Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Paragraph 18 – you are still talking about Boston stolen items. About time this was fixed??? Paragraph 19  In any event, the claimant's PS5 gaming device was correctly declared and correctly valued. The defendant accepted it for carriage and was even prepared to earn extra money by selling sell insurance in case of its loss or damage. New paragraph 20 – this the defendant routinely sells insurance in respect of "no compensation" items (a secondary contract contrary to section 72 CRA 2015) new paragraph above paragraph 20 – the defendant purports to limit its liability in respect of lost or damaged items. This is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act 2015. The defendant offers to extend their liability if their customer purchases an insurance cover for an extra sum of money. This insurance is a secondary contract calculated to exclude or limit their liability for the defendants contractual breaches and is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015. New paragraph below paragraph 42 – the defendant merely relies on "standard industry practice" You haven't pointed to the place in your bundle of the Telegraph newspaper extract. You have to jiggle the paragraphs around. Even though I have suggested new paragraph numbers, the order I have suggested is on your existing version 5. You will have to work it out for your next version. Good luck!   Let's see version 6 Separately, would you be kind enough to send me an unredacted to me at our admin email address.
    • UK travellers have been turned away at airports because their passports are not valid for EU travel.View the full article
    • i think theres been MORE than amble evidence of that and am astonished that criminal proceedings haven't begun.
    • Yep, those 'requirements' not met to shareholders satisfaction seem to me to be: 1. Not being allowed to increase customer bills by 40% (of which well over 50% of the new total would NOT be investment) 2. 1 plus regulators not agreeing to letting them do 'things in their own time (ie carry on regardless)
    • As already mentioned freely available "credit scores" are fairly useless. All lenders have their own "credit scoring" system, that for obvious reasons they don't divulge. And they're "scored" differently to the freely available ones. As soon as they could, we've always encouraged our two children to use credit cards responsibly... Pay off in full, etc, to generate good history. It's paid off. At quite young ages, they have both obtained loans for cars, mortgage and their credit card limits are through the roof. Personally, I have shifted debt around a lot on credit cards (even financed a house purchase once at 0% 😉) and I've only ever been refused a credit card once, sorry twice by the same company, over many years. They must have something very different in their lending criteria. You're a tight one, Mr Branson.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Why let your bank keep your money? Calculating your charges claim


BankFodder
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3672 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

The OFT has already pronounced on a "fair rate" of £12.
Sorry, but no they haven't, and I am a bit surprised you should say that, maybe you should re-read the OFT statement of april 06? ;-) In fact, the OFT very clearly stated that their "threshold intervention" of £12 did NOT mean that a charge of £12 was fair and they very specifically said that ONLY a court could decided what constituted a fair charge, therefore:

The only thing is that it may not be possible to claim back CC charges if they were actually levied at the OFT capped rate of £12.

 

I think that you will only be able to recover those charges which were lvied at a higher rate.

is factually very incorrect and as far as I can see, as long as people know to claim it all back, the CC pay it all back. Oh sure, they TRY to say that they don't have to repay it all but if people stand firm, they do get the totality of it back. Speaking for myself, I have had both higher and £12 charges back from Barclaycard and Capital1 (+ interest levied on those charges + s.69, of course), and I am not aware of CC companies going to court to argue the toss (apart from Citi maybe, but let's face it, they always were awkward beggars :razz:).

 

 

The courts have been happy to stay CC charges claims as well.

To be fair, generally mainly if the claim is placed through MCOL, then again, I don't doubt some judges can't see the difference or can't be bothered to.

 

So my summary would be at odds to yours and I'd encourage people to keep on claiming the totality of their CC charges, whether be the £12 or more and stand firm and when the CC companies try to negotiate for the difference, confront them with the April '06 OFT statement as quoted above. And don't forget to add the interest on those charges, of course. :-D

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 409
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Sorry, but no they haven't, and I am a bit surprised you should say that, maybe you should re-read the OFT statement of april 06? ;-) In fact, the OFT very clearly stated that their "threshold intervention" of £12 did NOT mean that a charge of £12 was fair and they very specifically said that ONLY a court could decided what constituted a fair charge, therefore:

is factually very incorrect and as far as I can see, as long as people know to claim it all back, the CC pay it all back. Oh sure, they TRY to say that they don't have to repay it all but if people stand firm, they do get the totality of it back. Speaking for myself, I have had both higher and £12 charges back from Barclaycard and Capital1 (+ interest levied on those charges + s.69, of course), and I am not aware of CC companies going to court to argue the toss (apart from Citi maybe, but let's face it, they always were awkward beggars :razz:).

 

 

To be fair, generally mainly if the claim is placed through MCOL, then again, I don't doubt some judges can't see the difference or can't be bothered to.

 

So my summary would be at odds to yours and I'd encourage people to keep on claiming the totality of their CC charges, whether be the £12 or more and stand firm and when the CC companies try to negotiate for the difference, confront them with the April '06 OFT statement as quoted above. And don't forget to add the interest on those charges, of course. :-D

 

You are quite right. My mistake. The OFT capped rate was the threshold rate.

 

However I fully expect that after the Test case, that the banks will argue - and that the courts will accept that the OFT threshold should also be treated as the fair rate.

 

We have yet to see what the OFT fair rate for bank charges will be. If it happens to be £12 then I expect that the CC cap will become the defacto fair rate.

 

I'm all for everyone claiming everything and pushing as far as possible - hence the existence of this site.

 

However, up to the beginning of the test case there was an exquisite madness which took the banks and the courts by suprise. No one tried to control it bevause no one expected that it would get out of hand in the way that it did.

 

Now that some calm has been imposed on the situation, I am sure that they won't want it to getout of hand again.

 

In particular, the courts have said that UTCCR applies and that penalties do not.

 

This gives a structure which was never apparent before. I don't expect that the OFT or the banks or the courts will want to let go of this.

 

I'm not aware that a fair rate under the UTCCR can't be assesed by the courts. It is not the OFT which has exclusive authority to do this. In fact the OFT fair rate is really just a recomendation - but which you can be certainl will be accepted by the courts unless thee is some real evidence to the contrary.

 

If the OFt bank charges rate is set at less than £12 then the CC companies will keep very quiet.

If the OFT chargs rate is set higher than £12 then there will be bleating by the CC companies for the OFt to re-assess the rate.

 

Anyone who has been charged more than £12 CC charges should go and claim back everything - including related interest.

However, I don't expect that charges which have been levied at the £12 rate will be recoverable anymore.

 

However, do go ahead and try. I think that £12 is still very excessive and I owuld be very pleased if people succeeeded in getting this money back too

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thankyou for that information Bank Fodder. I have put a claim in for £5k for oh bank account. I have had the usual back saying we are not doing anything until the HOL ruling and please do not sue me. I was going to leave it but I think the 8% interest does add up and will start an action.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thankyou for that information Bank Fodder. I have put a claim in for £5k for oh bank account. I have had the usual back saying we are not doing anything until the HOL ruling and please do not sue me. I was going to leave it but I think the 8% interest does add up and will start an action.

BankFodder is not just talking about 8% but the interest on the charges themselves over the period of time. It is not a new idea, it's something that has been advocated all the time here and on other forums, ie you claim charges plus interest on them plus 8% until it is paid back. If it's with the bank it is already earning 8% but if you didn't add the interest that was charged on the charges themselves then that is the whole point of the thread which is to get that back as well, even though I have never understood working out the interest(never have done despite a tutorial on MSN yesterday from someone ;) I do need that bit explaining as though I was a two year old, however.).

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a little iffy with bank charges, so can anyone tell me if they relate to charges you get for a)going overdrawn and b)on a business account please?

 

I was recently charged the best part of £70 over 2 months by Abbey business (thought my balance was at £0 so didn't check statements). I'm obviously rather miffed by this, but I don't know if it being a business account precludes doing anything about it?

 

Thanks - and sorry if this is the wrong place to ask.

Time flies like an arrow...

Fruit flies like a banana.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a little iffy with bank charges, so can anyone tell me if they relate to charges you get for a)going overdrawn and b)on a business account please?

 

I was recently charged the best part of £70 over 2 months by Abbey business (thought my balance was at £0 so didn't check statements). I'm obviously rather miffed by this, but I don't know if it being a business account precludes doing anything about it?

 

Thanks - and sorry if this is the wrong place to ask.

 

Lex,

 

Yes, the bank charges issue is about charges for going overdrawn or having payments returned.

See the link to the business claims forum in my signature (in my earlier post) for information regards business accounts.

In short, Business account holders are being left somewhat in the cold regards the whole OFT business.

This is because Business accounts are NOT covered by The UTCCR, and so up until the OFT case have had to rely upon claiming charges being penalties under common law.

Unfortunately, the concept of penalties under common law has now been pretty much ruled out by the OFT case, and as they are not covered by or have any statutory protection under the UTCCR or other, are seemingly now left without a cause of action.

Some members of CAG are working behind the scenes at trying to find new ways to contend these charges for business claimants, so keep an eye on the business forums for updates and news.

 

All the best

Pm

All opinions and advice I offer are purely my own, and are offered without any liability. If unsure seek the help of a licensed professional

...just because something's in print doesn't mean its true.... just look at you Banks T&C's for example !

Link to post
Share on other sites

All,

 

Thanks for the information, I hadn't realised the implications of waiting for the HOL decision.

 

Immediately I read this thread, I posted off an SAR to my bank (Halifax). I have now had the application returned to me twice for trivial errors in my application. Today I will try a third time after receiving further clarification from their customer confusion department.

 

Is anyone else having similar problems. Is it possible that the banks have wised up to the implications laid out in this thread and are now employing "mischief" to let the clock run down on the test case, and, in so doing, avoid the statutory interest portion of any new claim?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didnt put in a subject access request because I knew it would delay it. I have been through all the on line charge notifications for the last 2 years, ( there was no problem before that) and submitted it.

 

Thanks for you input your bank.

 

My circumstances are different, unfortunately. I've got 2 years worth from the online statements but most of my charges are from 2002 - 2005 range. I am now regretting not keeping my statements but hey ho.

 

Anyone know if there is a likely cut off date? I know the HOL are due to commence consideration on 21st June. Will this route close once the HOL ruling is published? If I read this thread right, it will but is my interpretation correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Draft Spreadsheet with info boxes if anyone would like to take a look:

 

I will have a play tonight and reply.

 

Unfortunately I'm having difficulty downloading it at present but I think this is my problem rather than yours.

 

Will I be able to open this in Excel? I don't have open Office, although I know I can download it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will have a play tonight and reply.

 

Unfortunately I'm having difficulty downloading it at present but I think this is my problem rather than yours.

 

Will I be able to open this in Excel? I don't have open Office, although I know I can download it.

 

Opens in Excel fine although I've not had time to play with it either :-D

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Opens in Excel fine although I've not had time to play with it either :-D

 

S.

 

Cheers Shadow

 

Looking forward to an evening of bank charges. I've gotta do it soon as expect to be going abroad soon.

 

Yeeesh :mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that there will be a cut-off date but I can imagie that if a repayment scheme is put in place - then there is likley to be some kind mechanism to encourage people to use the repayment scheme.

 

In that case you would have to look for a good reason to being a court action.

This could be that your figures are different to the bank's ones or that in some other way the bank is trying to limit your claim and you need the question resolved by the bank.

One way of encouraging people to go directly to the bank for refunds wuld be to offer very quick settlements.

So for instance, the banks might promise repayment within, say, 4 weeks.

 

this would be at least 2 or 3 months ealrier than using the court process.

However, the downsid might be that there is no provision for an equivalent of the 8% statutory interest, the bank might only offere the difference betwenn the charge and the OFT fair charge, the bank migh only offer repayments back to 2001 (6 yrs from test case) etc.

 

It is all very difficult to predict. Also, although the HoL is very likly to come down on the side of the OFT, they may frame their judgment in such a way which might limit the way in which repayments are made.

 

The Lords are no slouches and they could easily predict certain repercussions to a successful OFT judgment which the banks themselves have not yet appreciated. there is no doubt in my mind that if there is a simple decision in favour of the OFT then things are likely to become more dramatically serious for the banks than anyone could yet possibly imagine.

Say, n'more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, Interesting.

 

Going back a couple of posts, the interest implications are a double whammy on interest bearing current accounts.

 

Clearly, there would be a reduction, and eventual elimination of the detrimental interest changes. But, where interest is paid on the positive balance, this would have been underpaid once the effects of the charges are removed.

 

We would then need a second level of the calcs to repay positive balance interest on the account once charges and related OD interst is removed.

 

This spreadsheet is starting to look ever so complicated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Positive balance interest suggests contractual interest.

 

I tried to get this idea going a couple of years ago but I don't believe that it is a runner at the moment.

I know that some of the site team disagree and think that there is now a basis for contractual interest - or equivalent.

 

For the moment I would suggest that people merely produce claims for actual charges and interest taken from them. This will be fine for the moment.

These claims will go on hold and they can always be amended when the HoL rules and the stays are lifted.

 

It will then become clear exactly what is claimable and what is not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont agree with the idea of CI myself, to me it appears greedy.

But getting back what is mine, every little penny of it, now that I go with.

If the only objection was greed, I think that e would all get trampled in the rush - but I owuld certainly be the first in the queue.

I think that there are legal objections

Link to post
Share on other sites

.... I would just like to take this opportunity to say hello to all our "guests" on this thread.

 

Hello to the the respective legal representatives of all the various banks,

Hello to the lords and ladies of the HOL,

Hello to the members of the OFT

Hello to the employees of the "pay as you go" reclaim companies fishing for tips.

 

... and finally... Hello to the various visiting MP's maybe contemplating claiming back their bank charges... via their expenses claims !!

All opinions and advice I offer are purely my own, and are offered without any liability. If unsure seek the help of a licensed professional

...just because something's in print doesn't mean its true.... just look at you Banks T&C's for example !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I don't agree that positive balance interest would have to be repaid - that is part of the agreement with the bank that they pay you interest on + balances, and deduct it on - balances.

 

All we are reclaiming here is the interest deducted on the charges themselves, as 1) the charges are unfair, and 2) they have directly contributed to/exacerbated the - balance.

 

Sorry if I am a bit slow off the mark here and this has already been explained.

Six Nations Champions 2009

Triple Crown 2009

Grand Slam 2009

:cool::-D:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I don't agree that positive balance interest would have to be repaid - that is part of the agreement with the bank that they pay you interest on + balances, and deduct it on - balances.

 

All we are reclaiming here is the interest deducted on the charges themselves, as 1) the charges are unfair, and 2) they have directly contributed to/exacerbated the - balance.

 

Sorry if I am a bit slow off the mark here and this has already been explained.

 

I think it all comes down to the manner in which the charges etc are reimbursed.

 

If the charges etc are allowed to stand then they are reclaimed at the point in time that the case is found. i.e. the balance is correct and an adjustment is made via the payment in refund.

 

If the charges are amended to a prescribed value/ removed, then this is done at the time the charge was applied. This affects the balance at that time.

 

Since the arguement is that the charge be removed at the time it was applied - it would need to be in order to reclaim the charged interest, since amendment after the fact would not impact on the charged interest. Then there is an arguement that to remove the charged interest at the time must result in an alteration of the balance at that time which must affect the paid interest.

 

I am curious why Bankfodder would think otherwise.

 

I'm also new to this discussion and could be talking utter tosh, of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The interest paid by the bank is due to you on YOUR money and should not be taken into consideration, IMO. And in most cases the amount people have "gained" is negligible - some people have not been out of their overdraft for years - yours truly being an example - therefore "interest paid" does not exist on my statements!

 

We cannot effectively rewrite the statements as if the charges were never applied, because that would adjust all the balances and in effect if it brought you ought of the red then MORE interest would be due to you.

 

All we want is the portion of interest that directly relates to the corresponding charges, nothing more.

Six Nations Champions 2009

Triple Crown 2009

Grand Slam 2009

:cool::-D:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

With due respect, BF, what do you mean by this

 

"the bank might only offere the difference between the charge and the OFT fair charge"

 

June is about whether the terms can be assessed for fairness. The secondary part is whether certain terms are fair. Under UTCCR 1999 if the term is unfair then it doesn't exist and the totality of the charges are refundable under the specific term(and interest as well).

There is no OFT threshold amount that will be applied, period. There are other issues that we are touching the base of which are inter related but I think if you want that sort of discussion then it has to be on another thread. This THREAD is specifically to do with claiming interest and not speculation as to what could or would or will happen when the OFT test case ends. I am skating on that line even with this post because the thread should stick to current claims and the way interest is claimed.

OHOH, love the spready btw. Will that calculate the charges automatically?

Is there a way to amend the overdraft percentage/rate which may have be increased/decreased over a period in which charges can be reclaimed?

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3672 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...