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

[yourbank]

Hi YB,

Unless you relish the 'swishing' sound of wrists being slashed I'd keep stumm! Even if OFT decree a level of fairness and it's greater than zero, it still won't be accepted by many and, hopefully, since the "OFT decision doesn't carry the weight of law" (or so I've been telling banks & CC agencies for years) we'll still challenge?

 

Which is what the substantive issues should do. The first part is whether the OFT can assess the charges for fairness and the secondary issues is identifying the terms and asking for voluntary compliance---not even I think that is gonna happen in a million years, so we will have further litigation to legally determine that. The reason is that if they do not legally determine a fair charge then we are simply going back on ourselves back to July 2007. It has to be decided once and for all. We can't have this merry go round of litigation.

There will be OFT related litigation but the courts must determine the fair charge once and for all on the Substantive Issues part of the case(which hasn't started yet).

 

Do you think the bank has the right to charge for returning a standing order or Direct debit?

[MARTIN3030]

Has a right -or whether its unfair ?

Theres 2 different questions there.

[MARTIN3030]

The process of returning a D/D or S/O is surely totally automated ?

[yourbank]

Martin3030, i said the question wasn't a trick one. HAS THE RIGHT is the question and not any other subtext to it.

[yourbank]

The process of returning a D/D or S/O is surely totally automated ?

haven't said it wasn't.

[MARTIN3030]

Are you expecting CAG users to say yes ?

[yourbank]

Are you expecting CAG users to say yes ?

Do you have an opinion on the subject matter of the question asked?

[car2403]

I have the right to blow my neighbours head off with a sorn off shotgun!

Who is going to stop me doing it? Will he still die if I do?

 

The point is, I'll be (well, if they catch me, it's not like me that, plus some of the other neighbours may well enjoy watching it, but... I digress) caught and brought to justice for my actions. He's still dead. I might go to jail. I might get off on a technicality.

 

The Banks have been blowing peoples heads off for years. They probably do have a right to do it. The Banks are in the docks.

 

So, yes they have a right, but only because we give it to them. If it's unfair to exercise that right, the right will be taken away.

 

I've had too many McFlurries again, haven't I?

[MARTIN3030]

Well of course-but you asked for a yes/no answer.

That does not allow for an explanation as to why they should or should not have a "right".

[car2403]

Well of course-but you asked for a yes/no answer.

That does not allow for an explanation as to why they should or should not have a "right".

 

Yes, but no, but yes, but no...

 

And so it goes on...

[yourbank]

fair do's martin, why should they have the right or not have the right to charge. Please be aware I am not asking as to the fairness of what they charge since that is still part of the OFT test case. Merely whether they have the right or for the sake of debate should have the right.

[yourbank]

i'll explain, there was an interesting debate on MSE with regards to bank charges.

Bank charges - MoneySavingExpert.com Forums

 

I missed most of it cos I am normally on the reclaims boards so caught this one late but some of them are utter idiots on that thread.

[photoman]

Do you think the bank has the right to charge for returning a standing order or Direct debit?

 

Yes, IMHO they should be able to charge.

 

But that is not the true issue.

 

It is whether they should be entitled to vastly profit from such circumstance.

 

They should be only allowed to recoup any extra cost arising from such an event. Otherwise, if allowed to profit, it distorts the decision making process.

 

If allowed to profit from such an event, then they will be more predisposed to take the profit option, rather than simply the more justifiable recuperation of costs option.

 

Imagine an analogy:

 

The postman tries to deliver a letter to you, but the amount of postage paid is inadequate.

He has two options:

1/ He can knock on your door, and ask you for the difference.

2/ He can instead fill in a card informing you that he attempted to deliver a letter, but as postage was insufficient, the item has been returned to their depot, and to release it you will have to pay not only the difference, but also an extra unexplained fee. He then posts the card instead of the letter.

 

The postman had still only made the same trip, still only been put to the same amount of effort, and still only delivered a single item

 

Would it be justified if the post office had a policy of encouraging the postmen to favour the second option above the first, because it made them more money?

 

Would you feel as if you had received good service, and one worth paying extra for ?

[yourbank]

I didn't ask the question on price because I don't think anyone on CAG including me would agree that the cost of doing so is fair as it stands today and that includes the Barclays reserve useage nonsense.

[MARTIN3030]

Surely the question as to whether they have a right to charge relies on the basis of why-or on what justification ?

The banks claim its in their terms and conditions.

They have been less forthcoming in showing what it actually costs them.

Since the fairness and the right are so interlocked -so they rely on eachother to reach conclusion.

 

Lets also not forget that there are secondary issues,when the bank returns the D/D-its likely that the recipients will levy a charge as well.

Although I know its not part of the question.

[Bookworm]

i'll explain, there was an interesting debate on MSE with regards to bank charges.

Bank charges - MoneySavingExpert.com Forums

 

I missed most of it cos I am normally on the reclaims boards so caught this one late but some of them are utter idiots on that thread.

Yadedadeda, this is all the same rubbish Dave and I were answering 3 years ago, the high and mighty I-never-had-a-bank-charge-in-my-life... You're wasting your breath, YB, these people are so stuck up their own backsides they won't listen to you.

 

(as for "utter idiots", don't venture on the consumer boards there, they're even worse!)

[JonCris]

Yup gawd forgive they should lose their 'free' banking the idiots - they really need a lesson in economics - there's no such thing as 'free' bleeding banking & I don't mean just the charges the silly sods pay for their 'free' banking in many otherways

[yourbank]

Surely the question as to whether they have a right to charge relies on the basis of why-or on what justification ?

Because the pink pixies are dancing in the rain. I thought the question was a no brainer but I guess next time I will go with a long winded one. is this question any easier for ya?

Where there are no funds to cover a payment request and the bank returns the item unpaid, do they have the right to levy a fair fee?*

The banks claim its in their terms and conditions.

They have been less forthcoming in showing what it actually costs them.

Since the fairness and the right are so interlocked -so they rely on eachother to reach conclusion.

 

Lets also not forget that there are secondary issues,when the bank returns the D/D-its likely that the recipients will levy a charge as well.

Although I know its not part of the question.

 

Does the bank have the right to levy a charge for returning a DD/SO unpaid?

My answer is Yes the bank does have the right.

 

 

* please note that I have not indicated what a fair fee is or commented on the current state of play in the OFT test case.

[patrickq1]

I Gave 3 Cheques To My Suppliers On The Sat Morn...on The Monday The Bank Terminated My Account..by 3 .00 On The Monday I Withdrew All My Funds...the Following Wednesday The Cheques I Gave Out Were Presented To The Bank ,the Bank Paid These Cheques Out And Charged Me 35.00 Per Cheque For Insufficient Funds ...someone In The Bank Made A Mistake And Paid The Cheques Out When They Should Not Have Done...am I Responsible For Paying Back To The Bank The Full Total Of The Cheques Paid Out By Them And Am I Resposible For All The Accumalating Interest That Went With The Payments...

Patrickq1

[kennyh]

OK, YB, they may have a 'right' but then we're straight into 'fairness'.

Question, will this OFT study for 'fairness' carry any more legal weight (which, as I understand it is nil) than the one they carried out on credit cards?

[yourbank]

OK, YB, they may have a 'right' but then we're straight into 'fairness'.

Question, will this OFT study for 'fairness' carry any more legal weight (which, as I understand it is nil) than the one they carried out on credit cards?

 

I think this is part of the personal current account study, if memory serves me right. The OFT test case is part and parcel of it so yes, but remember the OFT report on Credit card stated "only a court can decide a fair charge" plus it gave UTCCR as the vehicle which consumers can use(that is in the report OFT 842, point 1.14), so the OFT test case result will also have an effect on this as well because they are gonna have to go after credit card providers as well once personal current accounts has been completed with.

[yourbank]

I Gave 3 Cheques To My Suppliers On The Sat Morn...on The Monday The Bank Terminated My Account..by 3 .00 On The Monday I Withdrew All My Funds...the Following Wednesday The Cheques I Gave Out Were Presented To The Bank ,the Bank Paid These Cheques Out And Charged Me 35.00 Per Cheque For Insufficient Funds ...someone In The Bank Made A Mistake And Paid The Cheques Out When They Should Not Have Done...am I Responsible For Paying Back To The Bank The Full Total Of The Cheques Paid Out By Them And Am I Resposible For All The Accumalating Interest That Went With The Payments...

Patrickq1

 

Yes because you issued the cheques prior to the account being terminated. If the cheques were guaranteed then yes as well. However, had the bank said that the cheques would not be paid but cancelled and you needed to make alternative arrangements with the people you had paid money to, then the answer imho is no since it was a bank error.

[JonCris]

Does the bank have the right to levy a charge for returning a DD/SO unpaid?

My answer is Yes the bank does have the right.

 

 

* please note that I have not indicated what a fair fee is or commented on the current state of play in the OFT test case.

 

 

Why? It's not as if it's doing anything of value is it

[Aequitas]

I Gave 3 Cheques To My Suppliers On The Sat Morn...on The Monday The Bank Terminated My Account..by 3 .00 On The Monday I Withdrew All My Funds...the Following Wednesday The Cheques I Gave Out Were Presented To The Bank ,the Bank Paid These Cheques Out And Charged Me 35.00 Per Cheque For Insufficient Funds ...someone In The Bank Made A Mistake And Paid The Cheques Out When They Should Not Have Done...am I Responsible For Paying Back To The Bank The Full Total Of The Cheques Paid Out By Them And Am I Resposible For All The Accumalating Interest That Went With The Payments...

Patrickq1

 

I think the answer to that is straightforward. You wrote out the cheques before the bank terminated your account. The cheques amounted to instructions to your bank to pay your suppliers on demand. (Section 73 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 says: A cheque is a bill of exchange drawn on a banker payable on demand.) They pre-dated the closure of the account and so the bank was entitled to comply with the instructions assuming of course you did not countermand them. All the conditions of your contract with the bank on the date you wrote the cheques apply. You wrote the cheques with the intention that the bank should pay them. Whatever you think of banks, it cannot possibly be right that your suppliers got paid as you intended but that you should not reimburse your bank. You would be unjustly enriched. Your only possible argument is that the bank had standing instructions not to let your account go into the red.

 

Further, since you withdrew the funds with the express intention that the cheques should not be met you run the risk of being charged with a criminal offence. Did you inform the suppliers there was a problem and tell them you would make immediate alternative arrangements to pay them?

[patrickq1]

Your only possible argument is that the bank had standing instructions not to let your account go into the red.THIS WAS THE SITUATION....

problem arose when they returned a cheque i had paid in with a single line statement account terminated and returned with it was the cheque i had paid in on the previous friday.....

patrickq1