What's unfair about charges?

[natwesttookmymoney]

Just my quick two-penn'orth

" Many people on this site are claiming thousands in unfair charges. I would like to know how these charges are accrued."

OK. In my case, like many others, it was no one particular thing. It would be a cheque arriving late - and taking four days to clear, of course, which would mean bounced DDs, SOs and cheques written in good faith coming in too early.

When I got that lot sorted out, it was 'special clearance'. An interesting regime, which turns the already rather unbelievable four days' clearance cycle into ten. Or 20. Meanwhile, there are still bills to pay. Nothing wrong with the drawer of the cheque - I still have had no adequate explanation as to why it was done. 'For customer security,' they said. Yeh, right. Anyway, I was assured that the chances of it happening to any one person were about 10 million to one. So you can imagine my surprise when it happened to me again, the following month, with the same drawer. If I'd had any money, I would have gone out and bought a dozen lottery tickets. All with the same numbers.

Then there is the clearance on foreign cheques. I did some work for a government agency in America, which paid me with a cheque drawn on Citibank. Not a backwoods boo-hickey sort of organisation, I'm sure you'll agree. The bank told me it would take 5-10 days to clear. Nice, as I needed the money - things were a bit tight.

It took 5 weeks. Bills still had to be paid.

What happens is that the victim of this gets into a spiral - charges, which have to be paid off, which restricts the amount of money available next month, which leads to more charges, etc, etc, so on and so on.

You're very fortunate that you are able to run your affairs so effectively and have never suffered this way. The banks have created a situation whereby the charges we're complaining about have become a very important revenue source. If in any doubt, read the Competition Commission's report into banking in Northern Ireland.

They are supposed to do no more than compensate the banks for their costs involved in additional management activity. As pretty much everything is automated - including the decision whether or not to allow an additional overdraft - the amount of additional activity is virtually zero. The most expensive element in acting on an excess cheque or a bounced DD/SO is the stamp on the letter they send out. If they actually send one out - most of the time, they don't.

So it's money for nothing - and the law is against them. We used to have something in this country called the Usury Act. It was repealed as part of the Consumer Credit Act. Excessive interest rates - which included things that masqueraded as charges for non-existent services - were against the Usury Act. The old-style banks, the pillars of the local community, with a manager who actually knew you and would speak to you, would never have behaved like this. The brave new world of banking thinks it's just fine and a profit opportunity it can't believe it missed in the past.

Luckily, the law is still against them. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations; the Sale of Goods Act; and the Unfair Contract Terms Act.

So, in short, what the banks are doing is unlawful

What other justification is needed to take them to court?

[natwesttookmymoney]

You're probably right, JC, but I have come across this before and it's an attitude I will challenge.

You may be right too, Elsinore.

[natwesttookmymoney]

I usually come across it face-to-face and, in general, a reasoned argument is found to be preferable to a punch in the mouth.

But I take your point and shan't bother posting on this thread any more. Even if you reply to this one.

Westy

[natwesttookmymoney]

Can't stop myself. D'oh!

I know you're on my side. I don't see it as a humiliation - more an illustration of the regime the banks have set up to extract cash from unsuspecting, trustful and respectful customers.

But there is an observation someone once made, quite a few years ago: "Most people are two pay cheques from disaster'. Shamelessly making money from fear and misfortune is something that should be exposed. My financial misdemeanours are nothing

compared to a regime established to exploit them.

The shame is part of the regime: those who are cowed will be unwilling to question it. I have nothing to hide: I will not be shamed into silence.

W

[natwesttookmymoney]

My concern is that if newbies come here only to see us trying to justify our situation to others on the site they may be put off asking for help because of a feeling of humiliation

Well, I'd point them in the direction of my main thread. In my second posting, I went through the feelings I had prior to taking action. It's been a co-dependent abusive relationship: I'm sure a lot of people will empathise with the way I felt.

W

[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

[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

[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

[natwesttookmymoney]

Good luck to you, Tracey

[natwesttookmymoney]

I'm glad we're getting through, at last. The spiral of debt story is the same for many and has been mentioned before - on this thread. So has the fiduciary principle and uberrima fides.

We're only on page 3, it's not so overloaded yet that you can't go back and read all the posts you've received. Feel free to skim over the abusive ones!

But do try and read the rest. You will find it enlightening.

Westy

[natwesttookmymoney]

GHM

If you felt patronised - that was just the slightest lifting of the veil.I do not feel moved nor any need to apologise. I was warning, not patronising.

I'm not going to answer all your points: others are more than capable of holding their own corner. I'll just pick on a few that I cannot leave unremarked.

 

For a quick lookover the fiduciary principle, check this article in Wikipedia

(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary).

This one, from Newcastle University School of Law, debates the fiduciary principle particularly in the context of public authorities but also makes reference to a number of decisions and precedents, including AG-v-Blake, in which Lord Woolf said that that a fiduciary duty arises "where one party undertakes to act in the interests of another or places himself in a position where he is obliged to act in the interests of another." Sounds like banks' positions to me. (Incommensurable Values- Local Government and Judicial Review.

In Bhullar v Bhullar[2003] 2 BCLC 241, CA, it was held that the directors were in breach of the no conflict rule: 4.1. where a fiduciary has exploited a commercial opportunity for his own benefit, the relevant question is not whether the party to whom the duty is owed had some kind of beneficial interest in the opportunity but simply where the fiduciary’s exploitation of the opportunity is such as to attract the application of the rule;

 

 

 

It could be argued, under that judgement and Item Software v Fassihi that directors (which could, arguably, include directors of a bank) may be required to disclose his own wrongdoing not by virtue of an independent duty to disclose his own misconduct to his principal or more generally information of relevance and concern to it but as a result of the general duty on a director to act in what he in good faith considers to be the best interests of his company.

 

An interesting idea, that one. If a bank is conducting its business in an unlawful manner, as a result of policy laid down from the boardroom, is s/he acting in the best interests of the company?

the dictionary definition of fiduciary relationship is "from the Latin fiducia, meaning "trust," a person (or a business like a bank or stock brokerage) who has the power and obligation to act for another (often called the beneficiary) under circumstances which require total trust, good faith and honesty. The most common is a trustee of a trust, but fiduciaries can include business advisers, attorneys, guardians, administrators of estates, real estate agents, bankers, stock brokers, title companies, or anyone who undertakes to assist someone who places complete confidence and trust in that person or company. Characteristically, the fiduciary has greater knowledge and expertise about the matters being handled. A fiduciary is held to a standard of conduct and trust above that of a stranger or of a casual business person. He/she/it must avoid "self-dealing" or "conflicts of interests" in which the potential benefit to the fiduciary is in conflict with what is best for the person who trusts him/her/it. For example, a stockbroker must consider the best investment for the client, and not buy or sell on the basis of what brings him/her the highest commission. While a fiduciary and the beneficiary may join together in a business venture or a purchase of property, the best interest of the beneficiary must be primary, and absolute candor is required of the fiduciary. 2) adj. defining a situation or relationship in which a person is acting as a fiduciary for another. (See: trust, fiduciary relationship)."

So yes, I think the fiduciary principle is alive and well. Changes in banks' behaviour or in the capitalist system don't affect it unless the lawmaker (parliament) so decides. Or the courts, in the process of the interpretation of the law.

I only spent five minutes looking this up and the only law book that I found in that time was 'Australian Principles of Equity and Trusts: Third Edition Author(s) - Samantha Hepburn'

As Australian Law is based on English Law, and English precedent can be quote in Ozzie courts, it's not unreasonable to include it. But I'm sure Routledge has others, if you can't find it in your own lawbooks.

 

The capitalist system, left to its own devices, destroys itself. There are reasons and arguments far to many to go into here, but I'll just mention Winston Churchill on wages councils, when he set them up in 1911, or thereabouts, and was accused of stifling the free market. "[wages councils] will protect good employers from being undercut by bad, and bad employers being undercut by worse." Civil service advisers to the government during the Falklands conflict, when the govt wanted to take up the offer they had received of some cross-channel ferries for the task force. "But they are built to the highest possible standards." Reply: "No, Minister, they are built to the lowest possible standards." Government, whether national, local or super-national, routinely legislates to impose standards on business so that the operations of the free market don't end up destroying that market. Clean Air Act; Factories Acts (largely abolished now but the principles are embodied in other acts); EU NCAAP rules on car safety; standards for electrical goods, toys, and other items; the Sale of Goods Act, which requires (among other things) that goods sold must be suitable for the purpose; etc; etc.

There is no such thing as absolute freedom in an ordered society. My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. The banks rights to make money ends where it interferes with common law, case law and statute.

 

You said "Is it fair for me to subsidise others when I already pay a larger tax bill proportionately?" Well, lad (I assume you're male - please excuse me if I'm wrong) was it fair for me to subsidise your education through my taxes when you were at school and I was out working, with a young family of my own to support? Or to pay, through my taxes, for your healthcare when you got ill and I was fit and well, as were my family? How about the roads you drive down - is it fair that my taxes should go to provide an infrastructure benefit that I make no use of but you do? That I should pay for your rubbish collection? For your streetlights, when my road has none - and, what's more, I don't want them? For your sewers and water supply? For your street cleaning, which I get no benefit from? Etc, etc.

There is such a thing as society. Without Law, without society, life would be solitary, nasty, brutish and short. We are interdependent creatures. You have benefited from your education and made the most of it. Well done. That means you're in a better position to pay for the next generation than a lot of others. That next generation will pay the taxes and generate the wealth that will provide your pension - not just the State pension, but the dividends from the investments either you personally, or your agents and fund managers (who will be bound by the fiduciary principle), will make. Without the rest of society, you have nothing. Not a thing. As John Donne said, 'No man is an Island' and 'Do not ask for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee'.

 

Best wishes

Westy

[natwesttookmymoney]

I'm bloody busy, and it's late but I will spare you a few moments more.

"Keep the red flag flying brother."

Do not patronise: read the piece. I quote Winston Churchill, whose understanding of the way society works was, at that time, pretty good.

 

I don't drive for environmental reasons, haven't needed NHS care since I was 11, live in a private street and pay a massive maintenance charge for the luxury (ha).

So, someone else drives you around, either in bus, or train or taxi. Their education was paid for, at least for some time, by the state.

Whether you use private or state medical care, you need doctors, nurses, paramedics, porters, cleaners, kitchen staff and the rest of the health infrastructure. Their education was provided by society.

Your private street was built by...and is maintained by...(I hope you've grasped the picture by now).

"My electricity is bought from hydro electric plants..." ditto.

The banks will pursue profit and, so long as they do so within the law and at a price the customer is prepared to pay, they are quite free to do so.

 

If you really, really think that the banks invested £millions in computer systems to automate processes - including refusing transactions and making and/or if/then decisions - and did so without knowing how much costs they were going to take out of the system, then you have not studied business as well as you may think you have. You will learn more if you have a look at howbankswork.com. It will give you a basic idea. the banks are hedging not because they don't know - rather because they know pretty much to the penny how much each transaction costs. they don't want the customer, the public or the courts to know.

 

I said (and I quote) 'there is no such thing as absolute freedom in an ordered society'. Also I said ' The capitalist system, left to its own devices, destroys itself.' That was in answer to your point about capitalism being here to stay. I made no observation whatsoever about any other organisation. But, FWIW, here are a couple: the Soviet system was not, as many are still brought up to believe, a communist system. The state and

the productive sector were united but were not one. The state directed labour where the 'productive sector' required it. The 'productive sector' was, in effect a monopoly, which is one of the highest desires of capital - control of the market, the resources, labour and, de facto, the state. it wasn't a state capitalist system, either. It was a capitalist system that had become totally corrupted.

Communism's biggest problem is that it doesn't allow for human ambition - both positive and negative.

Primitive Christian societies, where property is held in common, are vulnerable to the negative side of human ambition, which exploits people's good nature and generosity. That's why St Paul said, in effect - 'if you don't work, you don't eat'.

As I said, there's no such thing as absolute freedom in an ordered society. Of whatever type.

Laws and structures enable societies to survive and flourish.

 

That's all I have time for. I have more important things to do than sociology 101.

W

[natwesttookmymoney]

"For any community to be balanced it needs an opposing view."

Hmmmm. I can grasp that, for any see-saw to be balanced it needs an opposing weight but I don't really get this 'opposing argument' argument.

Do the flat Earthers have to be given equal weight to balance conventional scientific wisdom?

I suspect you may have read only the tail-end of this exchange. Start from the beginning and you might get some idea of why this particular thread has got heated.

Legitimate argument is fine - have a look a the huge 'another way of looking at interest' thread and you'll see plenty of that. And it gets animated but there is a difference - and that's respect. This thread started out with much less of that and rather more contempt.

W

[natwesttookmymoney]

"It is impossible for me to accept natwests argument...it is simply far too idealistic and naieve and has a certain arrogance about it...........sorry"

 

What?? Do they mean me??

 

Do enlighten me as to what you mean - but, whatever you do, don't make me angry! You wouldn't like me when I'm angry!

 

Westy