Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi all,   In massive need of your advice!!   Got a finance agreement with MoneyBarn in September of last year (2018). Made regular payments until I had financial difficulties. My last payment to MoneyBarn was April 2019. I since then, did not make payments to them. I did make contact with them and said that the arrears would be cleared as soon as I had sold my property, as I was moving in with my partner instead.   They then filed a default against me. (Although I found this out later on) Unfortunately, I then went through a tough period in my life, in which suffered badly with depression and anxiety. I did inform them of this.   Once the property was sold, I contact them to ask for a breakdown of options and what I could do. I did not receive this. Instead, I had a lovely gentleman turn up at my door saying he has a repossession order and has come to take the car. This was the first time I had heard of this, I wasn’t notified of any defaults prior to this (relating to when I previously mentioned “found out later on) or the termination of the contract.   I have since returned the vehicle after they told me I could not pay the arrears and/or pay 50% of the term and do VT? I have also been told I cannot reinstate my contact.   I have told them about the mental issues I had, and said that I did not appreciate a guy turning up when I have my children and demanding the car. Their reply was “we informed you of the termination and repossession” to which I said “no you didn’t”.   They argue that they sent it to my old address (despite me informing them of the new one) and I even asked the question of “how did the debt management agency know where to go then?” As they then informed me that they didn’t have my new address on file?   I appreciate I owe them money, however, I did say that the amount they are asking for is unrealistic and that I will happily contest in court.    Any my advice will help!!! 
    • Hello DX100UK and all observers. I am delighted to announce I have had no further communication from Shoosmiths Todays date is 20th August 2019  That is the 20 year anniversary of the original decree granted at the Scottish sheriff Court on 20th August 1999 The 20 year prescriptive period should kick into force. Celebrate   Would any further letters now constitute harrassment ?  or does the debt technically still stand but just not enforcable ? They cant seek a new decree ?    
    • Now some at this stage might think I'm leading to doggerland as the site of Atlantis   https://www.winterwatch.net/2019/01/did-the-inspiration-for-atlantis-flood-and-ark-legends-stem-from-paleo-doggerland/           but for a number of reasons, I'm not ... although I think it is a part of the larger story,   Its a little late. I believe the final inundation of doggerland is part of the later Biblical flood and related myths. (Black Sea, Arabian Gulf, West coast of India etc) ... but worthy of mention is that it could effectively make up one of three 'larger' islands as detailed in the legends far better than the Azores does. ... and mammoths/elephants crossed that bridge - although carefully check the dates of those mammoth/elephant migration evidence. They seem to end 11000bp.           http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20150722-lost-beasts-of-the-ice-age   http://www.canada.com/technology/Massive+Canadian+melt+have+triggered+flood+biblical+proportions/3954124/story.html   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outburst_flood   http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Sproul    
    • Hi.   Someone reported that your pg1 still had the reg number showing, so I've removed it and left pg2.   HB
  • Our picks

Mistermind

Appeal for price comparisons in space & time

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4425 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Quote:

Originally Posted by AugAussie viewpost.gif

 

"I have a question about the fees being disproportionate

If the fees are for a service is there anyone who could assertain if the price for the said fees has increase inline with cpi? if it indeed is a fee for service like dentist fees, then i would have thought the increase would be yearly or bi annualy inline with cpi.

Thoughts anyone?"

 

_____________________________________________

 

An excellent question. Yes, bank penalty charge have risen far faster than CPI, from £2 in 1970 to average £30 today. What would a price in step with CPI be today?

 

Until IT advances in recent years, cheques and credit pay-in slips were physically transported on night One by security vans, from the pay-in branch A to a central clearing hub just like a post office sorting centre. There it is sorted on Day Two and physically transported on Night Two to 10 thousand receiving branches. On Morning Three a cashier or three at the cheque's home branch Z will confirm signatures and dates and things like "words and figures do not agree", then alert the manager to manually decide whether to bounce or tolerate uncovered cheques. If bouncing, then that laborious physical journey is repeated in reverse, from branch Z eventually back to branch A. Hence in 1970 the £2 charge was well justified on grounds of manual cost, even if the bounce involved only a 50 pence cheque.

 

As IT advanced over the last 20 years, the physical travelling was reduced and manual intervention was reduced to a minimum, until today the costs of bouncing have been variously estimated at figures between 50 pence and £5. Instead of a local branch manager who knew about you, it is now impersonal nameless staff at vast Service Centres who in the first instance decide to bounce or not bounce, sometimes incomprehensible telephonists in India.

 

Even as bank costs fell sharply, bank charges rose sharply. Some banker or professor sympathetic to the cause could help us by producing objective evidence filling in the gaps, plotting the year-on-year rise of penalty charges while the OFT slept.

 

As well as comparisons across time, there are also comparisons across space. UK penalty charges are uniquely high. I understand US and Aussie prices are much lower, but I have to hand only a concrete figure of £3 charged in Ireland. Anyone with friends and relations in US, Canada, Aus, Singapore, etc could try and find out. I believe Tom Brennan's team have done research on comparative prices in the EU, so would have comprehensive figures there.

 

Such a credible comparison survey across time and space would be really helpful and would stand up in court. Better than saying to the judge,

 

"This price is too high -- I can really feel it in my bones, can't you?"

 

.


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Banks know to the penny the true IT cost of penalty charges, but guard it with their lives.

 

As the onus rests with claimants to prove that penalty charges are profit-making and therefore unlawful, the only option would be to draw comparisons across space and time. Claimants need to prove bouncing did not cost £39, or else his claim is not proven. Banks do not need to prove it did. Unless the claimant's case is good, the defendant need not get out of bed, as Kevin's opponent did not. Jog your dad's memories, ask your cousins overseas.

 

This question is not academic. Judges will want it answered in court, as Judge Cooke did with Kevin, i.e. how do you know bouncing a cheque does not cost £39?

 

Price Precedents

 

This question has not been given prominence because nobody had to face a judge until Kevin. That's not completely accurate, as CAGger barcote faced up to Egg in Oxford Court on 21st November 2006 and won. Himself a lawyer, barcote went to court armed with costings studies from USA and Aus pricing the charge at a fraction of the price submitted by Egg. Unlike the House of Commons and BBC evidence which was ruled as inadmissible in Berwick v Lloyds, the USA and Aus evidence submitted by barcote in this hearing was ruled by the judge as admissible. No account of the hearing is publicly availaable, but it appears an arbitrary compromise figure of £5 was agreed between the judge and barcote. Neither party wanted the case to be used by others as a battering ram, so detailed information remained muted.

 

In any recurrence of such a debate ib price I suggest that any claimant arriving without answers prepared will be at a disadvantage. I also suggest that actual prices charged in the marketplace, e.g. by a Dublin bank, will be more convincing than conclusions drawn by academic studies.

 

Success! Judgement AGAINST Egg...


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent post, Mistermind, and extremely helpful!

 

I'll contact friends in US and Aus and see what I can find out from there.

 

All the best - Adam.


I do my best to be helpful, but at the end of the day I'm not a professional - please seek further advice if you're not sure. On the other hand, if I have helped, please click my scales - thanks ;)

 

Current Claims (all for friends!) -

 

Abbey - over £4k - Court claim issued & AQ filed ('Tish vs Abbey'). Alloc'n Hearing 21 Sept - Claim stayed 29/8/07.

Cap One - just under £2k - WON (just over 2k!)('Tish vs Cap One')

Cap One - just under £1000 - WON (just over £1k) Nov 07 (JimmyBoy vs Cap One)

Lloyds TSB - £3.5k - Court claim issued, defence rec'd and AQ filed; Alloc'n hearing 7th Sept Claim stayed 29/8/07! (JimmyBoy vs Lloyds')

MBNA - over £1k for mis-sold PPI - WON - approx £1500(IpswichWitch vs MBNA . . .)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mistermind just wanted to let you know that the way you put things is fabulous.have read a few of your posts and will definately be following your advice about comparisons with banks charges in othr countries. since the banking industry is global i can see no reason for these not to be admissable evidence.time for a phonecall to my overseas aunt methinks. also if you get a chance please see my thread petcat v abbey. im at an early stage waiting for acknowledgement/defence from abbey and any interest or advice in the next few weeks would be welcome.clicked your scales ,think thats the least i can do!many thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

petcat,

 

While England slept

 

Thanks for your support. Inhabitants of this green and pleasant land have historically been insular in outlook ("Fog in channel, the continent isolated"). It would be unthinkable for a price to stand at 3 euros in France, but 39 euros in Germany. We have exactly that, in £3 for a cheque bounce in a Dublin bank, but £39 in Abbey Bank. I suspect 99% of the population do not know this, 99% of judges do not know this.

 

An ally from space

 

In addition to the essential T&C, I suggest that all claimant bundles would benefit from inclusion of the two Dublin T&Cs printed showing £3, to demonstrate that UK charges are the errant exception, not the norm.

 

An ally from time

 

A historical graph plotting the vertical rise of UK charges over 30 years would illustrate even more sharply how this insular price rise by stealth completely got out of hand while the OFT slept. Hyperinflationary charges are the enemy of the Chancellor, I cannot see who else would be sympathetic apart from the beneficiaries. However, historical prices year by year need to be backed up by documentary evidence, so this pre-internet research back to yesteryear will probably need a journalist or academic with access to library facilities, possibly in the City of London -- unless anybody has kept 30 years worth of back statements including a few bounces over the years, lol.

 

A frightened enemy

 

I suggest the best battle to win is one without casualties, where a demoralised enemy walks away. Even if the Dublin £3 figure does not get a chance to be aired in court, its presence in the bundle helps to enlighten the judge, and gives notice to the bank that topics they least want publicized stand ready to be publicized, by this claimant herself. So fight her at your own risk.

 

firstnew.gif Sticky:Is the bank taking your Benefits ? - I trust this is the thread you have read? I do not know this subject, so will leave it to those who do. I recall reading a post from a reputable Mod recently, that a certain letter will ensure the bank will keep their hands off your food money, unfortunately such warning needs to be repeated every week, said the Mod.

 

berwick v lloyds 15 may 2007. This thread last night contained a new Lloyds template letter now going the rounds..................

 

GL

miao, X


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Charge for breach vs Fee for service

 

My own opinion only -- if I speculated between the lines correctly, then Lloyds will not defend against reclaims for pure-bounce penalty charges which conferred no favour on the customer. They WILL defend against "service fees in response to the customer's implicit request for a new/increased overdraft" where they did honour an unsupported cheque/DD. Three outcomes of a trial:

 

(1) Case proven, claim awarded in full.

(2) Case unproven and dismissed.

(3) Some claims proven, some not proven, only proven claim awarded.

 

I tried several times without success to get a lawyer on CAG to answer if

 

YES - verdict (3) can occur in Small Claims Court,

NO - outcome (3) will trigger verdit (2), i.e. claimant loses everything.

 

If the latter, then the reclaims of safe with-bounce charges could be jeopardised in total by reclaims of unsafe without-bounce charges.

In all cases Contractual Interest should be limited to debit interest actually levied by the bank, accrued only on the charges reclaimed.

 

Mistermind - this makes great sense. If you are right, and I think you may well be, it does, however, seem to imply that claims including 'service charges' for paying cheques, D/Ds, S/Os etc and at the same time increasing the overdraft beyond its current limit may well fail, or at least be defended in Court, whilst claims that include only 'bounce only' charges may well succeed or at least not be defended in Court.

 

Would be very interested in other opinions on this - should we be ammending claims to include 'bounce only' charges?

 

Best regards - Adam


I do my best to be helpful, but at the end of the day I'm not a professional - please seek further advice if you're not sure. On the other hand, if I have helped, please click my scales - thanks ;)

 

Current Claims (all for friends!) -

 

Abbey - over £4k - Court claim issued & AQ filed ('Tish vs Abbey'). Alloc'n Hearing 21 Sept - Claim stayed 29/8/07.

Cap One - just under £2k - WON (just over 2k!)('Tish vs Cap One')

Cap One - just under £1000 - WON (just over £1k) Nov 07 (JimmyBoy vs Cap One)

Lloyds TSB - £3.5k - Court claim issued, defence rec'd and AQ filed; Alloc'n hearing 7th Sept Claim stayed 29/8/07! (JimmyBoy vs Lloyds')

MBNA - over £1k for mis-sold PPI - WON - approx £1500(IpswichWitch vs MBNA . . .)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this maybe useful, may not.

I have received 10 years worth of statements from LTSB.

Back in 1997 unauth'd O/D was charged at £6 now the same transgression costs £90 a mere 1400% increase.

 

Even if LTSB claim that the £6 was a one off as apposed to the £90 which is for 3 days then we are looking at £6 compared to £30, still 400% increase.


Be VERY careful whose advice you listen too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curlyben,

 

I believe this type of historical info is extremely helpful, perhaps you could scan it and post same with names/addresses obliterated, also make available to EVIDENCE@consumeractiongroup.co.uk.

 

Banks would rather die than reveal their true costs, so outsiders have to construct indirect evidence by inference. Price levels can be challenged in two ways:

 

1. It is above cost price contrary to Dunlop-v-Garage ruling. With banks refusing to reveal cost price, the more evidence is presented, the better a judge can decide on the balance of probabilities. If many objective signposts all point in the same direction, then the judge may allow in the absence of proof beyond a doubt that "this case has merit".

 

2. Supply of Goods and Service Act 1982 Section 15 - "Reasonable fee" question raised at Kevin's trial but not adequately answered.

 

Even allowing for a profit component inside a "service fee" the price is anti-competitive, and outlandishly higher than the Consumer Price Index rises, i.e. do UK banking charges reflect a true, free market? AIB which in its Dublin branch charges £3 for a bounce, in its UK branch charges £20, almost certainly carrying the same costs as in Dublin, using the same IT datastore. It could be libellous to suggest a price-fixing cartel in play, so far be it from me to suggest it. No, I have not said banks are operating a price-fixing cartel in the UK, perish the thought.

 

Consumer price inflation, 1947–2004 The National Office of Statistics says a shopping basket costing £18.30 in 1970 would have risen to £152 in 2004. We all know that banking operations, labour-intensive in 1970, have since become infinitely faster, sleeker and cheaper, employing fewer staff. Nevertheless if a bounce charge known to be £2 in 1970, rose at the same rate as household groceries, then by CPI it would have risen to £16.60 in 2004.

 

So where did the price of £39 come from?


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes once again you put this well.I totally agree that everyone should include those dublin t&cs in the bundle too.more attention has to be brought to this gross overinflation of charges by banks.thanks for your useful info. Miao back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know if anyone wants it but I've got the link to the report by Nicole Rish, the Consumer Law Centre Victoria (Australia) on unfair fees in Aus.

 

It's got some interesting reading and I'll gladly post the link if anyone wants it.

 

I can't get the two links in MM's first post to open, could you do them again cos I'd be interested to seet he t&c, Thankx.

 

I've got the report the Irish did into their charging system. Lots of blanks of confidential info but some interesting stuff nonetheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robdblynd,

 

Many thanks, I am sure many people would be interested and can use your link.

 

UK banks are one united monolith armed to the teeth, claimants are a spontaneous grassroots uprising, under-informed and under-equipped. All additional ammunition will help. In the absence of proof beyond a shadow of doubt, judges would give consideration to an aggregation of proof, each humble piece of information rowing its own weight.

 

The 2 Dublin banks T&C links:

 

http://www.accbank.ie/ul_fees_charges.html

 

http://www.aib.ie/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=ROIPersonalPortal/AIBContent_C/pp_article&c=AIBContent_C&cid=1136826345174&channel=P001


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.consumeraction.org.au/downloads/DL56.pdf

 

Try that, it's where I got the dowload and have printed off to highlight relevant bits in case a bundle is really needed.

 

I've got CMC at Leeds Mercantile on 28th June so have been doing CMI sheet. got most of bundle ready to go but am going to include this report and the Irish one, and will definitely have these two as well.

 

As you say, every little bit helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.consumeraction.org.au/downloads/DL56.pdf

 

Try that, it's where I got the dowload and have printed off to highlight relevant bits in case a bundle is really needed.

 

I've got CMC at Leeds Mercantile on 28th June so have been doing CMI sheet. got most of bundle ready to go but am going to include this report and the Irish one, and will definitely have these two as well.

 

As you say, every little bit helps.

 

Robdblynd,

 

Thanks ever so much, and best of luck in your court date. A man of your thoroughness ought to give them a drubbing.

 

Absolutely fab, all the more significant because this scholarly document was sponsored by the impartial Australian federal govenment.

For those not about to read through this 90-page pdf,

 

cheque bounce cost price in Aus was estimated at £1.50,

cheque bounce charge in Aus averaged at £15.

 

With IT costs comparable worldwide, UK costs ought to be in the same ballpark as £2. Aussie banks are greedy enough. UK banks appear to be more than twice as greedy.

 

This document was dated December 2004, hopefully someone with connections in Aus can update us, have those naughty banks stopped being naughty now?


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.consumeraction.org.au/downloads/DL56.pdf

 

Try that, it's where I got the dowload and have printed off to highlight relevant bits in case a bundle is really needed.

 

I've got CMC at Leeds Mercantile on 28th June so have been doing CMI sheet. got most of bundle ready to go but am going to include this report and the Irish one, and will definitely have these two as well.

 

As you say, every little bit helps.

 

Have you printed off ALL 40 sheets for your Court Bundle?? :o If so are you suggesting we all do this? :?

 

I have the two Irish T&C's - yes I had the same problem but managed to get the link to work in another thread Mistermind had posted on - I have my own T&C's plus the Morton one. I only printed off the two pages dipicting the costs.

Is there anything else I should include in my Court Bundle :-? ........................................please. Thank you.


amber_ellie :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amber, someone posted shareware on CAG which will convert acrobat .pdf to Word document, out of which cut-and-paste will be possible. I am sorry to disappoint you Amber, but the Aussie pdf is not 40 pages, but only 90 pages. Page 29 contains the Aussie charge prices, page 26 (I think) contains the Aussie cost price estimates. So only 2 pages of screen print will suffice, while providing the full Aussie link to convince any sceptic judge or bank defendant to view for himself.

 

I believe this Aussie report was probably used in Oxford Court, barcote v Egg hearing on 21st November 2006, and was ruled admissible by the judge (having been placed in the bundle?).

 

I am of the persuasion, that if you carry a kalashnikoff in one hand and a Rocket-propelled grenade in the other, neither needs be used as your opponent runs for the hills leaving a settlement sum behind.

  • Haha 1

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Mistermind. Sorry I meant to type 90, goodness knows why I put 40 but there you are :D .

 

Pages 27 talks about the Wallis Report, P29 Oz fee charges and P31 talks about costs for charges re dishonoured cheques. I'll print out these three pages with a link to the whole article.

 

Your figure of speech bring a smile to my face .................

...............if you carry a kalashnikoff in one hand and a Rocket-propelled grenade in the other, neither needs be used as your opponent runs for the hills leaving a settlement sum behind................ :D.

 

Thanks for your help :).


amber_ellie :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amber, Yes I did because I duplexed it so only 45 pages. Wanted to read all of it and didn't have time while at the computer so printed it off so I could read it later.

 

Mastermind, my thanks for your good wishes and your confidence in my ability. Just one point I thought to raise, despite the pseudonym I'm female. :)

 

I will now go and search for the other thread so I can download the Irish t&c's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Have read this post with great interest. I have been trying to search on the net for archives and have come across some pages from a journal about Uk banking reforms.

 

I'ts just a thought but would it not be worth contacting somewhere like the London School of Economics where they might hold archives with the sort of data you are looking for?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very well done midge61, just the sort of research tool.

 

Unfortunately it only covers the period 1870-1970. Up till the late 70's penalty charges were modest and justified. It was in the eighties, nineties, and even more so in the noughties, that IT-automated penalty charges were hijacked as a money-printing press or pocketpicking tool -- while the OFT slept.

 

London School of Economics, or the City Library would be the sort of place to chart the meteoric rise of penalty charges even as the true cost fell like a stone. Unfortunately I do not live in London.

 

Whereas fluctuating interest rates were consistently documented, the level of penalty charges tended not to be included in T&Cs. Repeated rises were generally notified discreetly by leaflets to customers who binned them, while banks stayed below the radar of the financial press.

 

We really need the long memories of oldtime bank staff who want to make a stand for justice and reason.


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Irish Tand C for Bank Of Ireland, Ulster Bank and AIB are probably the most relevant.

This is because they also have interests in Northeren Ireland (AIB known as First Trust bank).

If you could get fee rates for each, from "both sides of the border" it would definitely strengthen case, since charges in Northern Ireland are just set at similar level to other banks.

How can they argue that it costs less to process these "services" in Republic of Ireland than in Northern.

The difference in cost to customer is startling !!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Absolutely fab info. Is TSB Permanent in any way connected to Lloyds TSB?


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...