First Direct bank..to charge £10 per month for current accounts

[Joons2]

You guys seem to be issing the point, the £10 is for a services, i.e. operating an account with the bank. It is not charged for a breach of contract and therefore not a penalty.

 

Their t&c's will allow them to amend their terms and conditions unilaterally to include a term such as this. On the unfair terms angle - UCTA is not applicable as this £10 fee is not an indemnity and do not belive UTCCR will cover this in any way.

[Guest ian cognito]

The company my son works for has just gone back to cash payments instead of BACS which means he could in theory do without a bank, however as most banks charge you to pay bills if you don't have an account with them, it would probably work out more expensive!!!! Wish my company would pay me cash - doubt i would get any bills paid tho!!!

[dinah777]

Their t&c's will allow them to amend their terms and conditions unilaterally to include a term such as this. On the unfair terms angle - UCTA is not applicable as this £10 fee is not an indemnity and do not belive UTCCR will cover this in any way.

 

Fair point, yet in turn I think you are missing my point Forget whether the UCTA is applicable or not... I was looking more at the actual legality of being able to 'change terms and conditions' in themselves as the new conditions will not reflect a position in relation to what you originally signed for. There would also be issues relating to misselling would there not? If FD had sold and marketed an account that was free at point of sale, then to start charging surely goes against the aspects of which the account was sold in a way very adverse to the customer You could then call into question law such as 'trade descriptions'.

[PhantomReclaimer]

You guys seem to be issing the point, the £10 is for a services, i.e. operating an account with the bank. It is not charged for a breach of contract and therefore not a penalty.

 

But it isn't a payment for the provision of a service, it's a penalty charge masked to look like a legitimate charge. Mutton dressed as Lamb. If it was a genuine service charge then everyone would pay it but they don't.

 

What they are saying is "we have a service charge that we apply to all accounts. But, we'll wave it if you keep your balance over a certain level."

 

The contractual requirement is that you keep a certain balance in your account. So, what they are actually saying is "if you fail to keep this balance you are in breach which will cause you to get charged."

 

It's exactly the same as them saying they will charge you if you go below 0 (or whatever your agreed O/D is) but in this case the level of 0 has been raised to £1,500. All they've done is altered the limit at which you would get charged and called it something slightly different.

 

Think of it this way, if they said that there was a £25 account charge which would be waved if you didn't exceed your overdraft it wouldn't change the fact that the £25 was still a penalty.

 

P.

[PhantomReclaimer]

Fair point, yet in turn I think you are missing my point Forget whether the UCTA is applicable or not... I was looking more at the actual legality of being able to 'change terms and conditions' in themselves as the new conditions will not reflect a position in relation to what you originally signed for. There would also be issues relating to misselling would there not? If FD had sold and marketed an account that was free at point of sale, then to start charging surely goes against the aspects of which the account was sold in a way very adverse to the customer You could then call into question law such as 'trade descriptions'.

 

There will be a clause allowing them to change the T&C's but will have to give you notice, probably at least a month. That way you have the choice whether to accept the new terms or not.

 

P.

[dinah777]

There will be a clause allowing them to change the T&C's but will have to give you notice, probably at least a month. That way you have the choice whether to accept the new terms or not.

 

P.

 

OK, so let's find that clause and go from there? Also, I like your last post, the mutton dressed as lamb/raising £ 0 to £ 1,500. It has milage and potential I feel.

 

Also what if you have no choice but to accept the new terms because of not having the resources to refuse and close the account, or the position to live cash only or to remain above £ 1,500. It's an implied penalty. I can probably get around it with my NW account (it will inevitably happen) I keep it in the black and can transfer my home contents insurance to them. I also have a savings a/c with them come to think of it, so I just need to deposit a quid. Yet FD remains an issue where none of these are an option.

 

Dinah.

[PhantomReclaimer]

OK, so let's find that clause and go from there? Also, I like your last post, the mutton dressed as lamb/raising £ 0 to £ 1,500. It has milage and potential I feel.

 

I personally am very tempted to get a FD account just so I can try and claim back the £10 the first month they apply it.

 

Also what if you have no choice but to accept the new terms because of not having the resources to refuse and close the account, or the position to live cash only or to remain above £ 1,500. It's an implied penalty.

 

I entirely agree which is why I think people should challenge it as soon as they start to apply it. This is one of the reasons why I belive there is a good case for a change in the law which would require banks to offer a free basic account as a pre-requisite to being licensed to operate.

 

P.