Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


tomtubby

Bank charges court 'victory' could 'open payout floodgates' !!!

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2013 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

The following story features in today's Daily Mail and quotes comments from Marc Gander (Consumer Action Group) and Martin Lewis (Money Saving Expert)

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2763083/Victory-bank-charges-open-payout-floodgates-Court-backs-customer-hefty-overdraft-fees.html

 

*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's only one spoon of sugar in the cup of fairness so far. Will the high court uphold it ? We shall have to wait and see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read the judgement in the case. It can be found here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?397677-Lloyds-Default-due-to-PENALTY-charges-going-to-court-under-BCOBS&p=4616355&viewfull=1#post4616355

 

The essence of the judgement is not that the charges raised were intrinsically unfair, but that the manner in which they were applied was unfair. The judge emphasised that his decision was not of universal application, but dependent on the particular facts and circumstances. See paragraphs 41, 51, 57, and 60.

 

The case holds out hope for those who can show that the over all charges debited escalated because their bank allowed a situation to continue longer than it ought to have been allowed to continue having regard to the facts and the customer's circumstances. There is nothing in the case suggesting there is a way of getting round the Supreme Court decision in the OFT case. It is still the case that banks charges are not contractual penalties or subject to assessment as to their level under the UTCCR. It was always the case that a bank could be challenged for the way it operated an account if it gave rise to excessive charges. It is indeed that aspect which the campaign should have concentrated on.

Edited by citizenB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once my 2 credit cards and HSBC Flexiloan PPI are out of the way, (and then a NHS malpractice suit also on the horizon) I will be looking at cases of a similar nature in order to pursue HSBC for the £1000s of informal overdraft requests despite me asking not tp be allowed to go over my limit and also telling them I was in financial hardship.

 

They knew I was off sick long term. They knew also as I tried to consolidate my debts into one place and even though the monthly payment was more affordable but was declined as they wanted to sell me a managed loan instead. (Which I declined) and racked up sometimes £150 charges in a month!!!


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...