What's unfair about charges?

[GHM]

Unethical! For unethical look no further than the banks.

 

Do you hear me disputing that? I like to be consistent and ethically clean though. I took my charges on the chin and have not transgressed since. Of course they are unfair. So is a teacher throwing a board rubber at you but I didn't sue for that when I was at school but I did stay quiet in class!

[natwesttookmymoney]

"No-one has come back re the chance that the banks will counter claim once they have defined a Fair charge. Anyone looking forward to that.

 

You better believe it. I can't wait. Their problem is, however, they'll have to explain their costs and justify them first - which they won't do...

What I find most annoying is the fact that if the banks' unfair charges are so unfair then so must be the fact that people are reclaiming every penny.

 

Huh? what's unfair about claiming back money that has been taken from us unlawfully??

Personally, I'd like to see the banks define a fairer charge and rebate everyone fairly as opposed to this rather administratively heavy approach that only the few are prepared to go through.

 

Me too! See how easy it is to get people agreeing with you....?

This campaign may achieve that but...

 

Let us hope so. And let us embrace everyone, wherever they are, who believes the same. That is beginning to mean the OFT and even (gasp!) the Banking Ombudsman!

...At the end of the day, you would have to imagine that the banks will always win and get their (our) money by other means as someone (paddy?) said earlier so I would guess this is only a temporary respite for those who are long term victims. The banks will make us pay, they carry the whip hand do they not?

 

Not necessarily. If the banks operate a service, at a fair charge, then I will be prepared to pay it. The 'whip hand' they thought they had is, through this site and some others, being brought down. Their unlawful charging regime is coming crashing down round their ears. And hallelujah for that.

 

It may take time but the people win in the end. Thieves, vagabonds and cheats prosper only temporarily. (Ask General Pinochet - oh, you can't. He's disgraced and dead).

 

And only for as long as we let them.

 

The amazing thing is the banks set up this monstrous regime and were able to get away with it for years - and try to justify it! They are behaving unlawfully. They should give up and put their efforts, instead, into trying to rebuild the respect in which they were once held. Now, you can see that they are held in contempt.

 

Westy

[JonCris]

Lets get this clear I didn't threaten you. I warned you against slandering someone who is trying his best (unlike You) to do some good for the consumer.

 

If you didn't know it & as the identity of Martin is well known to all & sundry you could find yourself in a court of law accused of libel.

 

Your correct the banks won't give their profits. They'' find another way to maintain them such as charging everyone, which will include you, for their "service"

 

I don't have chip on my shoulder it's not you personaly it's just that I dislike those who think they are better than the rest of us. They ain't

 

Anyway instead of hiding here why don't you go & make your comments on Martins site where he might see it

[JonCris]

1) Okay. Were the charges you paid not explained in the banks' Ts and Cs (despite being against a law). Did you accept these Ts and Cs as reasonable at a certain time in the past (present).

 

2) Yes, on three occasions, no response

 

3) I've explained that above. I'm interested in motivation and who has the will to change things. I'm not a troll, even if this stuff is bound to seem inflammatory on this site. There's no point having this discussion on the DIYNOT forum now is there?!? Just don't that kind of debate.

 

GHM

 

Oh my gawd that old chestnut

"You knew of their charges cos it's in their T's & C's."

 

So it is & we agreed to them (& this is the bit thats important) WE DIDN'T KNOW WE WHERE BEING RIPPED OFF & that their charges are unlawful. WE TRUSTED THE BANKS..................Not anymore

[GHM]

It's a nice sentiment Westy but the Devil dances with those who abuse others.

 

The banks WILL always screw you over.

 

If you want fairness, find a co-op, banks have no obligation to be fair. They are beholden to their shareholders and if I was one I would be demanding they screwed everyone over too. In our lovely capitalist society, the banks will have their day again.

 

You seem quite evangelical about this which is rather appealing, have you seen "It's a wonderful life" lately, anyone here setting up a co-operative style bank?

 

That's the only way to win.

 

I agree with the fight in principle but think that people should think of what the consequences of their actions may lead to, that's all.

[GHM]

Lets get this clear I didn't threaten you. I warned you against slandering someone who is trying his best (unlike You) to do some good for the consumer.

 

If you didn't know it & as the identity of Martin is well known to all & sundry you could find yourself in a court of law accused of libel.

 

For crying out loud, point me to the bit that's libellous. I've written to the bloke on several occasions telling him what I think. He has my email address and doesn't seem too bothered, why are you?

 

And in actual fact I do do quite a bit of good thank you very much but I'm thankful that you feel you know me so intimately that you think I don't.

 

GHM

[JonCris]

1st they do have a duty of care to their customers & they certainly don't have the right to break the law thereby causing harm to their customers.

 

They will probably lead to those in credit at all times having to make a real contribution to the service the banks provide. Instead of as now the poor subsidising the more well off

[JonCris]

For crying out loud, point me to the bit that's libellous. I've written to the bloke on several occasions telling him what I think. He has my email address and doesn't seem too bothered, why are you?

 

And in actual fact I do do quite a bit of good thank you very much but I'm thankful that you feel you know me so intimately that you think I don't.

 

GHM

 

If you don't know then I ain't going to enlighten you.

 

Well as I see it you ain't doing much good here unless of course your idea of good is to warn us that we going to suffer retribution from the banks when the figure out a way to justify their charges........never.

 

The only people who'll suffer will be those who have never paid a penny piece for the privilege of using a bank account...........tough

[natwesttookmymoney]

It's a nice sentiment Westy but the Devil dances with those who abuse others.

 

The banks WILL always screw you over.

 

If you want fairness, find a co-op, banks have no obligation to be fair. They are beholden to their shareholders and if I was one I would be demanding they screwed everyone over too. In our lovely capitalist society, the banks will have their day again.

 

You seem quite evangelical about this which is rather appealing, have you seen "It's a wonderful life" lately, anyone here setting up a co-operative style bank?

 

That's the only way to win.

 

I agree with the fight in principle but think that people should think of what the consequences of their actions may lead to, that's all.

 

I'd be obliged if you avoided patronising me. I find it rather annoying.

 

Co-ops? Well, that bank exists but I'm sure you actually may be thinking of credit unions. An option I am actively investigating now.

 

While no organisation has an 'obligation to be fair', it's in their best interests to behave fairly. It may not have been Ayn Rand, perhaps someone in her circle, who observed that one serves one's own best interests by looking after the interests of others.

 

You do not have to look far back into history to find examples of organisations that got themselves into difficulties quite quickly because they forgot that the customers are stakeholders, too. Monsanto, for example. Chiron, which cut costs in its maintenance and was obliged by the FDA and the UK equivalent to stop production of its lucrative flu vaccines. Going back a ways, Barclays Bank was the subject of a massive consumer boycott because of its involvement in apartheid South Africa - lost loads of business, for years. Shell was the subject of a huge consumer boycott, in Germany especially, over its proposed disposal of a redundant oil platform. Nestle suffered because of its milk-sale policies in the Third World.

I could go on but I'm bored, now.

 

Get yourself some knowledge before you go off on a patronising high horse about the virtues of capitalism.

W

[natwesttookmymoney]

But BTW - everyone, including the banks, has an obligation to behave lawfully. Why, even the banks say their T&Cs are governed by the LAws of England and Wales (in the copy I have, anyway. Viewers in Scotland have their own programme).

W

[JonCris]

But BTW - everyone, including the banks, has an obligation to behave lawfully. Why, even the banks say their T&Cs are governed by the LAws of England and Wales (in the copy I have, anyway. Viewers in Scotland have their own programme).

W

 

Oh dear! more misrepresentation by the banks cos they don't do they.

[elsinore]

banks have no obligation to be fair.

 

Banking Code Standards Board

 

 

MISSION STATEMENT

The mission of the BCSB is to ensure that the Banking Code and the Business Banking Code deliver their promises of fair dealing and standards of good banking practice to the customers of UK banks and building societies.

Elsinore

[GHM]

I'd be obliged if you avoided patronising me. I find it rather annoying.

 

Didn't mean to patronize you, apologies for that.

 

I can't see why these credit unions have not taken off more than they have. Perhaps you'll be able to explain after you've looked into it, I guess there must be a reason. I figure it's a case of better the devil when it comes to banks.

 

I would also reckon trust comes into it, I have found that most people distrust those who seek to try and help others if they cannot determine their motivation, especially if their motivation is based on altruism. But I won't try and second guess why I don't know if there is a credit union/co-operative in this area.

 

A duty of care for safety reasons is different to what the banks have done though isn't it. Everyone needs a lever and these charges have been it. Personally I can't see how the banks can sustain what they are doing unless they have one and the only one they had were these "penalty" charges.

 

I must say, I vote with my feet but bank with HSBC because they are better to me than they need be and although they are frustrating, I at least get to speak to a Yorkshire person when I call them. When they do something unfair to me, I let them know. When they don't resolve it, I shall leave.

 

GHM

[JonCris]

Banking Code Standards Board

 

 

MISSION STATEMENT

The mission of the BCSB is to ensure that the Banking Code and the Business Banking Code deliver their promises of fair dealing and standards of good banking practice to the customers of UK banks and building societies.

 

Elsinore

 

Even more misrepresentation

[GHM]

Ya got me Elsinore!

 

Is it they (BCSB) who are driving this campaign. Would you say the BCSB have done an effective job? Does the Banking Code work. Is the Ombudsman effective. Do we really have the right level of governance and if so why are individuals taking on the big boys?

[Paddysreturn]

 

I agree with the fight in principle but think that people should think of what the consequences of their actions may lead to, that's all.

 

But from our point of view, what are the consequences? from the way I see it there are two possibilities:

 

1) The banks continue to offer the same level of service and reduce their penalty charges to a lawful level (unlikely)

 

2) The banks start to charge a blanket fee for banking services to continue to earn the same levels of profit (much more likely!)

 

Which one of these should I/We be looking to avoid? I dont see that me and many others subisiding the banking system through unlawful charges is acceptable.

 

Thinking back to your analogy of the airlines.......well that's different. In that instance the first class customers are paying for a premium service. Most importantly they have the choice of joining me in the bucket seats

 

The people who are subsidising the banking system are not getting anything more than the regular customers. If I was getting a direct phone number for my branch manager, and a vip pass to the front of the queue etc, it would be a different matter

 

I actually fall into the category, that you would possibly describe as being irresponsible with their finances. I have picked up a lot of my charges through stupidity - that doesnt make them lawful though.

 

I dont actually find you offensive. However, I would ask you to put yourself in the shoes of the people these charges hit hardest - those with a low income. A £30 unlawful charge could literally mean no food on the table, or no shoes for the children!

 

One final thought, penalty charge payers arent just subisiding the regular customers, theyre putting huge profits in the banks pockets.

 

Good Luck

[natwesttookmymoney]

" A duty of care for safety reasons is different to what the banks have done though isn't it."

the banks used to work on the basis of something called 'uberrima fides' - utmost good faith. It gave them a kind of moral and ethical superiority.

Now, that may be felt to be out of date but there is a principle that they have clearly forgotten. It's a cornerstone of English law - it's the fiduciary principle. They actually have a legal obligation to put their customers' interests ahead of their own.

It's not just a good idea - it's the Law.

W

[elsinore]

 

Is it they (BCSB) who are driving this campaign.

No, it's a grassroots campaign.

Would you say the BCSB have done an effective job?

Not yet.

Does the Banking Code work.

No, it's like most voluntary codes, the subscribers only pay lip service to it.

Is the Ombudsman effective.

No, but his latest pronouncement is encouraging.

Do we really have the right level of governance and if so why are individuals taking on the big boys?

See above

 

Elsinore

[JonCris]

Westy quite right. A duty of care doesn't just apply to safety it applies to all of their dealings with all of their customers

[Guest ian cognito]

I think this thread is most useful as we are going to see a lot more of this sort of 'healthy debate' when banks introduce blanket charging for sll current accounts - we have seen the start of this already with FD, you can guarentee that when this happens we will be blamed for being part of a 'claim culture' by people in a better position.

 

It is irrelevant why charges where imposed, suffice to say there are people on this site who have lost their homes, their marriages and even their sanity because at some point or other, they have fond themselves victim to bank charges - often through hitting a bad patch, redundancy, accident, illness etc.

 

The difference I think is, that we have recently found out the charges are unlawful and we are able to do something to right the situation. There is no justification on earth for the poor or unfortunate to be subsidising the more well off. I don't feel I have to justify my claim against the banks, they have to justify charging me in the first place.

[elsinore]

Well said janquinny. I'm pleased to say I kept my marriage and, consequently, my sanity, but I can tick a few of the other boxes!

 

This is relevant I think

The poverty paradox — the less you have, the more you must pay - Economics - Times Online

 

It's the same the whole world over

It's the poor what gets the blame

It's the rich what gets the gravy

Ain't it all a bleeding shame!

 

Elsinore

[JonCris]

jan I would also mention those NOT on this site & who never will be because the banks by their appalling conduct have driven them to take their own lives

[anon1]

ghm- nice try mate but cirumstances of a breach of contract are irrelevant only the law regarding profiteering. Furthermore re Martin Lewis, if a loophole did not exist he would not tell you of it. It benefits YOU the consumer, if there wasn;t one he couldn;t post it.

If charges were fair and the bank was on solid ground why are they paying out? Cost of litigation? ok little ole le makes x amount and the bank make £9billion pounds profit...mmmm that a lot of money to defend a case would you not think?

[Tigs33]

1) Okay. Were the charges you paid not explained in the banks' Ts and Cs (despite being against a law). Did you accept these Ts and Cs as reasonable at a certain time in the past (present).

GHM

 

I think somebody on this site once said "I can agree to a slap in the face, it doesn't make it right or lawful"

[PhantomReclaimer]

I see this thread is now at 3 pages - only read the first one so apoligies if I'm going over stuff that has been said since.

 

To address some of your points.

 

 

As I say, I am wondering how people get into this level of trouble in varied ways. I am a customer who fortunately has a large credit facility now. A few years ago I was on benefit and had to work damn hard to get out of a scrape.

 

A lot of people get themselves into trouble, sometimes through their own fault (well, a lot, lets face it) some due to circumstances beyond their control. The problem is, if you are in trouble to begin with, or are on a low wage or on benefits then bank charges can have drastic effects on your financial well being.

 

If you have very little coming in and have little or no surplus each month and your employer pays your wages in to your bank a day or two late casuing loads of DD to bounce then the amount of the charges may be very high in relation to your earnings. This could start a ball rolling that may be impossible to stop because and never get back in to the black.

 

Anyone can encounter finaincial difficulties and excessive charging may make the situation irrecoverable.

 

I am on Internet banking every day. I know how much I have in all my accounts, I bounce money between accounts to ensure I avoid any fees. I can see this is not possible for everyone

.

 

You sound a bit like me.

 

Banks are also not charities and I treat them with an equal amount of contempt and respect - a bit like the ocean, especially as I don't swim, I sink.

 

The old saying is that a bank will lend you an unbrella when it's fine and snatch it back when the heavens open. Whatever they try to make you believe with their latest fluffy, friendly, "we're your best mate ever" ad campaign a bank is never your friend. You are nothing more than a source of revenue. It goes far beyond charging extortunate fee's.

 

In claiming back my charges every single bank and financial institution I've dealt with has attempted to decieve and blind-side me at every possible opportunity. Not a single S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) has been properly complied with at the outset; "We are only obliged to keep records for 6 years (Northern Rock); "The Data protection Act only allows you acces to 6 years worth of data"(MBNA); "Our charges are not for breach of contract but are for a service" (Northern Rock); "we aren't Governed by English Law as we are an American bank!!!!" (MBNA); "our charges aren't unlawful, do cover costs and we won't refund them" (Intelligent Finance); Capital one produced incomplete data (only back to 1999), Northern Rock initially only produced data back to 2000 but have subsequently provided back to 1995 but accourding to my statement numbers there should be account data going back another four or five years.

 

I've had two Court claims issued against IF, both of which the bank indicated an intention to defend and on neither occasion did they on grounds of cost. They were clearly just stalling for time and abusing the Court system in the process. Cahoot claims never to have had the Court papers - just got off the phone with their legal dept, actually, they are chasing it.

 

The only one that has said they intend to settle in full before Court action was Bank of Scotland and even that was after an initial refusal letter.

 

As you can tell, contempt is the major feeling I harbour towards them

 

No-one has come back re the chance that the banks will counter claim once they have defined a Fair charge. Anyone looking forward to that.

 

How do you mean?

 

What I find most annoying is the fact that if the banks' unfair charges are so unfair then so must be the fact that people are reclaiming every penny.

 

Of course not. It's money they are not entitled to and that they must have known from the outset they weren't entitled to.

 

Of course the banks are there to make money, no one is trying to deny them that. They are collectively though, in a position of massive power. It is impossible to run your life these days without a bank account and you do not have the of choice of going to a bank that does not levy these kinds of charges.

 

P.