FSA To Review Waiver

[pjdavies2000]

I'm suprised they didn't argue on the 'litigation in process' points of their 101 reasons why we don't accept complaints policy!

 

I would argue that you are not arguing dissatisfaction with their policy, but complaining at the biased nature of their policy, which directly affects you as both a consumer and as a litigant against one of the named banks given leniancies by yourselves.

 

They can wriggle and worm - just not forever!

 

Peter

[muggyno1]

From Martin Lewis' Moneysavingexpert site

The Bank Charges Reclaiming Charter

MoneySavingExpert.com, ConsumerActionGroup.co.uk & PenaltyCharges.co.uk

 

The regulator, the FSA has suspended bank charges reclaiming awaiting a court decision based on the Office of Fair Trading’s agreed test case with the banks. This decision was taken without any consultation with the consumer groups who have been championing bank charges reclaiming.

 

The three campaigning groups behind this charter, have or are helping between them well over 1.5 million people reclaim and ask all politicians, decision makers, bank customers and shareholders to consider the following.

 

• Five pounds is a fair maximum amount for bank charges. Banks have been charging around £30 for penalty charges; this is totally disproportionate to their actual costs. Even generous estimates suggest £2.50 is an appropriate cost, so a five pound maximum is a more than generous limit.
  
• Penalty charge structures leave finances irrevocably damaged. Often penalty charges occur in batches, a simple shopping trip and miscalculation of how much is left in an account, can result in £100s in charges. This then snowballs, as people don’t have the resources to pay the charges and are thus charged more. The banks make over £1 billion a year from these charges, which often irrecoverably destroy peoples finances.
  
• Bank accounts are obligatory & there’s no competition. In the modern age, there is little choice but to have a bank account; both employer and social security offices rarely accept an alternative. Yet there is no competitive market for bank charges, all banks charge similar amounts.
  
• Bank should not be allowed to levy charges during the stay. Banks have already paid out over £500 million to reclaimers; a sum indicative of the fragility of their case. The consumer has not been served by putting a hold on reclaiming cases, meanwhile banks continue to levy these charges, which continues to debilitate people’s finances. The hold on bank charges reclaiming should be lifted, but if not the levying of charges by the banks should also be put on hold.
  
• Any agreed new charge levels must apply to past as well as current customers. The OFT credit card ruling in 2006 indicated a maximum £12 charge, yet omitted to infer that those who had previously been charged more should be allowed to reclaim it. When a new settlement figure (of no more than £5) is reached, customers must be allowed to reclaim all amounts above that for the prior 6 years.
  
• Payouts should be made automatically, without request. Banks have taken money from their customers without asking; when the Courts rule these charges are unlawful, they should be made to pay them back without the need for customers to request it. If this does not happen, there’s been little benefit to consumers of this test case and moratorium.
  
• Repayments should include 8% statutory interest. Repaid charges should include interest at 8% the rate applied to successful reclaimants in the Courts. Interest should also be compounded.
  
• All credit file defaults resulting from unfair penalty charges must be deleted. Banks must agree that all default records that have been placed on credit files due to unathorised overdraft charges/penalty charges should be wiped.
  
• There should be an immediate moratorium on all default entries. During the period of the OFT litigation we require there to be an immediate moratorium on the placing of defaults on the credit record of any customers in respect of any sum which is comprised either wholly or substantially of charges.

More info on bank charges reclaiming

 

This is supposedly the second draft after all of the feedback Martin Lewis has received. I hope that no one responsible on this site is going to endorse this. I think that it is highly damaging to both our campaigns and potentially the test case, particularly the first paragraph on a fair level of charges.

 

Is it just me or do others feel this way?

 

Muggy

[jules1973]

I agree, if we allow them to have the £5.00 mark up then it will creep up again and again and we will be back to where we are now. It should be taken out as the banks should not even be making a 1p profit. they should be charging us the pennies that it costs them each time and no more.

[muggyno1]

Well said Jules. And I thought that the whole point was that these charges are unlawful. This charter seems to be undermining that very point.

 

Muggy

[jules1973]

I agree with some of the other points on the charter but i really do hope they dont go with point 1. It feels like we are backing down and we are not. Our case has been that theya re unlawful and should not be making a profit, now we are basically telling them its okay to make a profit but only a small one.

[Destinyofsouls]

From Martin Lewis' Moneysavingexpert site

 

This is supposedly the second draft after all of the feedback Martin Lewis has received. I hope that no one responsible on this site is going to endorse this. I think that it is highly damaging to both our campaigns and potentially the test case, particularly the first paragraph on a fair level of charges.

 

Is it just me or do others feel this way?

 

Muggy

 

I refer my honourable friend to my previous answer

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/107548-office-fair-trading-test-42.html#post1069866

[muggyno1]

Thanks again destiny. Let's hope this gets more visibility and comment.

 

Muggy

[jules1973]

lets hope the powers that be listen and change the charter again

[ohoh4312]

Our case has been that theya re unlawful and should not be making a profit, now we are basically telling them its okay to make a profit but only a small one.

Precisely!!

 

This makes it sound like 1.5 million "mugs" have endorsed this - well I know I haven't, and won't.

 

Aren't we supposed to be pushing for actual disclosure, not telling them how much we are happy (!) for them to charge us??

 

And isn't the whole point that a charge which exceeds the actual cost to the Charger is therefore a Penalty charge and unlawful??

 

NO PROFIT SHOULD BE MADE, whether it be £34.50 or £4.50, it's still a damn profit.

 

God I'm angry.

 

Jo xx

[Destinyofsouls]

From Martin Lewis' Moneysavingexpert site

 

This is supposedly the second draft after all of the feedback Martin Lewis has received. I hope that no one responsible on this site is going to endorse this. I think that it is highly damaging to both our campaigns and potentially the test case, particularly the first paragraph on a fair level of charges.

 

Is it just me or do others feel this way?

 

Muggy

You're on your own, they all love it here

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/108233-bank-charges-consumer-charter.html?highlight=The+Bank+Charges+Reclaiming+Charter

[muggyno1]

Well said Jo. You're right to be angry.

 

Muggy.

[MacBoy]

Is it just me or do others feel this way?

The latter, Muggy - well certainly in my case and other CAG-gers I have been speaking to. An extremely presumptuous cave-in IMO. How dare he presume to speak for us all with that document?

 

Rhetorical answer - presumably to mollify an awful lot of MSE members who seem to think that people who get charges only have themselves to blame

[muggyno1]

Thanks Mac. I hope none of the CAG site 'owners' are tepmted to sign up to this. They should demand fundamental changes or withdraw cooperation on the charter.

 

By the way, a similar discussion going on here.

 

Cheers

 

Muggy.

[MacBoy]

If they ever brought back 'Catch-Phrase' I think he'd be a cert to front it.

[kennythecelt]

Still pondering...............

 

Don't like reference to 6 years. Why mention it? Don't think it needs to be. Someone mentioned that already and I agree. There is a difference of opinion between MSE and CAG on that one.

 

Banks will make profits on current accounts, one way or another though, but should not penalise. We cannot conceed that what has happened has been unlawful- no movement on that at all.

 

Martin is one for the cameras and has the swagger with his journalistic background. He is enjoying himself and I feel a tad nervous about him.

[muggyno1]

Does he have the 'cojones' for the fight? Is that word allowed?

 

Muggy

[Destinyofsouls]

Does he have the 'cojones' for the fight? Is that word allowed?

 

Muggy

 

 

it's spanish as in

 

¿Él ha conseguido las cojones para él?

Speak Spanish Cagbot?

[muggyno1]

Hi all,

 

I have mildly butchered the charter and put my version here. If the CAG 'owners' want to put their names to something maybe that would be better, but I'm not completely happy with it.

 

Muggy

[The Phantom]

Does any one have any information on banks in other countries; whether they levy similar charges on customers' accounts for purported 'breaches of contract/agreement'?

 

In my country banks will usually charge a fee for operating a current account and then small fees for certain services like account to account transfers etc

But you can shop around and see which bank is best for you

The bank I am still with is completely free though, but it is a member's bank and you have to join by buying into it. That used to be approx 50 Euro when I did it many moons ago (we didn't even have the Euro then), not sure how much they charge now, but it is always worth it, because then there are no other charges for operating the account and when opening a current account you get an automatic o/d. When I was still in my home country, earing those wages and benefiting from those far cheaper costs of living I never used this overdraft facility, I only got into serious maoney trouble in the UK (low wages / high costs of living) but there would be no charge for it.

I have been thinking of moving my banking back home, but not sure how practicable that would be with mortgage payments etc

[MacBoy]

Muggy

 

I think it's good that you're drilling down into the detail but would like to add my own perspective on this - which is that there's no need for a 'charter' at all:.

 

• Charters, voluntary codes of practice, call them what you will; are the refuges of scoundrels. The LAW and regulation is what is what needs to be clarified here. That is what must back up the relationship we have with our banks
  

 

• Do people really think the banks won't rip Martin's 'Chamberlain Declaration' to pieces? It will be used as a tool to commit even more sharp practice if adopted
  

• Why is he hell-bent on destroying the case to claim beyond six years -"remember the 'six year rule", folks!" Who is he to interpret the Limitations Act?
  

 

• His assertion that "£5 is a fair penalty charge" is not only based in incorrect 'sound bite' mathematics; but it also serves to legitimise the charges he's supposed to be fighting (caped crusader that he is)
  

I'm not saying that he doesn't do good in a lot of ways (I have also posted positively about him) - but this isn't one of them. He is clouding the issue with his tabloid populism and oversimplifying the issue massively.

 

Rip it up and think again, Mr. Lewis...

[MacBoy]

The concession thinking behind this charter reminds me of the old Dr Seuss cartoon satirising appeasement of the Nazis: "One more lollypop and you can all go home..."

 

The banks aren't Nazis of course But they don't have our best interests at heart either

 

[muggyno1]

Mac,

 

You are absolutely right on all counts, and it should be ripped up. I am astounded that more CAGers are not complaining that the site owners appear to be putting their signatures to such a damaging document.

 

However, they DO appear to be doing just that. My altering the document was an attempt at least to make them realise what a load of old w**k was in it. Fat chance, not a murmur from anyone. I think they are all hibernating (is it winter?).

 

Stopping this document completely is the best thing but if we can't maybe we can try to ensure that it is less damaging. If it goes out like this with the names of all three sites on it we'll all be in the s**t!

 

Muggy

[MacBoy]

The response from the site owners is deafening, Muggy... I'd like to know what they think; and whether or not they are going to come off the fence and advocate it.

 

Perhaps we must wait until Mr Lewis decides to 'launch' it.

[MacBoy]

"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time..." Neville Chamberlain, 1938

 

 

 

 

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last..." Winston Churchill

[muggyno1]

I can gear the snap snap of powerful jaws!

 

Muggy