Supreme court rules

[rippedoffagain]

I might just well do this and if a sizeable number of us did the same that would make a dent in their deposits

 

On another note I believe that banks have to retain a certain % of assets in the form of cash deposits, which has been reviewed since the financial crisis. If we were to withdraw our deposits or transfer to building societies not affialiated with the major high street banks what kind of impact would thsi have on their cash deposits.

 

We all know that there is a move from investment to more traditional high st banks using customer deposits as leverage for loans etc so i wonder if there was a move by a good % of retail cutomers to "other accounts" whether this would make them think.

 

Regards

 

ST

 

Don't forget that most Building Societies keep their funds in the clearing banks.

 

If a substantial number of customers (probably less than 10%) withdrew all their money, in cash from their accounts every payday, the banking system would fall apart. Google "fractional reserve banking" or watch "Money as debt."

Money As Debt

[onestressedwoman]

Peterlucus - thank you !!!!!!!!! been worrying all day this refund is crucial

[rippedoffagain]

It is quite standard for the self employed in your previous position to simply include a clause in your terms of trade that unless you are paid on time by your clients then they are charged for what you would be charged for late payments by your bank for your clients failings.

 

Why didn't you do this?

 

How long would you keep your clients with that sort of term, unless of course you have a near monopoly. A bit like banks I suppose.

[Livto]

The secret here is to play the banks at their own game.

This ruling will change nothing.

Banks apply the charges = customer complains = customer refuses to pay and gets charges refunded under hardship provsion = banks apply charges = customer complains = customer refuses to pay gets charges refunded under hardship provision......im sure you see the patten here

[Guest Jason King]

I still feel that litigation can proceed regarding bank charges whilst arguing the level of penalty is disproportionate.

 

The banks would have to justify the high level of charge to succeed.

 

I don't think this ruling addressed this, however, I am happy to be corrected.

[fernack]

OK - thanks for positive comments on my letter. I have emailed this and also posted a hard copy to the bank concerned. Will let you know what happens. Keep fighting the Good Fight.

[veester]

the banks have changed there tune rapidly and shown change - thus the SP has concluded the OFT can assess under fairness - as a few a people have pointed out on this post, there is another clause relating to disproportionate charges et al.

 

Everyone chill pill.

[veester]

Have also followed Fernacks approach - lets see - hope you don't mind Fernack!

[Baggio]

clause 5(1) is our friend people

 

relax and stop being spun by the press

 

the fight is still ON

[fernack]

Not at all veester - the more the merrier!

[zodiac78]

This ruling is so unreal i was just in the middle of composing a letter to get charges back when i heard the news. Hope someone one with the know works this out. I have car repayment loan that has Adhock ( capalisation )charges for £100.00 all over it and is not in default. I know alot of other people are in this boat with the same company.

 

i'll hold on to the letter a couple of days till some great soul on this site works out what this means and where we go from here.

[bigedd]

Nice approach Fernack...

 

Has anyone phoned their bank to ask what the status on a frozen claim now is...?

 

I cant believe the banks will show up and fight this in court, even after todays ruling. So many sources still claim theres a large grey area with these charges.

 

I suspect there'll be letter being sent out to all claimant with frozen claims, best check the post later!

[Guest Jason King]

How long would you keep your clients with that sort of term, unless of course you have a near monopoly. A bit like banks I suppose.

 

Well, if a client was solvent then they would have no problems in paying their bills as they fall due, therefore a penalty charge term would be quite irrelevent to them.

 

Should a client express concern about a penalty charge term in a contract intially then this should ring alarm bells for the contractor.

 

The contractor can either choose to do business with this client whilst running the risk that they may not be able to pay their bills or simply do business with those who do pay on time, or are at least happy to pay a charge should they fail to pay on time.

 

A lot of small sized contractors get into difficulty simply due to them not getting paid on time, or if at all.

 

A business must behave like a business.

 

After all, where can one expect to use a service, or a contractor's service, yet simply say 'I'll try and pay you next week or sometime after that!'

[mcb1975]

It is quite standard for the self employed in your previous position to simply include a clause in your terms of trade that unless you are paid on time by your clients then they are charged for what you would be charged for late payments by your bank for your clients failings.

 

Why didn't you do this?

 

The contract was between myself and an agency who worked on behalf of the employer.

1. I was not in a position to enter such details into a contract

2. If I did demand it as a caveat, they would simply have looked elsewhere. Unfortinately my then skill set was ten a penny.

It’s also the same for casual agency staff who are paid by an agency payroll. It once took me 13 months to get bank charges refunded when an agency ‘forgot’ to pay me for work because the accounts girl went on holiday, resulting in direct debits being missed.

Also, if you take the example of a plumber, electrician or carpenter, how many make their clients sign a contract up front before installing a new shower or building a kitchen? It just doesn’t happen. Rightly or wrongly, they would never get any business.

[fernack]

ITV News - thousands of bank customers have lost the right for refund of bank charges? Hope they are a bit previous!

[TenaciousC]

ITV News - thousands of bank customers have lost the right for refund of bank charges? Hope they are a bit previous!

 

Yahoo news had something to say about it too: Banks Win Court Battle On Overdraft Charges - Yahoo! Finance

[TickledPink]

It wasn't totally unexpected, if you have any grasp of this country's legal system. Note ... I said legal system, not the law.

 

One of the common denominators when it comes to any litigation, whether it be criminal or civil, is the 'flood gates' argument that always seems to be at the back of a judge's mind. It filters its way through the system down to the Magistrates' Clerks and 'legal advisors' in civil courthouses. If there's any risk that the court system will be inundated with cases then the judges will find often inventive ways of preventing it from happening. That's precisely what's happened here and I, for one, expected it for that single reason.

 

Of course, the arrogant and the just plain stupid have already come out in force since the ruling.

 

For instance, the words of the Banks' mouthpiece:

 

Angela Knight, from the BBA, was asked whether they would continue to make unauthorised overdraft charges.

 

"The banks are mindful of their customers, they know the concerns of those who have paid the unauthorised overdraft fees and those who have not," she said.

 

"Individuals can avoid any charge by putting their overdraft arrangements in place first."

 

Really? Perhaps she'd like to explain that to my wife. She's been with Natwest now for about 5 - 6 years and is STILL on their basic STEP account despite requests to be upgraded and she's actually looking after that account fairly well.

 

We've also been experiencing quite a few problems with that account where the way the banking system works (which is never explained to customers) has caused us big problems in the last few weeks. Until a couple of weeks ago we had no idea, for instance, that when a payment is made via debit card the money isn't automatically paid to the business requesting payment. It's held upon authorisation by the bank for up to 48 hours (it disappears from your account during that time and shows on your statement as a withdrawal) and is only paid to the business upon a further request for the money. If the request isn't made in time, it magically reappears back in your bank account.

 

However, instead of your online banking statement showing that the money's been repaid into your account by the bank and the reason for it, the original entry wrongly showing that the money's been paid out disappears. If the business then makes the request the money's taken back out of your account and paid to them. It's a complete mess!!

 

Great way of helping people think they've got more money in their bank accounts than they have ... and a great way of making sure you get more cash in 'unauthorised overdraft fees'.

 

I've been in dispute with Natwest for 2 years. I say they owe me more than £700 in charges, they say I owe them more than £400 in charges. Since my last communication with them, however, we've moved house so I'll leave it at that.

[amber]

Does this ruling also apply to credit card charges? I have a closed CC Account with Barclaycard, got my SAR back and just worked out the charges claim. I was going to post it off today. Is it still worth pursuing this or are the Banks going to hide behind todays ruling as a 'catch all' for all products?

 

I can't believe what I am hearing regarding the ruling. Still awaiting statements for a closed another closed bank account but estimate around £4k in bank charges. Again, is it even worth going forward with this.

[amber]

Hey...Bankfodder on the telly, go Mark, (in Wolfy voice...Power to the People)...

[Crapstone]

Way to go Bankfodder....This isn't the end and all the members here will continue to support the cause and this site.

[Sunshine54]

missed him doh!!

 

what did he say?

[kalijack]

clause 5(1) is our friend people

 

relax and stop being spun by the press

 

the fight is still ON

Can someone please explain this clause in easy to understand terms?

Thanks

[TenaciousC]

Hey...Bankfodder on the telly, go Mark, (in Wolfy voice...Power to the People)...

 

 

Where?

[Crapstone]

Bankfodder was on BBC news....

 

Here's what the FOS are saying...

 

FAQs complaints about bank charges

 

Note the ' before ' the legal position is settled. This isn't over by a long shot.

[em_19uk]

Well its not over yet and i for one am certainly not going to roll over. There is another avenue avaliable to us so all hope is not lost yet.

 

I think we need to get our voices out there, get how unhappy we are into the press or go and comment on the national newspapers forum about your disgust, petitions etc. Lets let them all know we aren't going to take it lying down AND MAKE OUR VOICES HEARD!!!