2 minds

[joneshousehold]

Hmmm. Methinks you have been too well trained by the bank. You have a remarkable knack of only addressing the bits of people's comments that you want to and ignoring the rest.

 

If you looked around the forum you will clearly see that all banks are the same. Your comment that I am with the wrong bank really doesn't stand too much scrutiny. It doesn't matter where I go, they are all the same! That's a comment from experience. I have walked away from a few as a result of poor service and rude staff.

[martdj]

I am surprised that Banks employ Schizophrenics!!

[Spiceskull]

2 Minds,

 

Here is a quote from the following thread, (http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=243) and it sums up out raison d'etre quite succinctly:

Bank charges are not legally enforcable if they are penalties. Penalty clauses in contracts in English (and Scottish) law for breach of contract are not legal if the penalty exceeds the actual cost of the breach of either party.

 

Nobody believes that it costs a bank 25 to 39 to return a DD, SO or cheque. It is purely a money making scheme, and a lucrative one at that - last year Which! estimated that the top 4 UK high street banks made 3 Billion from these charges alone. One in Five bank customers incur these types of charge, and because it's a bank imposing them, most assume that the bank must be legally entitled to do so.

 

An interview by Radio 4 with Peter McNamara in 2004 has been transcribed and is in the library. Peter McNamara had previously been the Head of Personal banking at Lloyds. In his interview he makes it clear that charges are used to fund free banking for the whole population.

 

We believe this is also a breach of the 1999 Consumer Credit Act (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts - the OFT is already investigating the charges levied by Credit Card Companies) and possibly the Supply of Goods and Services Act.

[Overdrawn]

It kinda concerns me that if charges are deemed illegal where do we draw the line, are speeding ticket, parking fines, the cost if a loaf of bread illegal - after all they are all dispraportionate to the cost

 

where do I start a thread for this chat??

 

Bank charges are not illegal, they are unlawful.

 

Speeding tickets and parking fines are meant to be penalties.

[Don Quioxte]

2 minds. I appreciate your opinions and the time you have spent in bringing them to this forum (we need to remain objective and see all sides of the argumet - and you help with that). However, I want you to be in 1 mind about this:

 

1. The charges are "unfair", in both the legal sense of the deinition (in that they pointedly breach the UTCCRs) and in the moral meaning. You Cannot be in 2 minds about that.

 

2. How people manage their finances, in particular what they spend money on is of no relevance. It may be frustrating to people such as yourself who do not gamble, spend lavishly, and live beyond their means etc, but your argument here is flawed. What seems reasonable to you in terms of spending habits and behaviour, might seem alien to another person.. how are you going discern what is reasonable and what is wreckless? Imposition of your will, and your standards on other people is a very dangerous game to play.. it doesn't work. If you are still in 2 minds about that refere to the war in Iraq.

 

3. I might also point out that along with the damming legal findings cotained within the OFT report (which you surely cannot be in 2minds about) the OFT also made the interesting inference that I want you to really consider... The Financial Services Industry is exactly what it says on the tin - a service industry. They have costs and overheads like any other business. They need to factor these costs and overheads into their business model generally. For example my phone company don't charge me to send me letters and reminders about my phone bill, it is just limited additional administrative cost that comes as part and parcel of being a phone company.

 

If a bank wants to recover the remoter costs associated with default from their customers, they should do so by virtue of the interest charged on their lending, and other legitimate services provided.

 

4. You cannot be in two minds any more.

 

5. There is no number five.

[Guest Lueeze]

 

5. There is no number five.

 

PMSL!!!!

[kaznelson]

Hi 2 Minds

 

Why dont you take a look at this:

 

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.html?f=76

 

& you say the banks will help when you are experiencing difficuties??

 

Wish I knew which bank you worked for??

 

Thanks for your input

[dave]

I am surprised that Banks employ Schizophrenics!!

 

I'm not!

 

I got a cheque from Barclays for the full amount they owed me - then 2 days later got a letter saying that after consideration they consider that they charges were imposed in agreement with the T&C's and therefore I won't be getting it back.

 

The cheque 'cleared' though, despite this.

[Guest Lueeze]

With all due respect I do not appreciate a Bank or anyone else being branded a Schizophrenic!

 

I have a Mental illness and I cant stand the way this is used by people!

 

Please do not compare Ill people with Greedy Corporate Monopolies!

[ukdickie31]

I guess this is a great Troll thread.

 

35 postings in 9 hours must be a record for a thread.

 

 

[Spiceskull]

With all due respect I do not appreciate a Bank or anyone else being branded a Schizophrenic!

 

I have a Mental illness and I cant stand the way this is used by people!

 

Please do not compare Ill people with Greedy Corporate Monopolies!

I was actually going to say exactly the same thing earlier Lueeze. However, I realised that the quote was intended as a pun on the username, and felt sure that it wasn't intended to hurt anyone's feelings. I am sure that martdj did not want to upset you, me or anyone else...

[martdj]

I did not not mean to upset anyone.it was a pun. And I have 2 kids with mental illness so would not make light of it in that way!

[Guest Lueeze]

I understand, im not angry or upset just wanted to point out that sometimes people need to think 1st before putting things down for others to read that could cause upset!

[2 minds]

joneshousehold - Yeah I do have the bank opinion drummed into me but doesn't mean I agree with all of it..... (but i do some of it, sorry)

 

Spiceskull - I get it, however people have been charged, whether error, negligence or playing the bank system to spend what they dont have, they want them back just because they can???

 

overdrawn -as per spiceskull's post, Bank charges are not legally enforcable if they are penalties. Penalty clauses in contracts in English (and Scottish) law for breach of contract are not legal if the penalty exceeds the actual cost of the breach of either party...... so all penalties should be in line with cost, hence my reference to parking penalty notice's

 

Don - Quioxte -

1, unfair but avoidable

2, people live their lives how they wanna almost everything comes with consequences, if u sign up eyes open then take it on the chin

3, OFT report... I'm still to pass judgement, I'm sure they will have alot more to say!!

4, I'm sorry I am still of two minds... (sometimes slightly swaying!)

5, erm ?!?

 

Kaznelson - Sorry keeping the bank underwraps.... I'm not saying all banks are helpful but they should be if u need it and if not stick it to em!!

 

Dave - fair play, they shouldn't make an offer and then take it back

[dave]

I get it, however people have been charged, whether error, negligence or playing the bank system to spend what they dont have, they want them back just because they can???

So, if a robber had nicked your TV and was caught - you wouldn't want it back? Fair enough then.

 

Parking fines (although not covered as you can't take the govt or Royalty to a county court) - are different - you did not enter into a contract, thus, a breach of contract has not occurred.

 

You are being penalised for parking illegally - not for a breach of contract, which would be unlawful.

 

Dave - fair play, they shouldn't make an offer and then take it back

 

I don't for a minute think that the two are interlinked - it's just plain incompetence.

 

Sadly, that's what people have come to expect from banks these days.

[2 minds]

can see ur point with the robber, however had i signed a contract to say if I leave my door and windows open help yourself and I done that then hey keep the TV i shouldn't have been irresponsible!

 

From what I can see alot of peoples arguments is not thata contract has been breached its that they are dispraportionate, surely parking fines come into that, and just cos they goverment are involved doesn't mean they are above the "law"

[alanfromderby]

The difference is that a government, through legislation and with the backing of the courts, is allowed to levy a "fine", when the law has been breached. It also can authorise others to do the same - i.e. council by-laws, inland revenue etc.

 

However, the banks have decided to operate a system of "fines" without the authority of the government or a court.

[bram stoker]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=5232

No comment.:-|

[dave]

can see ur point with the robber, however had i signed a contract to say if I leave my door and windows open help yourself and I done that then hey keep the TV i shouldn't have been irresponsible!

 

One persons 'irresponsibility' does not excuse another from operating within the law of the land.

 

The law is the law - the banks have chosen to operate outside of that law in order to pump the 'poorer' section of society to make their obscene profits even more obscene.

 

Now they have pushed too hard, people are fighting back - legally.

 

Banks make quite a lot of money in legitimate ways - they don't NEED to stoop to breaching basic contract law to make even more money - yet this is what they do.

 

It's indefencible.

[cajdad]

2 minds - you are still comparing bank charges to parking fines, so it’s clear you are still missing the point!

 

Parking fines, are supposed to be penalties - to discourage people from parking illegally. Costs don't come into it. Like them or not, parking fines have been introduced as legislation by elected bodies and are legally enforceable.

 

Banks are not elected bodies and they therefore have no right or authority to punish people for wrongdoing. Their charges are therefore not supposed to be penalties. That is exactly why the UTCCR limits their charges to their actual costs.

 

Not really rocket science, is it?

 

Even so, if a bank charged as much as, say, £5 for bouncing a direct debit, most people probably wouldn’t object - even though it would still include an element of penalty/profit. ‘Fines’ of £30 or more are however way over the top, and that’s why we object to them!

[tarka]

As far as I am concerned, the whole point with the banks is that they do not HAVE to pay cheques/direct debits etc when there are insufficient funds available. If they had refused to pay any of my bills or cheques I wouldn't have had any argument with them. It is the fact that they then charge a small fortune for doing so, thereby causing me to have more problems at a later stage.

 

If it is so important for people to live within their means, the banks can easily achieve this without charging them horrendous amounts for doing so. The fact is that they are far more concerned with making an extra buck.

[Don Quioxte]

This is developing into a nonsensical circular argument.. 2 minds you are equally entitled to your opinions/viewpoint despite that it is in conflict with much of the users of this forum..

 

However, you cannot escape certain inalienable truths:

 

1. The charges are unlawful (stop ignoring this fact.. they simply are. whether you agree with the way the law is worded, or even where you feel it is being exploited or manipulated in order for individuals to claim back these charges) the Law clearly provides for redress.

 

2. People will use any means available to them to gain financial benefit.. all this "take it on the chin", be "responsible for your actions" is well and good.. but nonsense all the same.. If opportunity exists for me as an individual to better my financial status I'd be a mug for not taking it. I'm not a mug. I may manage my finances poorly, I may even border on negligent in your eyes. But Im no fool.

 

I would be a fool if I chose not to pursue an opportunity such as is presented here.

[Guest Alison82]

2minds

 

You mentioned in the beginning of your thread the fact that people mismanage their accounts by spending what they don’t have, it this kind of patronising attitude that makes me so angry; just because you have access to their accounts it does not give you the right to judge them.

 

I feel banks staff need some extra training on the laws, you are all so quick to say you signed the t&c’s but few of you actually know what they are or on the basis of what they were formed.

 

The money from these charges does not belong to the bank. They belong to us hard working consumers, why should we hand over our money to supplement the executives and shareholders as well as funding services that such as free banking. If you owed the bank money they would feel no remorse in taking you to court so I have mo sympathy for them.

 

I hope by now you understand the difference between penalty charges, fines and services therefore you won’t feel the need to keep repeating yourself (your Plummer gave you a his services for the 35 the 64p was merely or the costs)

 

All banks are the same no matter what fancy slogans or adverts they use it all comes down to one thing with them. And yes they are a business; but the difference between them and other companies is the fact that we need them (they needs us to!) and they are exploiting this fact.

 

Lastly if you choose to leave your doors and windows open then that’s your business; that doesn’t excuse to come into your home and take what doesn’t belong to them. IT IS THEM THAT HAVE BROKEN THE LAW, NOT YOU!

[Maxie]

2 minds tells us we should just put up and shut - if we go overdrawn and spend more than we have or don't manage our finances 100% perfect all of the time we deserve it.

 

We, hey, lets just pack up, and go home Dave, shut down the CAG!

 

2 minds, this this would have happened along time ago. The problem is we're right. If you say we are wrong, then you are also saying 100 year of LAW LORDS ruling are wrong, 50 years of consumer protection law is wrong, governments are wrong and we are wrong for pursing claims under the above laws.

 

The banks have had a long run and made alot of money. Don't forget, they are responsible to share holder, not consumers. So as consumers, as the banks don't care about us we have every right to enforce our lawful right against them. Don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot?

 

As you admit, bouncing a DD does not cots £30-£35. This in law is what we call and 'admission' so you 'kinda' loose your own argument.

[deemacperth]

The thing that gets me, is sometimes the bank will pay the DD even though you're overdrawn and other times it won't.

 

Why not just have it plain and simple. Money not in the account = transaction will not be honoured. Then it's up to the supplier to pursue the debt.

 

The reason it isn't like this is because the banks realise they're sat on the golden egg here. Why do you think we see the link to rising consumer debt and rising bank profits.

 

2 minds, I'm going to shove my court summons right up that fat gooses golden egg laying a$$ and I'm going to have the biggest baddest smile on my face when I'm doing it.

 

The old saying he who laughs last laughs loudest springs to mind here.