T&C's without consulting the FSA and they have gone ahead and done that, seemingly without consultation?

[InformedSearcher]

I think we should really look at all this in prospective....

 

Bank wants to charge whatever it wants to so it does.

FSA make stipulations and bank claims it interprets them differently if/when questioned.

FSA employee salaried circa £30k pa vs Bank employee salaried circa £100k pa.

FSA employee is (probably) ex-bank employee who left on good terms to get a reference etc.

Cynical mode now on - Banks and their respective gevernment quango employees can be associated with cats - they meet on neutral ground and have discussions. If a consumer upsets FSA by making a complaint about them (like e.g. allowing banks to do whatever they want) then FSA notes the consumer to be 'probmatic' and this flags up any time in the future that same person makes a complaint about a bank. Unlucky eh?

 

The whole concept is quite a vicious circle. Like UK government invests £86 billion (probably a lot more but it'll take 30 years to see that) and banks continue to ride roughshod over anyone it cares to. Nothing has changed except that they close a few branches and make a few people redundant. I think we all know the rest.

 

Michael

(learning far too much as he ages)

[car2403]

Oh, I don't know, the FSA has amended the waiver a few times to make it less "interpretable" - I haven't lost faith yet, even though I've spent the money I'm going to get back hundreds of times over, so even when we win and get it, I'll be disappointed.

 

Oh, goody, more interest along the way!

[Bigmac versus]

As I understand it the banks are allowed to change their terms and conditions whilst the waiver is in place as long as they are not to the detriment of their customers. Im sure there have been very little complaints from customers to the FSA in respect of this so its hardly surprising that theres a lack of action from the FSA. IMHO irrespective of how many complaints were made they wouldn't take action, and thats probably why there have been so few complaints. Toothless comes to mind.

[car2403]

Well, we've no chance if we don't complain and see no action as a result

[InformedSearcher]

As I understand it the banks are allowed to change their terms and conditions whilst the waiver is in place as long as they are not to the detriment of their customers. Im sure there have been very little complaints from customers to the FSA in respect of this so its hardly surprising that theres a lack of action from the FSA. IMHO irrespective of how many complaints were made they wouldn't take action, and thats probably why there have been so few complaints. Toothless comes to mind.

 

I have to laugh at the 'detriment' part. It's all to the detriment of the customer except the wording is changed to lull them into a false sense of security, honesty and charm (not!). These bank characters must think all the customers are somewhat (for want of a better word) really thick.

You know the FSA should be showing it's power and might and stamping hard on them. Obviously they are doing with cotton wool buds. Sound like an episode of 'Gladiators' and the banks are the resident (walk all over them) fighters.

Michael

[Bigmac versus]

I have to laugh at the 'detriment' part.

Michael

 

If you laughed at that try reading below without laughing.

 

FSA's objectives

 

 

• market confidence
  
• public awareness
  
• consumer protection
  
• reduction of financial crime
  

 

 

Failed in all 4 then.

[Stornoway]

PM calls for bank charges settlement - Times Online

 

Some coverage in the Sunday Times .....

[InformedSearcher]

PM calls for bank charges settlement - Times Online

 

Some coverage in the Sunday Times .....

 

Just absolute b***s**t and we all know here that it is. GB cannot interfere with the law and he knows it. What's this trash about 'compromise' then? The reality is that this is all leading to 'forget the past and let's move forward' and translated that means the banks win! You see it's always going to be 'win win' to the banks no matter what.

They control government, monetary policy of the country and whatever else. We paid to bale them out and what do they give us in return? Well higher charges with the excuse that it's to pay back their (taxpayer) loans faster but erm, did their salaries and bonuses reduce and the answer to that is 'NO'! In fact if ever they repay it all what will happen? The answer is nothing as their charges will remain as high as ever. I suspect GB has been 'chatting' and he tells then (as they are his friends after all) that with his slick talking education he'll do whatever he can for them.

 

Michael

(feeling dizzy on the 'cynics' top level soapbox)

[royboy68]

To me it looks like we are being shafted here. How can there be a negotiated settlement. I thought the outcome had to be all or nothing so what is there to negotiate.

[car2403]

Too little, too late. This just shows how out of touch with the people this Government are.

[Bookworm]

Pah, do you expect the next one will be any better? If anything, they will protect their mates even more, we've got fewer chances of seeing our money back under the Eton gang than under the current lot.

 

*bookie nudges IS for some space on the cynics top level soapbox*

 

 

Edit: Just read the article and MSE Martin is living in cloud cuckooland if he thinks that will ever happen. Experience has already shown us that the banks will stop at nothing to try and stop us from getting our money back.

[yourbank]

Too little, too late. This just shows how out of touch with the people this Government are.

As bookworm has stated below you, most of this is about Martin Lewis taking into account the article in the white paper which was quoted in one of the announcements here. And writing to all of them about this. Unfortunately, I totally agree with Bookworm, Martin Lewis is delusional on the issue of negotiation since (a) he wouldn't be involved, (b) only designated consumer groups would be if that was a scenario that was on the table(with respect, internet bank forums are not designated groups) and © it does not have a finality to the questions of which terms are unfair? How far back claims can go(since that is for the National Court to decide)? and it would effectively mean that the crossover onto other contracts would be lost if some form of negotiated settlement is reached.

With regards to his mantra of "people keep asking me when they will get our money" then perhaps explaining the OFT test case precisely and clearly then maybe we would all know that it is a two step process and we are about to reach the end of step one.

 

FSA Waiver bit is here:

"(21) the firm must not make any change to the level or structure of its unauthorised overdraft charges. For the purposes of this direction, this includes any change to the level or structure of charges which are levied in similar or equivalent circumstances to unauthorised overdraft charges or which have a similar or equivalent effect. If the firm proposes to do so, then it may apply (in confidence) to the FSA for a variation of this condition. The FSA would expect to grant the variation if the firm satisfied the FSA that the proposed changes are not materially adverse to its customers. In advance of any such application, the firm must conduct an analysis of the proposed changes to identify the extent of any adverse effect on customers and share the analysis with the FSA. The firm must pay particular attention to the impact on customers who are unable to modify their behaviour in response to changes to unauthorised overdraft charges. Variations of this condition are recorded in the attached schedule."

 

As the information is confidential then the problem is that no one knows really how this process is reached or whether they have to supply data that will show the effect on customers as a percentage of those who use/do not use overdraft facilities.

[InformedSearcher]

'royboy68' - Nope, it's just to decide if the OFT can call the shots - in other words any decision in October does not mean payback..... yet.

 

'Bookworm' - A nice comfy sofa has been ordered to make life easier so many can now be there plus tea and coffee making facilities with a microwave a possibility too! hehe

 

I bet security is turned up for the HoL decision.

 

Michael

[pompeyfaith]

Gordon Brown's Speach" The british people will not pay the banks, the banks will pay the people" hmm what did he mean by that statement

[Conniff]

Gordon Brown's Speach" The british people will not pay the banks, the banks will pay the people" hmm what did he mean by that statement

 

He meant "listen to my bull****". He has also promised in the party manifesto a referendum. Haven't we heard that before somewhere?

 

He is all mouth and trousers, 99% of what he promises never ever happens.