Am I entitled to argue this penalty charge?

[Paddysreturn]

I have gone overdrawn at my bank this weekend. I had £30 in my account when 3 switch transactions came through earlier than expected - 1 x £25 & 2 x £50. for this I have received 3 x £30 fines.

 

Although the situation is my fault, I feel it is unfair to get 3 fines rather than two. I believe the £30 could be allocated to pay for the £25 switch payment legitamately and then I just incur the two penalty fines.

 

FWIW, The I did actually make the £25 transaction before the two £50 transactions.

 

Can anyone advise me, if I am entitled to argue the third charge?

 

Thanks in advance to anyone who replies.

[alanfromderby]

You are entitled to the return of all three of the £30 charges - have a good read of the FAQ's.

[Paddysreturn]

Thanks for responding Alan. To clarify what I have read, I can claim back all overlimit charges (including historical) whether I am at fault or not?

[callumsgran]

yes up to 6 yrs ago

[alanfromderby]

That is correct - the charges were unlawfully applied regardless of fault.

[Paddysreturn]

I am amazed at this great news! Just looking through my online statements Ive been charged over £1k in the last 18 months alone.

 

What puzzles me however, is how come this isnt public knowledge? How can the banks continue to apply these charges if they have been deemed unlawful.

[Glenn UK]

yes up to 6 yrs ago

 

Or possibly from when you opened your account if you made a mistake in that you thought the charges were lawful, or you believe the bank knew but concealed the nature of those charges.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

[Guest littlesally]

This is public knowledge! And has been for some time. It's been on TV a few times and radio 2 have it on quite a bit. Because it sounds unbelievable, some people dismiss it, or think it can't mean their charges!

 

Bank charges are legitimate, BUT banks are not allowed to profit from them. The Office of Fair Trading investigated credit card charges and said there is no way it costs £28 + for customers to go overdrawn.

Banks were asked how much it actually costs and to prove it, the banks refused.

 

They also refused to prove bank charges. Which is why we can claim.

So far, banks have paid out about £3 million in refunding charges, but are still getting £3 billion from them!

 

So it is not in their interest to be honest and say the real cost is £12, as they would lose £15 billion!

 

Which is why they always settle out of court. If they went to court they would have to prove it costs them £28+ everytime a customer goes over the agreed overdraft.

Sally x

[itsamomentintime]

I am amazed at this great news! Just looking through my online statements Ive been charged over £1k in the last 18 months alone.

 

What puzzles me however, is how come this isnt public knowledge? How can the banks continue to apply these charges if they have been deemed unlawful.

 

 

 

dont worry, its slowly creeping into the public psyche

[Paddysreturn]

Thanks for your reply Sally. Its nice to have a little understanding as to why I am entitled to claim.

 

 

dont worry, its slowly creeping into the public psyche - a little bit more itsamamomentintime, as Ive told everyone I know!

 

Being Greedy now......any ideas if I can claim for an account that I closed in June?

[Lula]

Hi Paddy, if you still have the statements, then it doesnt matter whether the account is open or closed, the same procedure applies, even if you havnt got the statements you can do a SAR (Take a look at the FAQ's and the Step by Step Process in my sig)

 

then find the appropriate bank thread and start a thread and there will always be someone around to help

 

So welcome and good luck

[alanfromderby]

So it is not in their interest to be honest and say the real cost is £12,

 

Also don't be fooled by the findings of the OFT - they said they would not take legal action against a credit card company if they charged more than £12 - they actually went on to say that even this amount would be the absolute MAXIMUM and that they would still have to be able to substantiate it, possibly in court.

 

Actually, much evidence exists to say that where a bank refuses a DD, for example, the actual cost to the bank amounts to a few pence. Even when they send a letter, the process is fully automated, and anything above £1 would be hard to believe.

 

Have a good read through the site - and prepare yourself fully with the legal arguments BEFORE you start the process. Also open a parachute account, as your bank MAY decide to close your account.

[Paddysreturn]

Thanks Alan and Lula for your responses.

 

Im just reading through as much info as I can get right now. Its all quite mind blowing really but Ive printed off the 'rules of engagement' sheet and am making my initial request for a list of charges.

[Paddysreturn]

Hi All!

 

One thing Im slightly unsure about to start off with. Is my best approach to request my last 6 years statements and calculate everything myself, OR should I just be requesting a list of charges from Hfx?

[David1004]

Depends if you trust them! I asked for the statements and worked it out myself which is a very easy task with the spreadsheets available on this site.

David

[Paddysreturn]

It seems to me that suing for the correct interest rate is even more important than getting the basic charge refunds.

 

For example, my unauthorised overdraft EAR is 28.9%

 

If, I use a hypothetical fine (though im sure one will exist!!) of £30 received 6 years ago, this would accrue £17.60 in interest @ 8%, however would accrue £107.60 @ 29.8% (are they really going to pay this??)

 

Maybe I have misunderstood something along the way......

[livelylad]

It seems to me that suing for the correct interest rate is even more important than getting the basic charge refunds.

 

For example, my unauthorised overdraft EAR is 28.9%

 

If, I use a hypothetical fine (though im sure one will exist!!) of £30 received 6 years ago, this would accrue £17.60 in interest @ 8%, however would accrue £107.60 @ 29.8% (are they really going to pay this??)

 

Maybe I have misunderstood something along the way......

 

 

There are a few cases of people winning using contractual interest rate. It is still very much in the "test" phase.

[Paddysreturn]

So would the advice be (unofficially!) to sue for 8% and be sure to get it?

 

If I tried for 29.8 and lost, what would I still get 8% or would I lose the lot? (Ie interest and charges)

 

Thanks for your response.

[livelylad]

So would the advice be (unofficially!) to sure for 8% and be sure to get it?

 

If I tried for 29.8 and lost, what would I still get 8% or would I lose the lot? (Ie interest and charges)

 

Thanks for your response.

 

In your POC you can ask for the greater amount and also say should you not agree to contractual amount i will accept the standard 8%.

[Paddysreturn]

Thanks Lively, Ill use that approach. If I use 29.8%, Im sure the total amount would run well into 5 figures so would be keenly contested.

 

Thanks for your advice

[bill-k]

Paddy, I have always used Mindzai's POC as it claims higher & lower contractual rates plus statutory in the alternative. Worth considering, I think.

 

XXXX COUNTY COURT

BETWEEN

MINDZAI AND LUCID CLAIMANTS

And

LLOYDS TSB PLC DEFENDANT

 

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

1. The Claimants have a joint account XXXXXXXX ("the Account") with the Defendant which was opened on or around XXth XXXXXXX 2002.

2. During the period in which the Account has been operating the Defendant debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Claimants and also charged interest on the charges once applied. The Claimants understand that the Defendant contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimants.

3. A list of the charges applied is attached to these particulars of claim.

4. The Claimants contend that:

a) The charges debited to the Account, as outlined in the attached schedule, are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimants; and are not intended to represent or related to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit. In the event that the charges are not a penalty, they are unreasonable under The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 section 15. The Defendant has declined to justify the charges.

b) The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999) paragraph 8 and schedule 2(1)(e), The Unfair Contracts Terms Act 1977 section 4 and the common law.

5. Accordingly the Claimants claim:

a) the return of the amounts debited in respect of charges in the sum of £XXXX and interest charged thereon in the sum of £XXX.XX;

b) Court costs;

c) the additional costs incurred by the Claimants in the writing and sending of letters to the Defendant pursuant to this claim in the sum of £XX, as set out in the attached list of costs.

d) the Claimants claim contractual interest at a rate of 29.85%, from the date of each transaction to 7th September 2006 of £XXX, as set out in the attached list of charges. The claimant further claims interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment, at a daily rate of £X.XX per day.

The account’s Terms and Conditions specify the interest payable on unauthorised drawings from the account. We hold that this applies to unauthorised drawings by the Defendant as well as to unauthorised drawings by the Claimant. Should the court deem this incorrect, the Claimants claim the rate to be justified under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity, and is based on the Defendant’s unauthorised overdraft interest rate that would be applied under the terms of the above mentioned account.

Should the court find that this interest rate is not applicable, then in the alternative the Claimants claim contractual interest at a rate of 18.2%, from the date of each transaction to 7th September 2006 of £XXX.XX, as set out in the attached list of charges. The claimants further claims interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment, at a daily rate of £X.XX per day.

The account’s Terms and Conditions specify the interest payable on authorised drawings from the account. We hold that this applies to authorised drawings by the Defendant as well as to unauthorised drawings by the Claimant. Should the court deem this incorrect, the Claimants claim the rate to be justified under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity, and is based on the Defendant’s authorised overdraft interest rate that would be applied under the terms of the above mentioned account.

Should the court find that this interest rate is not applicable, then in the alternative the Claimants claim interest under Section 69 of the County Court Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum calculated from 3rd November 2003 to 7th September 2006, which is £XX.XX and continuing until payment or the date of judgement at a daily rate of £X.XX.

 

I believe that the contents of these particulars of claim are true.

 

Signed:

 

Date:

 

__________________

Mindzai & Lucid vs Lloyds TSB

Going for contractural interest at unauthorised overdraft rate - 29.8%

Letter Before Action - Posted 24/8

Mindzai's Account - £472.32 (Charges + overdraft interest + contractural interest)

Joint Account - £1509.79 (Charges + overdraft interest + contractural interest)

Preliminary Letter - Posted 9/8

Mindzai's Account - £402.79 (Charges + overdraft interest)

Joint Account -£1253.09 (Charges + overdraft interest)

________________________________________

Spreadsheet for compound contractual interest and statutory (s69) interest:

Download [for later versions of Excel only at the moment]

PLEASE NOTE: You should fully research contractual interest before you use that functionality of this spreadsheet. If in any doubt please use it to calculate 8% interest under s69 County Courts Act 1984.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last edited by Mindzai : 7th September 2006 at 00:23.

[Paddysreturn]

Thanks Bill. It took me a while to work out what POC meant (Proof of concept for those equally as out of touch as me!).

 

Its been a long day of reading everything I can on this forum but Im now ready to........wait 40 days for the banks to respond to my SAR!

[Paddysreturn]

I think Im going to do both! Ive written to them in case I miss some, the more info I have to cross check, the better.

[Aaronsdad]

It depends! If you want to be a cantakerous old git like me! Then the Data protection Act makes no allowances for charges. Under the terms of the SAR that you send (if you follow this site) they should be providing you with ALL information held about you, electronically. That is - everything!! From dates of interviews, phone calls, absolutely everything that is held by means of an electronic storage/retreival system. needless to say they don't because they know what we want, and why!

I am having a nice sparring match at the moment to get them to uphold their obligations even after they paid me!!!

 

Told you I was a cantakerous git!

 

A D

[Glenn UK]

So would the advice be (unofficially!) to sue for 8% and be sure to get it?

 

There is no certainty that you will get any interest, its always at the courts discretion, whatever the rate.

 

If I tried for 29.8 and lost, what would I still get 8% or would I lose the lot? (Ie interest and charges)

 

What you 'win' in terms of interest is a matter of how good an argument you presented at court, presuming of course it got that far.

 

quote]

 

 

HTH

 

Glenn