Are the Banks going to say STOP in 2007?

[anley]

I asked this question on MSE but think it's actually more appropriate here.

 

 

I've successfully reclaimed about £1,400 from Natwest a few months back, they didn't contest the court which was nice

 

I'm presently helping a few friends reclaim charges and am trying to get them to hurry up with their letters etc because I'm beginning to think that the banks might start stomping their feet at some stage in the new year.

 

Is anyone else feeling that this reclaiming snowball is getting far too large now and poses a real threat to the banks? They after all have basically unlimited funds when it comes to paying high priced lawyers which they can let loose on the problem.

 

I'm not suggesting that these lawyers will be used against anyone who tries to reclaim but rather in the background trying to find a solution so the banks can wriggle out etc.

 

To summarise - Over the last 6 months it's been pretty easy for anyone to get their bank charges back (as long as they were willing to go all the way to court etc). But in the summer of 2007 will it likely be as 'easy' or will the banks have fought back somehow and made life for the embattled consumer a lot harder?

[Guest Battleaxe]

The banks will try to find a way to wriggle out of it, but as the law stands they have no option. they spit the dummy in the dirt now, hoping people will back down. Unless the law changes, there is nothing they can do until they let the costs be known.

 

The Courts are getting bogged down with these claims, but if the banks played fairly, people would not have to resort to claiming through the courts. It's the banks clogging the system. it will be the banks who will have to pay the penalty.

 

They will try to tighten up on T & C's, but people now have more knowledge of consumer law, so that is also going to be a tough row for the banks to hoe in future.

[alanfromderby]

For what it's worth I would make the following predictions for 2007:

 

1) The courts will coordinate a strategy to deal with claims more quickly - probably by issuing an order that the bank files it's actual costs, immediately after the defence is submitted.

 

2) Under severe pressure, the OFT will announce that it will take action where a bank charges more than £8.

 

3) The FSA will go ballistic at this decision, and accuse the OFT of sitting on the fence, they will then commence talks with the banks that will see charges reduced to around £5.

 

4) The banks will increase interest for o/d's by 5-10% on all basic accounts. Numerous other accounts will have transaction charges imposed if the balance falls below £500.

[barracad]

Unless the law changes

 

Which is highly unlikely, and even if it did it wouldn't be changed retrospectively - people would still be able to reclaim charges from before any new law came into effect.

 

I think if anything it should get easier for people to claim back charges as more and more pressure is applied. The banks may eventually realise it's game over and just pay out following a request. Ok, not that likely but we need to continue to apply pressure in the right places so that rather than the banks make things harder for us, we make things harder for them.

[anley]

Interesting answers, thanks.

 

Personally I think they'll try to put a stop to it somehow, yes I know it's the law but big business should never be counted out, they're as sneaky as hell. But I hope I'm wrong and many many more people find it even EASIER to reclaim.

 

Sadly though there will be a flip side to all of this as Alan suggests, they'll just claw the money back from somewhere.

 

But not from me they won't because I now watch my personal financial affairs like a HAWK

[121o121]

Could also be the end of free banking (like First Direct) and the start of annual fee's again. As soon as one big bank does, they'll all follow suit. The banks will want to re-coup their costs some how.

[JonCris]

Wadda you mean 2007 it's already happening that certain customers are being targeted for increased interest charges on their accounts dependent on their history. Much the same as the way the credit cards charge interest.

[Glenn UK]

FWIW there is no such thing as free banking, its a publicity stunt pulled by the banks and the consumer, by and large accepts this as a fact.

 

The truth is that banks charge you thus just do it by holding on to your cheques for however many days, taking several days to clear funds from one account to another, or whatever.

 

All banks would be doing is making their charges more visible.

 

Something else that should be considered is that they have a profit margin to maintain and rather than taking it from those who can least afford it, the load will be more evenly spread in future.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

 

PS the poor will always cop the worst end of the stick though whatever the banks do.

[Guest ian cognito]

The OFT report on CC charges hasn't made a difference, CC customers are still having to fight for their money so I doubt a report on banks will make much difference, you can guarantee they will be working like madmen behind the scenes to come up with some sort of justification, whether they will ever find it - who knows?

 

Alan you're such an optimist, I love your predictions - is anyone opening a book on them?

[Bookworm]

Beg to differ, Jan.

 

The OFT "cap", for want of a better word, means that millions of people are better off each month without lifting a finger. There'll always be people who will meekly accept whatever is thrown at them, and they are benefiting.

 

Could also be the end of free banking (like First Direct) and the start of annual fee's again. As soon as one big bank does, they'll all follow suit.

 

I am 100% convinced that HSBC are testing the water with FD here. On the other hand, if one of the big ones try it, and people defect elsewhere, none of the others will follow suit and the one that did will soon give it up. Look at what happened with ATM charges, people voted with their feet and the idea dropped really quickly.

[anon1]

I think that if one of the big four went, it will be in the form of existing accounts similar to FD however, I cannot see basic accounts levying a charge although some already do, not including penalty charges. I agree that the OFT decision has saved thousands of pounds on penalty charges in respect to overlimit fees, but it has meant that interest on outstanding amounts have gone up to compensate this and there has been talk within the financial press of fees for having a credit card. Pity that it may happen. In respect to clarification of the clearing cycle, plans are already afoot to make that easier to understand. Next year(I know, a little late) there are plans to allow customers to draw on the cheque after 4 working days and that after 6 working days the cheque will not be returned regardless of whether it is fraudulent or not(not sure how that will work). Standing orders will be faster as well as online payments from the tardisome 3 days to a matter of hours. This maybe the point in which maybe banks could introduce the FD approach. That is November 2007. I cannot really see how it could work especially as if all went at the same time, it would be seen as a cartel. We will have to wait and see what will happen.

[Guest ian cognito]

BW I was referring to the ease with which penalty charges are refunded - not the drop in charge, Egg being a prime example.

 

I would love to be proved wrong so I'll let you know how quickly they pay me out - BTW don't hold your breath.

[JonCris]

Abagnale The cost of allowing the passing of fraudulent cheques will as always fall upon the company or person who's account the cheque is drawn.

 

The banks will claim the customer has not been careful enough with their cheque book or some other such piffle so are not liable. As for charging ATM's they are being installed all over & in many cases consumers many on low & fixed incomes have no choice but to use them

[DollyDayDream]

On Saturday The Independent had an article in its Save & Spend financial section entitled 'Banks making illegal charges will pay the price in court'. It quotes Which?, Martin Lewis and CAG. Which? estimates that Britain's biggest banks earned £4.7bn from unauthorised overdraft charges last year alone. It also says, 'The banks are very worried that a court ruling could set a legal precedent for compensation payments, so for now - particularly in advance of the OFT's ruling - they are keen to settle cases out of court. In the few cases that have come before a judge, customers have won some interesting victories. Two weeks ago, one court ruled that the cost for credit card company Egg of processing a late payment was just £5 - less than half the limit set by the OFT'.

It looks encouraging for those of us with claims going through, and it would seem more and more people are joining in.

[anley]

Re the credit cards introducing a fee, maybe this will happen but my experience with these card companies is if you call them up and ask them to waive charges or fees most of the time they will.

 

Say for example they want to charge you £50 a year. Call them up and say I really like your card, I don't really want to change but I keep getting mail drops from your competitors to do business with them. If you wave the fee I'll stay with you otherwise sorry, business is business and I'll have to move to someone else.

 

 

 

PS. You can also use this strategy to sometimes wave the 2% balance transfer fee, MBNA are especially open to doing deals. They call me a few times a year offering me this or that and I always get something out of them. Last summer it was a £1,000 balance transfer with no fee for 6 months, they wanted 2% I said (in a nice charming way of course) I'll take the £1,000 at 0% fee and 0% interest or not at all