Am I stupid or just missing the point ???????

[waynus]

Sure enough, nobody wants to pay charges. However, am I the only person who realises that if you do not exceed any agreed limit the bank give you, you don't get charged. The truth therefore is 'If you do not want to give your hard earned cash to the banks, do not mismanage your accounts!'

 

There are several posts on this website claiming the charges are a penalty and that these are 'unenforceable in court'. Do you know that for a fact, or are you basing this on historical court cases, which in reality have no resemblance?

 

Fact No1) Do you eat in a restaurant and then only agree to pay the price of what the food actually costs to buy/prepare? No, you agree up front that you are willing to pay the price quoted. Is that not what you agree to do when you sign your current account Terms & Conditions?

 

Fact2) How many of you have received a parking ticket or speeding fine and refused to pay because the courts have decided in 1900 that penalty fees are unenforceable in court? I bet there aren't many of you!

 

Fact3) Have you actually tried asking your banks to reduce the amount of charges being applied? You will find some banks are quite sympathetic and will look to meet you part way, unless you are taking the p!ss.

 

Fact4) If you asked me if your could borrow £20 from my wallet and I agreed, then you proceeded to take £50, would I not be in my rght to take YOU to court.

 

Surely you can't be serious about taking the banks to court because you have failed to honour your agreement and have simply 'stolen' their money, albeit only for a short period of time.

 

......And before you ask, NO I don't work for a bank. I simply work hard and manage my own accounts correctly. :?

[Seminole]

Yes you are missing the point and posting in the wrong topic as well!

 

Noone argues that going over your overdraft limit or bouncing a payment is a breach of contract (although sometimes the bank is partly at fault). The question here is the legality of the charge. If the banks are convined that the charges are a genuine pre-estimate of their losses, then why don't they defend claims in court. Why are they paying out thousands of pounds in out of court settlements?

 

As for parking charges, those are penalties separately enshrined in statute and have nothing to do with illegal bank charges.

 

You should have a good read around the site and look at the legal arguments.

[waynus]

I understand the argument is simply, 'Are these charges legally enforceable in court?'. However, my own argument is, rather than looking for a 'cure' you guys should be looking for the 'prevention'. Try managing your accounts instead of getting your banks to do it!

 

I will ask my question again? Do you pay MacDonalds 10p for a bag of fries, afterall that is all it will have cost them to provide? You state that you agree banks should apply a fee but in proportion to the work involved. Surely that argument is the same for EVERY business in the World.

 

Fact- Banks make money from you as a customer

Fact- So does every other business I can think of!

 

Still confused :?

[leehughes]

If I murder someone, can I claim that I didn't know it was a crime?

 

I doubt it, they will throw the book at me!!!

 

 

Why should the banks get away with [edited - admin]?

 

The only main reason so far is that the [edited - admin] already have your money and most people don't want to fight for their RIGHTS!!!

 

Regards

[Russe11]

the contract with maccy Ds

 

Do you pay MacDonalds 10p for a bag of fries, afterall that is all it will have cost them to provide?

 

you pay them for a service, they are not penalising you.

 

If you get the service, the box of fries as you expect..... they have fufilled the contact, they have been paid you are full up.

 

They do not however let you help your self, and if you take more than a portion penalise you for doing so.

 

Much like the pizza hut salad bowl, you only get one bowl.

The contract is you can have 1 bowl full for a fee, you take you bowl and pile it high...... however they do not say you can't have a over full bowl then penalise you if you do.

[Russe11]

Any way can you ever say you have brought a maccy Ds product that matched the description/image in the contract ?

 

I would say misleading, yes.

 

On the rare occasion I have had the misfortune of entering such establishments, the products are usually intended to fill hunger.

 

A cost is involved with them providing a service, when they have not fullfilled their obligation, its generally regonised and can get you a refund or other products as compensation.

 

The banks on the other hand, impose penalties due to us breaching the contract between parties, we whold should only compensate them to the value of breech, such as maccy Ds return the sum paid for a unsatisfactory product/ or more products/services to the same or greater value if the feel it makes for customer satisfaction.

 

please expand on your arguement if you feel I have missed the point.

[waynus]

Thank you Dave (AND OTHERS) for your reply.

 

I am concerned you state your 4 year old daughter has grasped the concept but I have not. I find it equally alarming you are teaching your daughter immoral values. Is it really alright to steal and to then try to defend yourself by taking the innocent party to court?????

 

I have realised not one of you have tried to defend my 4th question. The banks agree to lend us a pre-agreed amount and you have taken more than this. This is paramount to stealing! If you went into a shop, bought a top and decided to take some jeans too, would the shop not be in their right to prosecute you? FACT- You have taken the bank's money without their permission. Is this not correct!!!!!?

 

Pizza Hut salad bowl reply, 'They do not however let you help yourself, and if you take more than a portion penalise you for doing so.' No, they would make you pay for another bowl OR threaten to prosecute you for stealing.

 

'Why should the banks get away with breaking the law?' Again, I ask if you know this to be a fact? You are all jumping on the bandwagon and claiming these are 'penalty fees'. I have checked my own account terms and conditions and over the limit fees are not quoted as 'penalty fees'.

 

I can understand anybody being upset if they have made a genuine mistake and incurred an overdraft fee. However, looking on this website, it is clear the majority of you are not making a mistake, you are taking liberties. I will end this post by saying this again in clear English.

'You are taking the bank's money WITHOUT permission. In any other scenario, you would be deemed a thief and prosecuted. Fact is, if you do not like paying overdraft fees, do not steal the bank's money. END OF ARGUMENT!'

[Dammam]

In answer to your subject question, possibly both? Although perhaps naive or innocent would be more apt.

 

Much of your case depends very much where you sit on the moral fence - is it fair that people who have no money problems have to pay because of the minority who have trouble making ends meet, or is it right that the least ables to pay in society should bear the brunt of providing free banking with money they can ill afford?

I used to have the same opinion as you, to be fair. After losing my wife and being made redundant I found myself facing the same problems that the 'irresponsible' did. It has been quite an eye opener.

 

Fact No1) Do you eat in a restaurant and then only agree to pay the price of what the food actually costs to buy/prepare? No, you agree up front that you are willing to pay the price quoted. Is that not what you agree to do when you sign your current account Terms & Conditions?

 

Well, there is a huge choice in the food market isn't there? If I can't afford a meal in a restaurant, I'll make sandwiches. If the food/service isn't up to scratch in a restaurant then I'm well within my rights not to pay. In the banks, the cartel they are operating means that whichever bank you join, you face the same penalties.

 

Fact2) How many of you have received a parking ticket or speeding fine and refused to pay because the courts have decided in 1900 that penalty fees are unenforceable in court? I bet there aren't many of you!

 

Guilty as charged M'lud. I have disputed 2 speeding fines and won both cases. Now, if it could be proven in court that the fines were unenforceable in law, I think anyone would be foolish not to take advantage of that.(Incidentally, in both cases I was snapped going over the speed limit on an empty dual-carriageway, straight stretch, perfect weather at between 5 & 6a.m with barely another vehicle in sight - a real penalty clause if ever there was one).

 

Fact3) Have you actually tried asking your banks to reduce the amount of charges being applied? You will find some banks are quite sympathetic and will look to meet you part way, unless you are taking the p!ss.

 

Do some reading here before passing judgement. I had 3 DDs bounced a little past midnight because they would have put me £103 over my OD limit. This was the day before my regular payday and later this same day I paid more than sufficient cash into my account to cover the 3 DDs. For this misdemenour, I was charged over £120! I was overdrawn less than 11 hours of the same day.

I asked the bank to cancel the charge in the circumstances as a goodwill gesture. They refused and my own goodwill disappeared with this refusal.

 

 

Fact4) If you asked me if your could borrow £20 from my wallet and I agreed, then you proceeded to take £50, would I not be in my rght to take YOU to court.

 

If I took £50, realised my mistake and gave you £20 back later that day would you have the right to charge me another £35 for the mistake? If you had to visit me to get the money back, I'd refund your petrol/bus fare but I wouldn't be happy if you felt the need to punish me for the mistake.

[kaznelson]

Waynus, Why dont you go along and pay a visit to the Martin Lewis Website (hope you dont mind the plug) and take a look at the Debt-Free Wannabe thread.

 

Its dedicated to people who are trying to get themselves out of Debt. The debt they are in has been caused by various factors ie Illness, Redundancy, Personal Problems and yes over spending. However these people are trying by all kinds of methods to claw their way out of their current situations.

 

BUT you only need to look at the ridicilous amounts of bank charges that are being imposed on them to realise that the banks are not helping these people but rubbing their hands in glee by the amount of profit they are making at their misery. Very few of the banks are helpful in these circumstances as you will read.

 

Yes sure you can say that they shouldnt get themselves in these situations but how do we know what is around the corner for any of us?? I for one wasnt taught how to look after my money as a child either by my parents or by the education authority.

 

So why shouldnt we be able to claim back money that has been taken illegally? No matter what your moral stance on this matter the bank is illegally taking this money.

[leehughes]

Excellent responses.

 

Ultimately I live to the rule of law, I expect if I am to, then everyone else should as well.

 

The banks should also abide by the law. I intend to seek to enforce that principle by litigating against them.

 

They have screwed me and I intend to screw them back.

 

Regards

[cakey]

'You are taking the bank's money WITHOUT permission. In any other scenario, you would be deemed a thief and prosecuted. Fact is, if you do not like paying overdraft fees, do not steal the bank's money. END OF ARGUMENT!'

 

Not really, I spoke to my solicitor about this yesterday and he made it pretty clear, if you break a contract (which you are doing your note being a theif) then a court would not allow the person who's contract is broken to profit from you breaking that contract - they simply should be put right...

 

so I guess you could explain how a computer generated automated letter costs £38 to send? now whos the thief??!??!

[axelfm]

Cakey, they don't even have the decency to SEND you a letter anymore!!! It's like rubbing salt into the wound. I could never work out how the letters cost £30ish in the first place but presumed they must otherwise how could they substantiate the charge. Then they stop sending letters AND put their charges up!!

[Drivewasher]

Yes I agree I'm with nationwide, they don't even send a letter of any description to inform me that an item has not been paid.

The only way I find out is when bank statement comes it has the returned item as a debit then a credit on the same date, which could be up to 31 days ago, plus there is a cover page in the envelope with the amount of money they will be [edited - admin]from me in 28 days.

Or when the payee phones or writes to give me a roasting

All this fun at £30 a chuck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

PS. Thinking about it banks [edited - admin] who tell you when thier coming lol

[cakey]

Cakey, they don't even have the decency to SEND you a letter anymore!!! It's like rubbing salt into the wound. I could never work out how the letters cost £30ish in the first place but presumed they must otherwise how could they substantiate the charge. Then they stop sending letters AND put their charges up!!

 

yeah exactly but thats even more to our case, £38 for...errr let me think..... no letter, no human intervention - perhaps they use BG for their electricity and the 22% increase in the costs means they charge that to cover their electricity bill???!??!?!!

[Bookworm]

There are several posts on this website claiming the charges are a penalty and that these are 'unenforceable in court'. Do you know that for a fact, or are you basing this on historical court cases, which in reality have no resemblance?

 

The 1999 Consumer Credit Regulations quoted by the OFT.

There are numerous cases in law that prove that punitive charges in contracts are unenforceable in English law:

Murray v Leasureplay (2004)

Dunlop Tyre Company v New Garage and Motor Co. (1915)

Bridge v. Campbell Discount Co. Ltd. (1962)

 

They not only have resemblance, they have relevance. Dont take my word for it, go and read up on them. Penalty charges are against the law.

 

 

Fact No1) Do you eat in a restaurant and then only agree to pay the price of what the food actually costs to buy/prepare? No, you agree up front that you are willing to pay the price quoted. Is that not what you agree to do when you sign your current account Terms & Conditions?

 

Fact 1: If I don't like the food or the service, I can go elsewhere. Thanks to La Thatcher, wages have to be paid in a bank account, thereby removing that freedom of choice. Show me a bank account that doesn't operate on the same T&Cs, I shall switch.

 

Fact2) How many of you have received a parking ticket or speeding fine and refused to pay because the courts have decided in 1900 that penalty fees are unenforceable in court? I bet there aren't many of you!

 

Trust me, if there was such a decision, people would! And I'm not talking about the half-baked decision that was made a few years back.

 

Fact3) Have you actually tried asking your banks to reduce the amount of charges being applied? You will find some banks are quite sympathetic and will look to meet you part way, unless you are taking the p!ss.

 

Fact 3: Complete and utter horsesh*t. Example: When DH got unfairly dismissed, the bank which held our mortgage and the insurance on our mortgage refused to pay up until we'd won at Employment tribunal. In that time, although fully aware of the circumstances, they piled charges after charges. If DH's employers had dug the hole, it's the bank that ensured that we nearly sank. By the time DH got the compensation from his ex-employers, it virtually disappeared in bank and card charges and it's not thanks to them that we managed not to lose our home.

 

Fact4) If you asked me if your could borrow £20 from my wallet and I agreed, then you proceeded to take £50, would I not be in my rght to take YOU to court.

 

Fact 4: If I lend YOU my money for you to keep safe, and YOU use it to invest, play the stock market and keep all the interest generated by MY money in the 1st place, fair enough. But then, I ask you to pay the milkman, cos I won't be home. then I forget to give you the money. You don't pay the milkman, fair enough. Would you then be in your rights to say: "oh, and I told him you didn't have the money, so you owe me 30 quid"? Seriously? Or in a fit of generosity, you DO pay the milkman, but then tell me that I have to pay you back the milkman money and an extra 30 quid on top? Wouldn't I be entitled to ask you on what bloody grounds?

 

Surely you can't be serious about taking the banks to court because you have failed to honour your agreement and have simply 'stolen' their money, albeit only for a short period of time.

 

You ARE missing the point: All the banks have to do is NOT pay if you don't have the money in. It is THAT simple. If your milkman or any other person to whom you owe money is unhappy (quite rightly so too!), it is between you and them. BUT:

 

Fact 5: The banks don't make profits out of the nice lucky people like you who run their account well and never get in trouble (and may you be lucky all your life, few people are). No. They make money of the people who manage to keep their heads above water, just, but go under now and then, not always through any fault of their own, but because nasty things happen to nice people too. So, to answer your question, are you stupid? Probably not, but you should really go and do a bit of fact finding before posting again... Are you missing the point? Only by a few miles, but don't worry, we can't all be William Tell.

 

......And before you ask, NO I don't work for a bank. I simply work hard and manage my own accounts correctly.

 

Which implies that people who DO work for a bank do neither... Amusing...

[waynus]

"If I took £50, realised my mistake and gave you £20 back later that day would you have the right to charge me another £35 for the mistake? If you had to visit me to get the money back, I'd refund your petrol/bus fare but I wouldn't be happy if you felt the need to punish me for the mistake."

 

If it was only as simple as that. If it was as you say, 'a mistake', you would be charged anything for £20-£38. However, looking at some of the levels of charges, it is obvious that some of the people posting, are not incurreing fees by 'making a mistake'. They are deliberately spening money that isn't theirs, simply because they need the money.

 

Second point I would like to make on your reply. If you 'gave me £20 back later that day', you wouldn't expect to be charged. Is this not the same for banks. I was under the impression as long as your account balance was under the agreed limit by close of business, you would not incur a fee. Is this not right?

 

By the way, your other points make sense. I am all for protecting the innocents, but I am sick to the back teeth of people who abuse services (in this case, banking policies) and jump on a bandwaggon. There are some of us who have made an error miscalculating how much money is in their accounts. I have done it, we all have. The difference is, there are some people who know they are overdrawn, continue spending the bank's money and expect someone else to help them out.

 

Have you set up a website for the speeding fines, parking fines etc?

[Natasha]

Waynus,

 

In my circumstances i'm not continually recieving charges every month, i get a few here and there.

And the reason i get a few here and there is because my account is extremely busy i have transactions going in and out of my account everyday, i heavily rely on internet, telephone banking and also ATM's a magority of the time the online balance is incorrect especially over the weekend where balances aren't updated till monday.

If they just refused the transaction in the first place i would know that actually, my online balance said £100 on saturday morning i've spent £100 during the weekend then on monday it turns out i only had £50 cleared balance. But the same figures i've used in my example can be as little as £1 and the charge you receive is £30!!!

 

Hope that makes sense

[Bookworm]

Second point I would like to make on your reply. If you 'gave me £20 back later that day', you wouldn't expect to be charged. Is this not the same for banks. I was under the impression as long as your account balance was under the agreed limit by close of business, you would not incur a fee. Is this not right?

 

No. Most banks will want you to have the cleared funds in your account before the close of business (3.30 pm for them, unlike any other business!) the previous day. A cheque takes 1 day longer to clear? Not your fault, but the bank will charge you nevertheless. A direct debit presents itself one day earlier then they said, and you, a responsible customer, checks online, rushes to pay in cash to your branch on opening? Ah, too late! have another charge! THAT's how it works. Not once or twice, but systematically. And by the way, that charge they just took? That will in turn generate another charge, or/and a monthly unauthorised overdraft charge. Not quite the "people helping themselves to the bank's money" scenario you had in mind, is it?

 

I am all for protecting the innocents, but I am sick to the back teeth of people who abuse services (in this case, banking policies) and jump on a bandwaggon.

 

But you see, that's the point: The first to abuse services (in this case, the LAW) are the banks, because who would think that these companies we entrust with our money would then voluntarily break the law? So, bandwagon? No, just a general awakening of the consumer, and long may it last.

 

There are some of us who have made an error miscalculating how much money is in their accounts. I have done it, we all have. The difference is, there are some people who know they are overdrawn, continue spending the bank's money and expect someone else to help them out.

 

And I would take a bet that the majority of those people will not be found here, because at heart, they feel guilty, as indeed, we all did, even when we KNEW we were not at fault...

 

But there's a question for you: Even if your "some people" has been a bad boy, and behaved as you say, and went over his limit for whatever reason, even one that is morally reprehensible, and did it knowingly, does that give the bank the right to penalise him? And if yes, why? Who gave the bank the moral right to inflict financial punishment upon that person? It's not a deterrent, the person has already spent the money. The law clearly states that they can not profit from recovering their costs, so where is the justification? And incidentally, the banks know they're not allowed to penalise the customer, which is why they settle out of court when challenged because they [edited - admin] justify those charges in court.

 

To repeat myself: the bank does not have to pay over the limit, all it has to do is refuse to pay. So it is THAT simple, yes.

[MrsMiggins]

Have you set up a website for the speeding fines, parking fines etc?

Don't have to. It exists already. http://www.pepipoo.com

[Dammam]

"If I took £50, realised my mistake and gave you £20 back later that day would you have the right to charge me another £35 for the mistake? If you had to visit me to get the money back, I'd refund your petrol/bus fare but I wouldn't be happy if you felt the need to punish me for the mistake."

 

If it was only as simple as that. If it was as you say, 'a mistake', you would be charged anything for £20-£38. However, looking at some of the levels of charges, it is obvious that some of the people posting, are not incurreing fees by 'making a mistake'. They are deliberately spening money that isn't theirs, simply because they need the money.

 

Second point I would like to make on your reply. If you 'gave me £20 back later that day', you wouldn't expect to be charged. Is this not the same for banks. I was under the impression as long as your account balance was under the agreed limit by close of business, you would not incur a fee. Is this not right?

 

By the way, your other points make sense. I am all for protecting the innocents, but I am sick to the back teeth of people who abuse services (in this case, banking policies) and jump on a bandwaggon. There are some of us who have made an error miscalculating how much money is in their accounts. I have done it, we all have. The difference is, there are some people who know they are overdrawn, continue spending the bank's money and expect someone else to help them out.

 

Have you set up a website for the speeding fines, parking fines etc?

 

Why would I want to set up a website about parking or speeding fines?????

 

No, it's not the same for banks, as I recently found to my cost - I put money into my account at 11am on the Wednesday. Unfortunately, on the same Wednesday at 00:30 hrs, 3 Direct Debits were taken out, bounced, and I was charged £105 before the banks opened. Should I have known the DDs were due and put the money in a day earlier? Hell yeah! Should I have been charged £105 for £99.75 worth of bounced DD's? You tell me.

 

Now, you're quite right - I had an appalling record going back 6 years with redundancy, bereavement etc. I regularly went over my overdraft. Each month, more and more of my money disappeared in bank charges before the bills arrived and then, when it was the turn of the bills, there was nothing left - the bank had had it all, and were now going to do the same next month. If they had spared me the charges just ONCE, it would have put an end to that spiral.

 

I was willing to accept that it was all my own stupid fault. Until I asked them if they would refund the £105 charges this month which I felt were a little OTT in the circumstances. Although they used to be the bank the bank that likes to say yes, they said no. So I thought stuff them and here I am. The bank could have amicably settled for refunding the £105 - instead they hung on for the £5,000. The abused often becomes the abuser you know?

 

Incidentally, if someone from the banks would read all this and think "I can do an account that would suit these people", his bank would probably make a mint.

[ispartacus75]

I have realised not one of you have tried to defend my 4th question. The banks agree to lend us a pre-agreed amount and you have taken more than this. This is paramount to stealing!

 

Im sorry waynus, but in answer to the question that started the thread YOU ARE STUPID. Or at least not very well informed. What you have been describing is NOT stealing or theft or whatever you want to call it and heres why.

 

The LEGAL defenition of theft is as follows:

The dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to PERMANENTLY deprive the other of it.

 

There are 7 specific points in the previous defenition. ALL 7 have to be proved to convict of theft.

 

As there is no provable intention on the part of the account holder to permanently deprive the bank of its money noone would ever be convicted of theft or stealing or whatever you want to call it.

 

Now I would appreciate it if you would kindly slide back behind your desk and contemplate those 'Greyhound Tracker Mortgages'

[oblong21]

Incidentally, if someone from the banks would read all this and think "I can do an account that would suit these people", his bank would probably make a mint.

 

I have an idea reagrding this in the pipeline - but at the moment we are not the force to reckoned with that we will become.

 

When we have about 10k-15k members, THEN a bank might listen to suggestions from us - at the current rate - that should be about the end of April!!

 

Bearing in mind the current growth rates, when do you think something will be implemented to halt these claims?

[richardsimkiss]

FAO Waynus.

 

My situation started when I turned 18, before I turned 18 if there wasn't money in the account, it couldn't be taken out, and I could not incurr charges.

 

After I turned 18, admittedly my own fault, I over-estimated what wages I would be recieving from my part time job, and issued a cheque £4.47 greater than the available fund in my account. The cheque was not honoured and I received a charge of £10, when the charge was applied it took me over my agreed limit and incurred a £27.50 charge. At the age of 18, in full time education and only working part time at weekends, I was in no position to pay such huge charges. However that one oversight for £4.47 meant one charge lead to another charge, and meant a total of £1579 of charges. At all times the sum of charges has exceeded the amount by which I exceeded my agreed limit meaning (theoretically of course) that had the first charge not been applied, I would never have exceeded my agreed overdraft limit.

 

Had the situation with the cheque happened when I was 16, the bank would have simply not honoured the cheque, end of story... my view on the matter expressed as an example would be...

 

If I asked you if I could borrow £100 at anytime I liked, you let me and I took £90 of it, then I met a friend who wanted £20 off me. I tell him to ask you for the remaining £10 you promised I could have, and also ask you for an additional £10.

 

At this point you can:

a) Accept - Give him the additional £10, meaning I owe you £110. Meaning you have allowed the extra £10 to goto 'my friend'

b) Decline - Refuse the payment alltogether saying that you only agreed to let me have up to £100.

 

It would be totally unreasonable for you to turn to me and say, "yes I was happy to let your friend have the extra £10 that we hadn't agreed upon, but as well as owing me the extra £10, you have to give me £30 on top" instead of just refusing to pay the charge.

I too disagree with people purposefully operating their accounts far beyond the terms and conditions which they agreed to (when such a breach of contract isn't ongoing because of banks charges) but why oh why don't the banks just not let people withdraw money should there be insufficient funds? These charges just make the poor even poorer (regardless of whether they recklessly manage their accounts) and the banks even richer.

[Dammam]

The funniest part of all this is, for all us naughty boys and girls who have systematically robbed the banks by misusing our account, how many times have the bank actually come back and said "give us your debit card and cheque book, you aren't running your account properly"? Not many. Why? Because they're happy enough to rake in the fines.

Using your example again - if I took more money out of your wallet than you agreed to, then did the same thing again and again and again - why on earth did you keep leaving the bloody thing open?????

 

They seem more intent on closing your account when you actually challenge them.

[waynus]

Im sorry waynus, but in answer to the question that started the thread YOU ARE STUPID. Or at least not very well informed. Now I would appreciate it if you would kindly slide back behind your desk and contemplate those 'Greyhound Tracker Mortgages'

_________________

Paul

 

Firstly, ISPARTACUS75, If you had read my 'original' post, you would have read that I am not a banker or work behind a desk of any kind. Do keep up!

 

Secondly, I accept your quotation regarding the legal challenge. However, it still doesn't mean you can borrow without prior permission. Now don't get me wrong, I have every sympathy for a lot of the members on this website whereby a charge was applied for something out of their control. I also acknowledge that those initial fees may not be refunded and so can escalate into considerable amounts. However, to blame one mistake for causing up to £5000 simply does not add up. Ever heard of the Financial Ombudsman Service. I am sure that had any one of you incurred hundreds or thousands of pounds from a mistake that was not caused by you, they would have happily got involved.