Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges

[lord_tiger_putin]

The problem with many of the arguments put forward is that they amount to arguments that customers should not pay bank charges. That is the same as saying that banks should supply free banking services. What confuses the whole issue is the fact that the way banks charge for their services is, compared to anyone else I can think of, odd. Only some customers pay them and the deal is that if and for so long as you stay in credit you do not pay, but when you overdraw you do. We must not forget that this is what bank customers demanded. From the banks perspective their customers are like punters who are happy to collect their winnings when their horse comes first, but insist on having their stake money back when it falls at the first fence. How much profit the banks make on current accounts is irrelevant to any of the legal questions being asked because you can still ask the same questions if the banks were operating current accounts at a loss

 

My take on this is that most people will be more than happy to pay bank charges, if they were appropiate. The whole issue is the amount the banks are charging. They are getting "Money for Nothing". If I go overdrawn for a small amount for a small time frame and they charged me £3 (costing them 75p), then I would not complain! I am angry because they are pocketing £25 - 75p!!!

 

Another issue is why do allow you to go over your limit?? There were many an occasion that I did my calculations and made Debit Card payments, authorised by the bank, just to find out later that an old Debit Card payment (authorised some time ago by the bank) were also been paid on that day and I went over the limit. Why did the bank authorise and allow the last Debit Card payment?? I believe it to be deliberate for their "Money for Nothing" policy.

 

As I said, I will be more than happy to pay appropiate charges in appropiate circumstances but I am not prepared to pay for 30% of the profits of the banks, especially as it is "Money for Nothing".

 

I am not originally from the UK and was shocked beyond believe when I came across this practise, I could not believe that a UK goverment can allows this. Practises like this belongs to 3rd world (or even 6th, 7th world) countries and the banks should be ashamed beyond believe for this practise.

 

It is Sick!!!!!!!!!!

[lord_tiger_putin]

I could be wrong but my take on the response from HSBC, when you read between the lines:

 

We know these charges are wrong and we should refund them but we believe you do not have a change challenging them in court and therefore we are not going to refund them!”

[rebel11]

The banks went from - 'We just cover our costs, we don't make a profit' to 'it's part of our core business, we make a huge profit', they've been stating that in front of Parliament for years. So if they are embarrassed you can understand why. This is a scandal, in most countries this wouldn't be glossed over.

[Undercover-Elsa]

It's a shame the judiciary don't take the same stance with the banks as they increasingly do with debtors in court..ignore the technical arguments and say

"Have you had the money??? Then pay it back!"

The cracks and corruption throughout the whole system seem to be widening.

Makes you want to disappear to a small island in the Hebrides and scupper the only boat...

 

Elsa x (Having one of "those" days!! LOL)

[oilyrag]

Hi All

 

Could I just venture to suggest that care be taken about discontinance over the issue of costs. Concernng the issues of costs surrounding credit card claims there has been a recent judgement in the Manchester Mercantile Court by HHJ Waksman again (of Carey v HSBC) which ensured that if a debtor claimant discontinued then they would be responsible for the defendants costs. Again this was a mis mash of cases put together to test the water and known as "Teasdale". However one firm of solicitors has been given permission by the Court of Appeal to bring the case to appeal. Watch this space as they say.

 

regards

Oilyrag

Edited October 25, 2010 by oilyrag
word missing with a typo

[JGJ]

oilyrag,

 

May I suggest that extreme care and due diligence be taken in any "discontinuance" proceedings and the fact

 

that it is essential that you first approach the other parties and obtain in "writing" their consent to the proceedings

 

and that the parties concerned agree to bear their "own costs" as occasioned by the proceedings.

 

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

[oilyrag]

Yes, JGJ I fully agree and that is what I was hoping to convey with particular reference to "Teasdale v HSBC" in the Mercantile Court very recently which in itself was another series of cases in my view hinging mainly on the issue of costs when a debtor claimant discontinues. Will look forward to the inevitable debate on CAG about these cases.

 

oilyrag ( appeals listed on the above for Feb 2011 from info on here)

[TheyrCriminals]

Hi,

 

My bank charges claim is due to be thrown out, as are everyones at the Torquay and Newton Abbot County Court, at the end of this month. Is there any chance at all of preventing this and if there is what is the new legal argument to prevent the claim being struck out? In my opinion the test case was corrupted, there can be no doubt in my mind that the economic situation dictated the legal one, I hope everyone can see this.

 

TheyrCriminals

[Bigdebtor]

I would raise the very fact there is going to be a legal debate following (or as part of) this Glasgow Small Claims action as much remains to be tested yet about the "unfair" bank charges. The Fat Lady hasn't sung yet (well at least not in Scotland).

 

BD

[Bigdebtor]

I don't know if this is a glimmer of hope or another establishment stalling tactic - but the attached is from Vince Cable's department - and he might just be the one member of the CONDEM cartel that I think might be on the Consumer's side.

“ We want to strengthen our evidence base on the impacts of recent voluntary, market driven initiatives around personal current accounts and on any continuing consumer detriment in this area, BIS issued a call for evidence on 15 October which can be accessed via the BIS website at:

http://bis.gov.uk/policies/consumer-issues/consumer-credit-and-debt/managing-borrowing"

 

Now it is your turn to let the BIS know that you are not happy. Tell them that we need a new law, tell them we need it today, and tell them why! What is more make sure you pass the link on to all your friends and family.

I intend to point out that while most of the Banks might have changed the way they charge for unauthorised overdrafts, the effects of their previous methods of charging still continue ot cause excessive and unfair hardship. Many of us are left with such an unauthorised overdraft precisely because of previous draconian charges (which they no longer dare to charge as they can no longer be justified) and associated punitive interest rates applied in the past. Many small business went to the wall through inability to continue to service such high charges.

The previously excessively high charges (generated up to a third of the banks revenue?) should be refunded immediately. If this cannot be demanded by BIS, then at the very least a retrospective calculation should be done using current charge rates (e.g. HBOS £5 per day but no longer any other charges or interest) and if this results in a reduction in what we would have been charged then that difference should be refunded immediately as an ex gratia payment pending further legal action. After all surely the Banks have not brought in a new charging regime that will result in a loss for them? Surely their directors would be acting illegally (against shareholder interests) if they did such a thing?

I shall also point out that HBOS (and others?) changed the wording of their earlier letters from "to cover our costs" - and then claimed to the SC tht the charges were a core part of their revenue - quite a different stance from what they took previously.

Their "ha ha - we won - you lost" letters sent out after last year's SC debacle were also very misleading in that they reproduced only some carefully cherry picked parts of the SC ruling and did not mention the other areas highlighted by the SC judges for possible future investigation/legal testing.

Please take up this opportunity to give Vince Cable and BIS YOUR own views and experiences in parallel to seeing how Scottish justice pans out in this thread over the forthcoming weeks/months.

BD

[Bigdebtor]

I have just completed and sent off this document. Closing date is 10 December. It's not too clear what you need to do. I opened the word version, saved it and then completed it and saved the final version. I then had to go back to the first page of the web site to get an e-mail address to which to send it.

 

First thoughts are most of the respondents will be the creditors - and much of the proposals to make enforceability easier etc. are in THEIR interests - not ours.

 

Please participate - you need to set aside AT LEAST 2 HOURS to complete it - but we need our side of things put forward LOUD and CLEAR.

 

BD

 

PS I see Consumer Forums are listed as one of the interested parties - but haven't heard anything about this on the forum up to now. Am I looking in the wrong place?

[caro]

Vince Cable is most definitely on the side of the consumer IMO. He was at the Which? Big Banking Debate that determindator and I attended in February and specifically mentioned charges.

 

 

What Termi hasn't mentioned here, is that she and I attended the Big Banking Debate in London on 4th and what a night!!

 

I had hoped to have posted a full report by now, but suffice to say it was like a breath of fresh air. MPs from the 3 major parties all gave the same message, that the behaviour of the banks is not acceptable and that they wanted to hear what bank customers have to say, including what ideas they have to resolve the problems. They specifically targeted charges and irresponsible lending, as well as bonuses.:

[Bigdebtor]

Caro

 

Thanks for that info - most encouraging.

 

However I have copied below part of the "suggestions" from the Lenders which we need to firmly rebut before they become statute law (it seems that much of this is already becoming Case Law!). EVERYONE needs to reply to this Call for Evidence - so a balanced view can be given. You can bet the Banks and DCA's are scribbling away on this as we speak!

 

I am happy to pm my submitted word document for further editing by other CAGGERS if it will help.

 

BD

 

Annex A: stakeholders’ suggestions for improvements to consumer credit and insolvency regimes

Decision to borrow

· replace any remaining areas of automatic unenforceability of credit agreements with unenforceability without a court order or another appropriate penalty

· rationalise the requirements around signing of agreements so that more agreements can be concluded on line

· rationalise/repeal section 18 of the Consumer Credit Act (CCA) setting out the requirements which apply to multiple agreements

· align all provisions concerning the cancellation of agreements with those which apply to the new right of withdrawal introduced by the Consumer Credit Directive

· repeal or rationalise the CCA provisions which apply to modifying agreements

· rationalise the requirement to provide statements for people who have moved house or entered into an IVA

· require consumers to show genuine disadvantage before a breach of the CCA can make an agreement unenforceable

· review the need for sections 99 and 100 of the CCA concerning Voluntary Terminations

· review the provisions of section 185 CCA 1974 concerning information to be provided to joint account holders

[manchesteruni]

Vince Cable is most definitely on the side of the consumer IMO. He was at the Which? Big Banking Debate that determindator and I attended in February and specifically mentioned charges.

 

Did Vince attend ? What other MP's attended, sounds interesting.

 

I agree fully with Bigdebtor, people need to respond to this consultation and put their views forward, if not just on the CCA aspects, on the cooling off period for store card, the interest rate caps, and the stricter regulation for DMPs and bailiffs. Areas I think lots of people here will be interested in.

 

I don't know if Cag responded to the previous consultation on ancillary and contingent charges ? I seem to recall a thread about it but not the response.

 

There does seem to be a lot of work underway and people should get their voices heard NOW before it is too late. BigDebtor, why not try starting seperate threads to discuss each of the main issues raised in the appropriate forums where people will be looking with an interest in particular areas ?

[Bigdebtor]

I think this is currently the most active thread on bank charges - but please tell me if you know of others? I have copied some posts on the Consumer Credit Agreements thread and given a link to these posts too. Other suggestiuons of relevant threads to link to are very welcome - or feel free to post a link back to here if appropriate.

 

Reading another thread (Cupcake68 vs Egg) on how the Creditors' lawyers play games with us by not providing info until the last minute, I wish I had put in some comment on this in my own BIS evidence statement as I think this is wrong and should be totally outlawed. There is little enough "equality of arms" as things stand.

 

They should give LIP's especially proper notice of EVERYTHING - and Judges should ensure LIP's have been given adequate time by the other (dark) side to prepare - and if necessary seek further advice - LIP's should not be subject to delays in getting easily copied and long standing evidence, should not be hit by new evidence or a new tack at the 11th (or later) hour. I note the Creditor's "suggestions" haven't covered this sort of thing!

 

BD

Edited November 12, 2010 by Bigdebtor

[rdm2006]

I think that stopping the post code lottery should be high on the list. I used to have a good job that paid well, I paid all my debts on time etc etc but had to suffer a high interest rate as the "Quote" area in which I lived had a lot of bad debt" - What had that got to do with me - insurers should be stopped from using this practice too

[Docman]

I agree with bigdebtor. All Caggers must take this opportunity to press the case against the banks.

 

VC may be on the side of the consumer but he is still a total new boy. That means his department will try to 'guide' him and will let him know in subtle little ways that he is a junior partner in the govt. The way to help VC is to let the department know the strength of consumer feeling against the banks and their apologists/PR lobbyists.

 

In my youth I worked in a Minister's Private Office and the ONLY way to move the department was for campaigners to build up such a volume of protest/letters etc that the Minister was able to fight his civil servants. 'Yes Minister' may have been written as a comedy but it was more like a true life documentary than some people would like to admit.

[TheyrCriminals]

I have just completed and sent off this document. Closing date is 10 December. It's not too clear what you need to do. I opened the word version, saved it and then completed it and saved the final version. I then had to go back to the first page of the web site to get an e-mail address to which to send it.

 

First thoughts are most of the respondents will be the creditors - and much of the proposals to make enforceability easier etc. are in THEIR interests - not ours.

 

Please participate - you need to set aside AT LEAST 2 HOURS to complete it - but we need our side of things put forward LOUD and CLEAR.

 

BD

 

PS I see Consumer Forums are listed as one of the interested parties - but haven't heard anything about this on the forum up to now. Am I looking in the wrong place?

 

 

 

Hi BigDebtor,

 

What document are you talking about?

 

TheyrCriminals

[caro]

Did Vince attend ? What other MP's attended, sounds interesting.

 

Yes he did and spoke up on bank charges and as former shadow Chancellor of the Exchequor was clearly well versed. There were MPs from the 3 main parties and they were all in agreement on this.

 

RT HON DAVID DAVIS MP (CHAIR)

David is chairing the Future of Banking Commission. He is Conservative

MP for Haltemprice and Howden and is a leading campaigner on civil

liberties. His former roles include Shadow Home Secretary, Conservative

Party Chairman and Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.

RT HON JOHN MCFALL

From 2001-10, when he retired as Labour MP for West Dunbartonshire,

John McFall was Chair of the influential House of Common’s

Treasury Committee. In January, he was presented with the award of

Which? Consumer Champion for 2009 for his role in improving financial

services for consumers.

RT HON DR VINCE CABLE MP

It was in his capacity as the Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor of the

Exchequer that Vince served on the Commission. In May 2010 Vince was

appointed Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills.

 

[manchesteruni]

Ah you mean they were on the committee of the Which Big Banking Commission (http://commission.bnbb.org/), I don't believe Vince nor John McFall attended the debate, only David Davis MP along with Philip Augar, Peter Vicary Smith, David Pitt-Watson and Roger Bootle.

 

They have both, of course, spoken out against bank charges and unfairness in the past, not sure if they attended the evidence sessions though. Did you attend any of those ?

[manchesteruni]

Hi BigDebtor,

 

What document are you talking about?

 

TheyrCriminals

http://www.bis.gov.uk/Consultations/consumer-credit-call-for-evidence

 

In addition to the call for evidence itself, BIS are also inviting consumers to respond to a short questionnaire on issues relevant to the review. PLEASE DO THIS !!!!!!!!!

[GuidoT]

I have completed it, takes about 3 minutes, but it is a poorly structured and to place it on a site called Survey Monkey does not exactly enhance its credibility.

[manchesteruni]

Bit amateurish isn't it. But it is easily accessible for the general consumer to have a say rather than completing the rather long and detailed consultation response form. ( word doc - http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/consumer-issues/docs/m/10-1185rf-managing-borrowing-call-for-evidence-response-form.doc )

 

Are CAG going to be putting forward a response ?

 

Not sure where bigdebtor saw CAG being listed in the official respondents tho I can't see them, good to see MSE on there tho, but of course anyone can respond in as much or as little detail as they wish.

[Undercover-Elsa]

Might be an idea to bring this to the attention of the site team, might be best if this was an announcement or a seperate sticky.

 

Elsa x

[kennyh]

There were MPs from the 3 main parties and they were all in agreement on this.

 

 

But we all know that TALK is cheap!