HELP!!! Link to Australian Default charges report, Nicole Rich

[Mistermind]

I was focussing more on where people have "gone wrong"...... i.e. to figure out all the places where I would likely slip up - and Judge Cook did mention a lot about Mr Berwick replying on speculative and media evidence as regards bank charges being misrepresentative of costs incurred. I have been surfing through google and couldn't find *any* industry nor regulator reports about charges (nor academic journal articles, as all this stuff is ironically in my field of research now!!)......so I was a little anxious until I saw your Australian report. I think it'll depend on how flexible the judge will be to receiving ideas from a parallel legal system...... but as you say the legal system is same as ours, and the banking industry structure is very similar.... so they're virtually identical.

 

Readers of this thread are invited to check out, and contribute to thread:

Appeal for price comparisons in space & time

Although the Berwick v Lloyds Approved Judgment does not say so explicitly, I have it from Kevin himself, that the House of Commons evidence and the BBC evidence (Whistleblower? Cynthesys figures?) were ruled by Judge Cooke as inadmissible, reason not known to me.

By contrast the Australian evidence already mentioned in this thread, plus USA evidence were presented in an Oxford Small Claims Court (barcote v Egg, 21st November 2006) and was ruled as admissible. What is more it inclined the judge towards the claimant's submission against Egg's submission, ending with an arbitrary settlement figure of £5 per charge. (Those were the days when Egg fought every claim as if their life depended on it. This win was practically the first known since April 2006, so barcote probably had low expectations, to win against Egg at all was a sensation. Since November however, Egg had a change of lawyers and an apparent change of heart, and wins now roll off a conveyor belt, several a week without need to even file legal paperwork.)

CAG member barcote appears to be a lawyer, but posted his one and only thread on his own successful Egg claim. As he made it clear he did not volunteer to be a battering ram, it is suggested that no PM be sent to him.

egg £5 judgement

Telegraph | Money | Banks face penalty shoot-out

Success! Judgement AGAINST Egg...

……

I also put evidence of investigations into American and Australian banks (reproduced below) which show the cost to financial institutions to be pence to single pounds.

………………

Reports referred to above:

.........

In a recent study undertaken in Australia [Nicole Rich, “Unfair fees: a report into penalty fees charged by Australian Banks] it was estimated that the cost of processing a dishonoured cheque by an Australian Bank was (generously) likely to be in the region of $3.00 to $6.00. A direct debit dishonour was estimated to be in the likely region of 54 cents. No data was published by the Australian banks to confirm or deny this. By reviewing the banks’ charges against the above figures, the study estimated that banks could be charging

a. between 5 to 16 times what it costs them to process a cheque dishonour.

b. between 64 to 92 times what it costs them to process a direct debit dishonour.

The study’s key findings stated that in its opinion the Australian Bank’s cheque and direct debit dishonour fees (bank charges) were likely to be penalties at law.

Further in an American study [1998 American Study on cheque dishonour fees by the Consumer Federation of America “Bounced Cheques : Billion Dollar profits II] (also referred to in the above Australian study) it had been estimated that the American’s Banks’ cost to process a dishonoured cheque was between US$ 0.50 and US$1.50 (estimated actual cost being 11 to 32 times less than the bank’s actual charge). To process a dishonoured direct debit payment was between US$0.48 and US$0.65 (estimated actual cost therefore being 9 to 11 times less than the banks’ actual charge).

If you can locate similar reports re: British banks this would of course be preferable but it is not a question of law here, only of establishing the likely cost to banks. I could not find any similar reports into British industry. The judge took these figures into consideration accepting that the banking industry in these countries was likely to be similar though of course not identical to our own.

[needmorehelp]

Hi Atlantic,

I promised to update the BB when we settled. Well they settled the first of the "children's" claims today - around £1700. She is going on to do a Masters so doesn't want to jeopodise this by continuing with the court action. The difference is only £300, so she may be right - a bird in the hand etc.

Trust all is well with you.

Best regards

[Kevboy_telford]

Although the Berwick v Lloyds Approved Judgment does not say so explicitly, I have it from Kevin himself, that the House of Commons evidence and the BBC evidence (Whistleblower? Cynthesys figures?) were ruled by Judge Cooke as inadmissible, reason not known to me.

 

The reason was conjecture. It wasnt a hard fact so he couldn't rely on it

hope that clears it helps!

[Atlantic]

well done needmorehelp - I'm happy things have worked out for you.... and your family.

 

I can understand her desire to draw it to a close - a masters is quite demanding and this claims stuff is quite a distraction. I know my supervisor is not best pleased with my "division of time" ...although am glad to say it worked out ok with RBS.;-)

 

The CC's do have a much much tougher reputation though....... although given you can apply compounding to them it sort of makes it worthwhile - but I am completely resigned to going all the way through the entire legal/court process with both of them before I see any sign of "realistic" payout!! Barclaycard are really bad....but then no surprise given the truly excessive charges they've been levying against all of us over the years!!

 

I hope everything with her masters goes well - and the cash'll make a nice bonus towards tuition fees!!!

[Mistermind]

Kevin, thanks, valuable info.