20 year claim limit in Scotland & other ramblings

[Advocate]

Robertxc,

 

I do not disagree with your analysis of the term "unauthorised borrowing", although I must say I am not sure of the mechanics of how the banks process these payments. What about the cheque guarantee system though, is that not unauthorised. I understand the banks are required to make the payment and thus are not accepting inthe true unfettered sense required for entering into contractual relationships.

 

As for the quote, fact is you can be pretty certain about much of the law currently governing our lives, certainly in the area of regulatory control through criminal penalties and fines. In the commercial sphere, however, things are different and as we have a system which often relies on precedents set down and interpretation given in a different age, it is quite proper that judges are able to reflect on the suitability of a legal rule to govern a completely different society from that which existed at the time of the case in question. Makes it difficult for laypersons to know when a case is ripe for challenge, but then that is what lawyers are for, and not a bad thing too (at least for some of us!).

 

I do have to ask, however, how AlanfromDerby managed to amass so many bank and building society charges. That is an annual salary!

[Vital Spark]

Robertxc,

 

I do not disagree with your analysis of the term "unauthorised borrowing", although I must say I am not sure of the mechanics of how the banks process these payments. What about the cheque guarantee system though, is that not unauthorised. I understand the banks are required to make the payment and thus are not accepting inthe true unfettered sense required for entering into contractual relationships.

......................................

 

As far as Guarantee cards are concerned, surely that is, in fact, just as much of an authorisation of overdraft as is the paying of a DD or SO when there are no funds available except that the authorisation is implied beforehand, given that the bank knows the pattern of a customer's account with its regular pay-ins/pay-outs, when said bank decides that the customer in question is elligible for such a card.

 

After all, it was the banks who initiated such cards not the customers.

 

As for AlanfromDerby's financial situation, I don't want to know his private and personal business. Isn't privacy your reason for going by the name Advocate on this site rather than by your real and full name?

 

I am confident that AlanfromDerby will reveal to me any personal details he wishes me to have either in a post or pm.

 

I can understand how a huge sum can be reached in penalty charges.

 

For instance, when a substabtial sum of money goes missing from a customer's account yet, despite repeated visits into the bank to speak with relevant staff including the manager, the bank's error is not discovered by, therefore not corrected by, the bank for almost a year.

 

When such missing money is earmarked for particular, necessary purchases; paying off the balance of particular bills which would release the debtor form the attached interest payments so, eventually, the increasing one's disposable income, it's loss leads to a considerable decrease in that already small disposable income. The bank piles on penalty charge after penalty charge but drags its heels in repaying them so that the situation not only escalates but does so at an ever increasing, accelerated rate to a point at which the customer perhaps has to settle well short of what the bank's error has cost them as the customer may not enjoy the luxury of sufficient disposable income to enable them to carry the loss while faced withthe paying of necessary bills.

 

By necessary, I mean such as for food, fuel, clothing for children etc.

 

The above senario can and does happen throwing, perhaps especially so, in the case of a "below poverty line" income previously well but tightly managed, into utter financial chaos.

 

Whose fault?

 

I do appreciate your legal clarification, Advocate, but you definitely lack any understanding of living on a "below poverty line" income along with understanding of to just how much chaos a "simple bank error" (huh!) can lead especially when it is not readily corrected by the bank.

 

Please try to apply understanding or to, at least, accept that all which is beyond your ability to understand is so and not merely nonexistent. There do exist valid reasons for accumulated penalty bank charges and, in most cases, to the distress of the one who has incurred them. Why add to that distress by making the victim, feel more useless, despondent and even, in some cases, clinically depressed.

 

It's, at very least, tactless to do so.

[Advocate]

Vital Spark,

 

The guarantee system is in place for the benefit of the third party receiving the cheque and not for the customer, who is still required to ensure they have sufficient money in their account to meet the payment when the cheque is presented. I think you are reinforcing my argument that individuals are not always exercising personal responsibility in these matters.

 

It has been argued that by writing a cheque in circumstances where the customer knows they do not have sufficient money in their account amounts to a knowing false pretence in order to secure a gain. Sounds very much like fraud, albeit not yet declared to be so.

 

You appear to make assumptions about my personal status which are not founded on fact. I am well aware of what it is like living in a household where meeting the monthly bills is a problem. I remember well the icicles on the inside of my windows. My family simply did what they had to do in order to live within their means. This has caused a lifelong aversion to eggs, amongst other things! I paid my own way to get to where I am and worked throughout my entire period of education.

 

My point regarding alanfromderby was simply that. Of course people have problems, but part of our difficulty in this society is tht people thing they deserve to have big tellys, sky dishes, playstations, trendy clothes, tesco finest, foreign holidays. If you cannot afford it, then you surely you should not be spending on these things and if you need more money to fund your lifestyle, then perhaps you need to work towards putting yourself in a position to do so. It is within all our capabilities to be a lawyer, doctor or entreprenuer, although it is very hard work and takes a great deal of deterimination, particularly where you are not blessed with parents who will pay for all the books and other materials you require and subsidise your lifestyle to allow you to study.

[Robertxc]

I think that cheque guarantee cards are an interesting point. The bank is obliged to honour a cheque which has been guaranteed by a card, BUT, they are free to withdraw the cheque facilities at any time, without notice. I have been told by a bank manager before (and I don't know this with 100% certainty), that if they withdraw cheque card facilities, they reserve the right not to honour any cheques still to be processed. This is to guard against somebody writing 20 one hundred pound cheques to buy a new plasma telly when they don't have the money.

[Bookworm]

The guarantee system is in place for the benefit of the third party receiving the cheque and not for the customer,

 

Only in banking do we see this "logic" exercised, whereby the 3rd party is (supposedly) protected rather than the client

 

The cheque guarantee, incidentally, is, if you'll excuse the pun, not worth the paper it's written on. If the person who has written the cheque has gone beyond a certain level of drawing on his account, cheque guarantee or no cheque guarantee, I can assure you that the cheque will bounce faster than Tigger on amphetamines. It has happened to me plenty of times when customers paid me by cheque, and there is SFA I could do about it.

[Vital Spark]

I appreciate your points, Advocate.

 

I don't use a credit card or cheque book so I don't have a guarantee card. I take out what I need and when/if it's gone, it's gone. I priotitise my purchases. Food, for me, heat and clothing come last even after my regular and already commited charity donations (entertainment doesn't even come in to the equation). Apart from the cost, I have an environment conscience so I will add layers and go out for a walk (if able,) or put on a jumper or jacket when it gets cold, rather than turn on or, in "pipe threatening" cold, up the heating. I was brought up in Orkney before electricity or a plumbed water supply came to the islands. I can take cold and what some might view as hardship.

 

As I said in an earlier post, I can't understand why my kids still like my fried rice. I know managing on a tight budget. I don't grumble about it but live life appreciating what I have rather than bemoaning what I don't have.

 

I consider myself to have more luxuries than those financially better off as my vacuum cleaner is a luxury.

 

On the otherhand, I also know what it is like to have been capable of earning £75 per hour extra to a very comfortable regular income, from journalism, back in the late 60s when that sum held big buying power. It was nothing, then, to go into a shoemaker in London and order a couple of pairs of winter boots, made to measure and costing anything from £75-£150 per pair. AND they weren't even a luxury but I didn't follow the "they have so I must have" or the "it's available so I must have to demonstrate my ability to do so" lifestyle. I needed so I spent my hard earned on quality for durability and, although I trust I was canny for myself, I hope I could never be remembered as mean by others.

 

It's all relative.

 

I do understand that some folk feel they MUST HAVE. It's not a lifestyle I would choose to follow nor would I want it if I had the means: a little edge in life keeps us on our toes as does doing without until the "cost is saved for" permit us joyful anticipation and the excitement of "looking forward to" (clumsily put).

 

However, I have had experienced on more than one occasion and more than sufficinet adversity from external influences which have, form time to time, thrown my financial management into chaos, to ensure that I don't automatically assume that debt, of whatever size, has been incurred purely through self indulgence.

 

My prerception of this site and those on it is that it was established to, without judgement, help people on whatsoever matter led them to require that help so, I presume, if I think about it at all, the person disclosing their need for help, to have reached that stage through circustances beyond their control.

 

To date, no-one on this site has ever delved into the "whys" for my needing their help. All have merely given freely, and most generously so, of their knowledge and experience in order to give me that assistance even offering emotional and psychological support. The unconditional and nonjudgemental nature of their help makes it comfortable for me to ask and, since I am not the brightest in legal and financial intricacies, ask and ask ad nauseum.

 

Never once a display of unwillingness, discourtesy, irritation at my repeated requests, annoyance with my stupidity in certain areas nor ever an accusatory tone for my situation. It is around this non-judgemental basis that the site pivots and works so efficiently.

[Vital Spark]

.........................will bounce faster than Tigger on amphetamines.............

 

ROFLMAO! :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Did you just come up with that metaphor as you wrote it, Bookworm? It's brilliant. Hope you don't mind if I mentally bookmark it.

 

Thank you for your humourous interjection to what is becoming a somewhat heavy thread.

[Robertxc]

Never once a display of unwillingness, discourtesy, irritation at my repeated requests, annoyance

Really? You obviously haven't asked all the Mods for help then.

[Vital Spark]

Oh, just you wait: give me time, I'll get round them ALL.

 

Think I might be enlisting yours to get a placard down to Vampiress. :grin: :grin: (where's that angelic, batting-eyelash smiley?)

 

Just got a mail form her. She's back YEAH! Three cheers for the Return of the VAMP.

:grin:

[Bigmac versus]

Extremely interesting posts and so many debates within this thread however id like to say that if my penalty charges ive been charged have been used to provide free banking then that is wrong they are only to cover banks for liquidated losses occurring from the person responsible and charged to them accordingly, If they are saying running costs will now be a norm of having a bank account due to repayment of these charges then so be it WHY should i pay for you advocate to have free banking, but maybe you should be asking why are they introducing charges for having a bank account. Id guess it was so they can make obscene amounts of profit for shareholders and to pay the fatcats salarys. Maybe the likes of yourself and others advocat actually owe us a debt of gratitude for giving you free banking for so many years.

You have so many valuable points and they are greatly appreciate however i feel you are so out of touch with the real world in regards to poor management of accounts as some peeps on low income and a young family have a choice of having a meal the next day or paying the direct debit, family is fed and you accept that the charges will come from when your wages go in, this never ending situation of charges on charges is what gets me and the banks as far as im concerned have had this coming for years and deserve every thing that comes their way.

[Advocate]

Thanks for that George,

 

Indeed, the charges may have been subsidising my free banking and if so, then I cannot support that.

 

Obscene profits and fatcats salaries are again not something I will argue for, although profit and executive salary are necessary at some level to ensure our system operates. whether that is the best system is a long running political debate, and one which I am surprisingly perhaps on the left rather than right.

 

You will note that I have accepted the situation of SOME is CAUSED by the banks' charges. However, the plain fact in our society is that some people are living beyond their means and must evaluate what really is important in their lives. We have more consumer debt per head of population than anywhere else in Europe and while the financial institutions have encouraged this, I cannot accept that they are entirely at fault. Our society provides choices and people must accept responsibility for the financial decisions they take. Perhaps spending more time with the kids rather than buying them the latest attention distracter would be cheaper and generally better for our society's welfare in the long run?

 

I must reiterate my point when you say they have had it coming. It will not be profits that suffer, but other consumers and whether right or wrong, they will feel aggreived that they are to suffer because of the acts of others and people should be conscious that their actions in claiming back charges are not without consequence for many innocents.

[Robertxc]

I wonder what the levels of consumer debt would look like in this country without all the bank charges. I've been struck by the number of people who've had their overdraft completely wiped out when they've successfully reclaimed their charges.

[Advocate]

Robertxc,

 

Consumer debt in the UK is estimated at £1,000,000,000,000. Bank charges make up only a fraction of that. I do not take you to seriously suggest eliminating Bank charges will rid us of this difficult situation.

 

I know people with £30k on credit cards. Do you believe the banks are responsible for this?

[JonCris]

1 year ago, any, and I mean ANY solicitor consulted on penalty charges would have patronised an "ordinary" consumer right out of his office. As for the CAB, they STILL to date do not advise to reclaim charges, and instead advise to "enter into a dialogue with the bank" or to go to the Ombudsman.

 

As someone who has a 'special interest' in the limitation argument I'm afraid I have to agree with the mod & most of the other posts. To suggest that an ordinary consumer should have known or even questioned the banks charges is a complete non-starter. Not only that CAB & all the solicitors of my aquaintance didn't realize what was happening was unlawful & why should we we trusted the banks.

I believe the concealement argument has merit & if that isn't the case the limitation act provision allows that even if they have made a mistake which could have been found through due diligence (like consulting their lawyers perhaps) then they are still not protected by the act

 

Advocate your comments about many people living beyond their means shows a clear lack of understanding of whats going on in our society.

 

Most need to borrow just to survive in todays overtaxed country. Also if you took the trouble to read most of the stories on this & other websites you will note that most of the lenders victims have not got into their situation because they are feckless but most for reasons such redunancy/illness/ & other family reasons yet these are the people the banks actually target to penalise in their already dire situation. Not only that they activley encourage these same debtors to take out loans to pay their overdrafts & then wonder why they can't pay when the money runs out.

 

My point is unless you have been in the situation which many here have found themselves then I suggest you refrain from implying that debtors only have themselves to blame they dont!

[Advocate]

JonCris,

 

The Limitation Act is, of course, an English Statute. We have our own legal system up here which, while similar and often influenced by yours, is based on principles and not, as in England, remedies. Not only do we have separate legislation on this matter, our judges approach problems in different ways. I confess it irritates me when people fail to make the distinction and seek to spread "knowledge of the law", which does not apply in this jurisdiction. It is misleading for people.

 

If you are someone who has managed to get a bank to settle beyond the Limitation period in England and Wales (6 years), congratulations to you. However, this does not necessarily imply that the law in relation to the postponement of the beginning of limitation period is in your favour. The reasons for not fighting such claims could be multifarious, and may indeed least of all be that the Banks consider the law to be on the side of the consumer. One extrajudicial settlement does not mean the law is on your side.

 

We are overtaxed and need to borrow you say. I would be interested to hear what all this borrowing is required for, although I sense that you are saying it is all the banks' faulty for entering into commercial arrnagements with a view to securing profit from the consumer. If this is abhorent, stand for election on a platform for change. Fact is, we are all better off in terms of meeting basic needs than at any other point in our history, yet we have more than twice the levels of consumer debt than in any other country in the EU. Personal sequestrations/bankruptcy is at an all time high. Whose fault is this, Sky tv for making such an irresistible if not indispensable product? People are living beyond their means, it is essential that this is recognised if people are to be proactive about dealing with their levels of debt. Life in our society is not about fairness, it is about survival first and foremost.

 

BTW been unemployed, been a student, I was always overdrawn, but never charged. It can be done.

[JonCris]

Sorry advocate whilst I don't speak for the board I'm sure all opinions are welcome here but with the greatest respect I suspect you not having ever been penalised by the money lenders it appears your pontificating about something of which you no little. Also I suspect your income is such that you have little or no need for their services as your not on a fixes income. Either that or like my kids who think there is a money tree at the bottom of the garden you have yet to leave home

 

To get a feel for what this site is all about I suggest you miss a couple of DD's & then watch the charges escalate to alarming levels almost overnight. Within a few days 1 missed DD will have incurred both an unauthorised overdraft fee of between £25 & £30 plus a DD return fee of between £25 & £30. Thats a possible £60 for going as littel as £1 overdrawn. Nor does it include the receivers penalty charges which could be anything upto another £50. So in almost the blink of an eye your £1 has escalated to over £100 Now because you can't meet your other liabilities (as there not enough in the bank because the bank take their charges 1st) it escalates even further until your hundreds of pounds out of pocket & if you don't believe me ask a few others on this site

 

Your inability to understand why most people get into debt shows a lack of understanding of the world in which you live.

I have no problem with the banks or any business making an HONEST profit which the banks aren't. Also to suggest that the banks are blameless is nonsense. Of course they are as they have specificly targeted consumers on limited incomes because they know that they will be 1st to fall foul of the penalty charges thereby adding to their profits & because of bad debt tax breaks at little overall cost. After all no point in targeting the more well off is there? They like you will never go overdrawn beyond their agreed limit

 

Also as for your other remarks regarding limitation I would remind you that the concealment clause was included in the act for a reason & I suggest the reason is precisely why many are now bringing claims outside the 6 years. As to whether they will be successful we'll have to wait & see but it will be interesting period in our fight with the money lenders.

 

As for the difference in laws. Of course there are differences we all know that. but there are also many simular laws. The Common Law is a moveable feast & often a finding in Scotland will be considered by the courts in England who will make the same finding.

 

Finally I would remind you that this site is about the unlawful & reprehensible conduct of the money lenders, which you choose to defend, & is not about all of us feckless debtors

 

BTW both myself & spouse students, like you always overdrawn, unlike you charged but despite the banks constant threat to cut us off managed to get our degrees

[Bigmac versus]

Well put JonCris at the end of the day you cant tarnish everyone who has charges from banks as irresponsible as advo's comments are "Our society provides choices and people must accept responsibility for the financial decisions they take. Perhaps spending more time with the kids rather than buying them the latest attention distracter would be cheaper and generally better for our society's welfare in the long run?" this is a rather tarnished view from someone who i see as out of touch with the real world and who as you admit yourself has never had a charge from a bank, if you found that your membership fees for your country club had been higher than they should have been and that this had been concealed from you for years wouldnt you claim back all which was rightfully yours? Some people will be frivilous with their finances the same as some people are frivilous with their views but to suggest peeps with regular bank charges are "living beyond their means and must evaluate what really is important in their lives." is tainted. Understand this if these charges werent applied to my bank account over the years i can assure you i would have spent more time with my kids rather than doing overtime, had less sleepless nights, and a lot less arguments with my wife due to financial difficulties, not now but in the past i have taken money out my account the night before i knew a d/d or s/o was due NOT to buy the latest attention distracter but to feed my family or have electricity or gas, essentials only, so yes im angry with the banks and yes i will continue to shout from the rooftops to tell peeps of this brilliant site regardless of how they ran there account because the banks are and have been for years taking peeps money illegally due to concealment of their true liqidated costs.

[Advocate]

JonCris,

 

From an objective standpoint, the reason people get into debt is easy: they are spending money they do not have. Try telling that to the kids I hear you say.

 

As a kid it was kind of obvious to me that money did not grow on trees, and as an adult I am eternally grateful for seeing a bit of financial discipline while I was growing up. Learning certain lessons can be difficult at the time, but with hindsight we see their worth.

 

As to my understanding, it is heartbreaking to be involved in evicting families from properties because they are unable to pay the rent. But appalling to see that they have plasma tellies and every gadget and game in the boxes they leave the house with. Who is at fault here?

 

Yes people can get into debt through a change in circumstances. It is unfortunate that you have highlighted certain of my thoughts without accepting that they are not absolutes. They are tempered with an understanding of how easy it is to fall into the trap of debt financing debt. The people on these boards who have found themselves in this situation have my utmost sympathy and if the Banks are indeed targetting these people, then it is morally satisfying that they have an opportunity to strike back.

 

Your comment about tax breaks is interesting, although as while companies can write off bad debts against their 30% tax liability on profits, I am sure they would rather have the 100% of the debt repaid and pay the tax on the profit made. Simple capitalist economics...what makes more profit.

 

Your point about the influence of judgements in both jurisdictions is well made, but if you read my post with care you will see that I said exactly the same thing. In this area, however, we have a Scottish statute and Scottish principles. The differences need not be great, but manys a case won and lost on a nuance.

 

My position, and profession, allows me to look at both sides of an argument. The Banks perform a very valuable function in all our lives. No longer do we have to pay the gas man as he comes round our house, the Bank does it for us, sometimes, it seems, with their own money. Through credit cards and bank accounts we have access to multifarious products and services to enhance our lives. Through personal loans we can buy now and pay later, but we must pay, or other borrowers will. I do not have your subjective anger, so perhaps I can afford to be a little more objective.

 

I am, however, delighted you managed to succeed in your quest for educational achievement. We appreciate things more when we have to struggle for them don't you think?

[Truescot]

Do overseas banks have any claim on customers in Scotland?

 

This article was written by a solicitor from Burness, one of the top Scottish law firms:

[Vital Spark]

Advocate:

 

I would be interested to learn your opinion on so called "loan sharks"?

 

It seems to me that, apart from frequent reports of bully tactics, the loudest cry against them is in relation to the exhorbitant interest charges they apply. Where, in your opinion, do the moral, ethical and legal lines lie between loan sharks and bank charges?

 

Are you possibly of the opinion that people shouldn't get themselves into such a situation as to require the services of loans sharks and that, as they (LSs) state their repayment and interest payments prior to the loan being awarded, they are not at all in the wrong?

 

I am not suggesting, for one moment, that, in my opinion, banks and loan sharks are alike: merely interested to learn your view and reasoning .

[Advocate]

Loan sharks as that term is understood tend to have exorbitant rates of interest way beyind that which the banks actually charge. You are talking 1200%.

 

Loan sharks are taking advantage of people who are unable to afford credit because they, often, have had bad experiences with credit in the past. For this reason they cannot access the sources open to the majority, banks. These people often find they cannot keep making the payments and it is at this point that the figures get funny, although even with the regular payers it is pretty steep price for borrowing. I feel for people who believe they have to use the services of such lenders, but cannot help thinking proper education both in school and, more importantly, in the home would mean that such people had no market for their services. This is a utopian view perhaps, but a goal worth working towards.

 

If people are thinking about using one of these lenders, they really ought to seek the free advice available from CAB. It will be able to show people case studies of what can happen when it goes wrong, or even right. Once people see these figures most, although admittedly not all, will be able to put their desired purchase in perspective I would think.

 

Of course, there are provisions in consumer legislation which allow for exorbitant credit agreements to be challenged, although these would not cover the kind of interest rates and structures applied by banks. These guys are in a different league altogether.

[JonCris]

Sorry advocate but again your showing a lck of understanding of the real world. Provident Financial charge over 1,000 percent & one of their principal shareholders is HSBC

[Vital Spark]

Yeah, thanks, JonCris. Just what I was thinking.

 

However, I was also wondering at what depth of debt the banks refused to help those who turn to loan sharks and what amount of charges were applied to their accounts (possibly illegally see: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-bailiffs-advice/36790-bank-taking-your-benefits-new-post.html,)perhps driving them into the jaws of Loan Sharks.

 

Also, God sees a place in this world for those who may not be able to grasp financial matters whether or not they have learning difficulties. As you know, I'm dyslexic but so was Einstein and most any other genius you care to mention. I do have a high IQ so, with a patient teacher and sufficient questions, I can learn. There are those with a very low IQ who may not be able to do as you suggest, Advocate.

 

The banks do lend to people who can't afford the repayments and they push that credit at them even increasing their limits without asking, sometimes as a way of "helping" them repay the debt. I know a number of people who have been plagued by bank staff offerign them personal loans and overdrafts but fortunately most of them know that they can't afford the repayments. Some think that, if the bank (who know their financial "stuff",) say they can afford the loan, then it must be so and they are soon on the receiving end of the spiralling and overlapping charges syndrome.

 

The world is a mix of folk, Advocate. Some strong some weak: some bright and some not so. You cannot (well, obviously you can,) tar everyone, in the same situation, with the same brush. The situation may be the same but the circumstances leading to it can be very different.

 

I have had Provident on the phone to me ten times in the alst couple of weeks, (none so far this week but it's only Monday) badgering me to take out a loan which, I told them in the very first and on each instance, I can't afford and don't want. They have tried tempting me with the Christmas gifts, the cost of the Festive season and so on yet I have told them quite plainly that my children are happy to have us all together at Christmas and that the alst thing any of us would want for the otehrs is debt so we are not caught up in that trap b ut I can understand how some might be.

 

The folk on the phone trying to get me to take out a loan are nice enough folk desperately trying to earn their own crusts but I think they could just as easily be classed as stupid as the folk you appear to condemn for getting into debt.

 

These folk are just doing their job and probably following a script given by their superiors who, in turn, bow to their bosses but, if they can't see that their job is to tempt people into just that position, then Heaven help us.

 

Your logic is fine, Advocate, except in that it is aplied from a narrow viewpoint/ You may have experienced hardship in your childhood but when was that. It is, sadly in many respects, a very changed world but jsut as todays children are the future, we are the past and it is the past which leads to the present so we must all take responsibility for a world in which pressures are on young parents to provide mpre than they can really afford.

 

I suspect you are of my generation. It was our generation which created this materially centered society so let's not sit back now and sanctimoniously condemn those who have fallen pray to our creation.

 

The 60s weren't all good in fact they are responsible for an awful lot of the mysery in this world and teh 60s were the 60s because of the folk who lived through them.

[Bookworm]

Of course, there are provisions in consumer legislation which allow for exorbitant credit agreements to be challenged, although these would not cover the kind of interest rates and structures applied by banks. These guys are in a different league altogether.

 

Are they?

 

I'm going against Halifax. By the time they pay up, if they stick to their usual routine, they will have charged me at least £128, possibly £156 (depending how quickly they sort their act) for going over my limit by 12 pence. For 3 hours.

[JonCris]

Are they?

 

I'm going against Halifax. By the time they pay up, if they stick to their usual routine, they will have charged me at least £128, possibly £156 (depending how quickly they sort their act) for going over my limit by 12 pence. For 3 hours.

 

Quite BW & we know your not alone but then some of us are not in denial The point has been made that if the banks have to refund everyone it will effect other consumers because they will have to pay for their banking.

 

That being the case these freeloaders should be throughly ashamed of themselves taking from the poor to fund their lifestyles

 

Perhaps they should start a site extolling the virtues of NOT exploiting the poor & insisting they will pay for their banking. Bit like not wearing fur or eating animals.