Bank Charges Campaign Continues

[Desperate Daniella]

I can't get there either, but I've done the survey.

[caro]

Thanks guys. I'm preparing a little piece for the cagmag, and fingers crossed that I'll get a place to go. I have a feeling that I won't be the only cagger there.

 

If anyone has any specific points they want raising, bearing in mind I'm sure people will have plenty to say, either post it on this thread, or if you prefer email me using caro@consumeracti ongro up.c o.uk (no gaps), and if I get the chance I'll try and raise them for you on the night.

 

I can't tell you how positive an experience it was attending the Big Banking Debate last year. We came away feeling that people who could really make a difference had listened to us, and were on board with what we had to say, not to mention some really good ideas coming out of it from a wide spectrum of delegates.

 

I can't wait!

[determindator]

See you there Caro:-D

[caro]

See you there Caro:-D

 

Can't wait Termi.

[caro]

Yet another fantastic event by Which? hosted by Paul Lewis, with Sir John Vickers, Chair of the Independent Commission on Banking, who sat at our table listening and chipping into the conversation, chief executive of The Co-operative Financial Services Neville Richardson, and Which? chief executive Peter Vicary-Smith.

 

Also in attendance with yours truly were the lovely Termi and Sweetjane. We ladies were on a mission and I think I can safely say that it was accomplished!!

 

What was seems to be coming out of the ICB is that competition is key, but people seem reluctant to move banks, and there was discussion about why this was and what might encourage people to change.

 

We looked at different named banks and which were considered traditional and which were considered newer.

 

There was an amusing comment from one delegate about Tesco that they should stick to groceries and let bankers stick to banking, to which someone shouted out something along the lines of

"Why? The bankers haven't done a very good job so far so maybe they'll do better!!"

 

There was also some sketchy information about the Financial Conduct Authority which will replace the FSA, but which it seems will have a more teeth. It is proposed that part of its remit will be to encourage competition. Only time will tell.

 

Hard copies of the ICB Interim Report - Consultation on Reform Options was published in April, and they're still in the feedback period until 4th July, before submitting their final findings to the Government in September.

 

The full report (over 200 pages, but readable) or an 8 page executive summary can be downloaded here:- http://bankingcommission.independent.gov.uk/

 

To feedback on the report, there are a number of questions which you can respond to by emailing [email protected]

 

I would urge everyone to take this rare opportunity to have their say about the report while they can.

 

I think that the 3 of us came away optimistic that there is a real desire to see change in banking.

 

Bank charges were not high on the agenda at the event, but they were mentioned and I get the feeling that the matter is still under scrutiny by the powers that be, so I would urge everyone to have their say while they can, and also to contact their MPs to make sure that they know your views for when the ICB findings are reviewed by Parliament and the Government.

[ElspethR]

Sadly this has closed... I've started another on this theme on Go Petition. I am not allowed to put at link in yet but if you search bankruptcy and banking petition you should find it. please support it ASAP

[caro]

Hi ElspethR. I see you've been posting on the Which? site too. I see they're asking people to email their MPs. There's a template you can send as it is, or you can personalise it. It even finds your MP for you so very easy to do.

 

You can send it using this link. http://www.which.co.uk/campaigns/personal-finance/unfair-overdraft-charges/what-were-doing-to-tackle-unfair-charges/

 

For info it says:-

 

I am writing to ask you to urge the government to take strong action against the banks over unarranged overdraft charges. Banks make a huge amount of money from these charges so I do not believe they will make changes that deliver real benefits to people like me unless the government takes action and forces them to change their approach.

Like many of your constituents, I was very disappointed by the Supreme Court decision that denied the OFT the right to assess banks’ terms and conditions on overdraft charges for fairness. Some of the charges for unarranged overdrafts seem completely disproportionate and are difficult to understand. You generally don’t even know when you’ve been charged until after it has happened and it is hard to believe that these charges are cost-reflective to your bank. Getting hit with a charge can often make your money problems worse.

The Coalition agreement clearly states that the Coalition “will introduce stronger consumer protections, including measures to end unfair bank and financial transaction charges”. I understand the government is currently considering the case for changing the law but it is obvious the banks will campaign relentlessly against any tough changes and will try and secure support for a voluntary approach. I am concerned this will just result in more years of no action and unfair charges. I would therefore be grateful for any assistance you could offer in making sure the consumer voice isn’t drowned out and ensuring the banks don’t, yet again, manage to wriggle their way out of reforms.

I was very pleased to see the pledge in the Coalition agreement and hope you will help ensure that the government stands by their promise. The banks have enjoyed a huge amount of taxpayer support and I believe it is about time that they were made to charge consumers in a fair manner.

I honestly think that Which? are one of our best hopes in our continuing fight.

 

Please support them and send your MP an email.

[caro]

Today CAG sent an open email to all MPs. If everyone could email their own MPs, either with this message or something similar that would be fantastic.

 

 

Open email to all Members of Parliament

 

Dear Sir or Madam

The Consumer Action Group’s Call for Government Action on Bank Charges

 

The Bank Action Group, which went on to become the Consumer Action Group (CAG) has been fighting bank charges for over 5 years. Many of our 280,000+ members successfully claimed back charges, in most cases taking out court claims. In all but a very few cases the banks settled, sometimes literally on the court steps. One cannot help but wonder why they were so keen to avoid going to court.

 

The CAG was initially pleased that the OFT went to court with the banks in an effort to resolve the issue, until thousands of people had their claims stayed until the test case verdict. Despite the OFT winning in two courts, it was a bitter blow when the Supreme Court found in favour of the banks, although the decision was based on a very small point of law.

 

Many of those claims are still stayed in courts, while others have been struck out. A few people have continued with their claims and lost in court as a result of the Supreme Court judgment, despite the comments of the judges.

 

It is curious that while the case against the OFT was going on, most, if not all of the banks changed their charging structure and terminology, apparently reducing charges. If they are confident that their charges are lawful and fair, why have they done this? Why, whilst this case was proceeding, did the banks decide to destroy decades of records and just keep the minimum required of six years? Could it have been that they wanted to avoid paying back charges more than 6 years old if they lost? If they don’t have records they can’t pay people back.

 

The Supreme Court was careful to explain that its judgment did “not resolve the myriad cases that are currently stayed in which customers have challenged Relevant Charges”. In particular, the court made it clear that “it remained open to question whether bank charges were fair” in relation to regulation 5(1) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations.

Despite this judgment being made over a year and a half ago in November 2009, and despite the three major parties stating in August 2009 that they wanted the issue of bank charges resolving quickly, bank customers are still suffering horrendous charges, at a time of inflation, the credit crunch and, for many, job loss and home repossession. The spiral effect of these insidious charges continues to cause stress and hardship for thousands, if not millions of people.

Santander and Barclays do not use the same charging system in other European countries, so why is this unfair business model reserved for disadvantaged UK citizens?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Consumer Action Group calls on the coalition Government to fulfil their election pledges to the people they represent. If current legislation is unclear on the issue of bank charges, then new legislation must be introduced to ensure that society’s most disadvantaged get a fair deal from the banks and stop subsidising those customers who are better off, not to mention the bankers’ bonus pots.

 

Your support and assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

If you would like further information or to discuss bank charges, please contact @consumeractiongroup.co.uk

 

Yours faithfully

 

Consumer Action Group

www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk

 

Originally Posted by the_shadow

no excuse... they can use this site to do the donkey work, they just have to know their postcode and how to cut&paste

 

http://www.writetothem.com/

 

 

 

Edited July 14, 2011 by caro
Adding useful link kindly provided by The Shadow

[the_shadow]

Brilliant!

 

S.

[caro]

Thanks to citizenb for the idea and sending the email out.

[citizenB]

Lets hope that they arent all too caught up in the NOTW scandal !

[johnnymitch]

Good morning CB and Caro ...

 

Great work .... my e-mail has gone already to my MP !

 

My son still has a "Stayed" case in court .... hope this moves things along favourably ...and hopefully the Scottish cases will be favourably resolved soon to add weight to the claims ...

[caro]

Lets hope that they arent all too caught up in the NOTW scandal !

 

Yep. Shame it wasn't a quieter news day.

 

Good morning CB and Caro ...

 

Great work .... my e-mail has gone already to my MP !

 

My son still has a "Stayed" case in court .... hope this moves things along favourably ...and hopefully the Scottish cases will be favourably resolved soon to add weight to the claims ...

 

Thanks Johnny - lets hope so. Maybe if the other 280,000 or so registered caggers would email too .........

[the_shadow]

Yep. Shame it wasn't a quieter news day.

 

 

 

Thanks Johnny - lets hope so. Maybe if the other 280,000 or so registered caggers would email too .........

 

Yep indeed, no excuse... they can use this site to do the donkey work, they just have to know their postcode and how to cut&paste

 

http://www.writetothem.com/

 

S.

 

(Just sent mine btw)

[Camdenite]

Done.

[Night Owl]

Well done Caro and CitizenB, E-mail sent and personal info added to give extra clout! 'cause they don't like copy and pasted stuff.

[caro]

Thanks folks.

[the_shadow]

Response today from my MP's PA

 

She'll be sure to pass on my correspondence to him.

 

[caro]

Yep indeed, no excuse... they can use this site to do the donkey work, they just have to know their postcode and how to cut&paste

 

http://www.writetothem.com/

 

Thanks for that Shadow. Hope you don't mind if I copy this into the post with the open email so people don't miss it.;-)

[the_shadow]

Course not

[determindator]

I'm so pleased Bank Charges are being pursued with vigour again. The PPI campaign was efficient and successful and the Banks have the money for it, and the Bank charges. The email post to MP's is spot on, the Judge gave a lifeline which I hope can be taken one step further. Is it an idea to post this email info in the Banks forum to spread the word and at the top of the main page.

[determindator]

http://www.which.co.uk/campaigns/personal-finance/unfair-overdraft-charges/what-were-doing-to-tackle-unfair-charges/

 

http://www.which.co.uk/campaigns/personal-finance/unfair-overdraft-charges/take-action-on-unfair-overdraft-charges/

 

http://www.which.co.uk/campaigns/personal-finance/unfair-overdraft-charges/overdraft-charges-the-story-so-far/

 

This is info from Which who are pro active on this, great news!

Edited July 14, 2011 by determindator

[determindator]

links above

[Aequitas]

I find the letter overly negative in tone. I was thinking of starting a thread asking for positive proposals as to how we should go forward. I have done this by drafting my own letter on which I welcome observations:

 

The Bank Action Group, which went on to become the Consumer Action Group has been campaigning on bank charges for over five years. We were naturally hugely disappointed by the decision of the Supreme Court in Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National plc and Others. On reflection, whilst previously maintaining the contrary, we accept, for the reasons given by the court, that the decision was the only possible one having regard to the law. Whilst other legal avenues are being explored we are not confident that the outcome will favour the consumer. This leaves many in a state of uncertainty quite apart from the fact that, despite some small measure of improvement, bank charges are still unfair in the general rather than narrow legal sense of that word.

 

A modern society needs banking services. It is accepted that no business can reasonably be expected to carry on a significant part of its business without making a profit on it. Indeed, we go further and acknowledge that, much as we would like to see it, it is unrealistic to expect the level of bank charges to be controlled. The succinct comments made by Lady Hale in the judgement of the Supreme Court go to the heart of the matter and are worth quoting in full:

 

“I would only add that, should this or any other Parliament be minded to take up the invitation given in the last paragraph of Lord Walker's judgement, it may not be easy to find a satisfactory solution. The banks may not be the most popular institutions in the country at present, but that does not mean that their methods of charging for retail banking services are necessarily unfair when viewed as a whole. As a very general proposition, consumer law in this country aims to give the consumer an informed choice rather than to protect the consumer from making an unwise choice. We buy all sorts of products which a sensible person might not buy and some of which are not good value for the money. We do so with our eyes open because we want the product in question more than we want the money. Should financial services be treated differently from other goods and services? Or is the real problem that we do not have a real choice because the suppliers all offer much the same product and do not compete on some of their terms? This is the situation here. But it is not clear to me whether the proper solution is to find some way of forcing the suppliers to compete with one another in the terms they offer or whether the solution is to condemn one particular model of charging for those services. Fortunately, however, that is for Parliament and not for this Court.”

 

The time has now come for Parliament to grasp the nettle. The present model of “free if in credit banking”, whilst the result of past consumer pressure, is patently unfair. What is needed is regulation which ensures:

 

1. Charges which reflect more closely the services actually provided to the customer irrespective of whether he maintains his account in credit.

2. Clear terms and conditions which indicate what the charges are and the circumstances in which they will be applied.

3. Banks do not manipulate accounts to generate charges.

4. Proper competition for customers between banks to provide a real choice.

5. Decisions made at local level by bank employees who know their customers.

6. Vulnerable members of society who have no choice but to use banking services are not unfairly prejudiced.

 

Such regulation would leave unsettled the question of how past charges should be dealt with. Many customers who have court cases pending, and those contemplating court action, are in limbo. Whether or not the answer is be found in the law, a line needs to be drawn under the issue by encouraging the banks to make a significant gesture across the board. Whether and how government should deal with the pending cases is a difficult issue which would require debate, but clearing the court system clearly needs to be part of any package. Government could play its part by ordering the refund of court fees.

 

[caro]

veThanks for taking the time Aequitas. In all honesty I had hoped that this thread might spark a positive way forward. After 5 years I have learned how hard it is to stir people into positive action. If someone can do better I'm behind them all the way. What matters is finding a fair solution.

 

I don't know if you saw Lord Phillips in the programme about the work of the Supreme Court. He made it fairly clear that he would have liked to have given a different result but had to interpret the law as it stands, so to me the way forward is to change the law.

 

I think the Independent Commission on Banking has gone some way towards recommending some of your suggestions, particularly with regard to competition, so it's a good idea to encourage Parliament to consider their proposals bearing in mind the opinions of bank consumers, many of whom have given evidence to the commission.

 

I'm not entirely sure that Government has the power to order the courts to do anything, but if they have I'd rather that they ordered the repayment of bank charges than just court fees. It is wrong that they have the fees though if they aren't going to do what they've been paid for.

 

Send your letter by all means. The important thing is to let our MPs that we haven't gone away and still expect them to keep their election pledges, and as Night Owl says they aren't keen on templates. Give them food for thought.

 

Thanks for the input.