Bank Charges Consumer Charter

[Michael Browne]

This has been posted on both Penalty Charges and MSE:

 

This is just one part of a cohesive strategy. Penaltycharges.co.uk is joining the CAG and MSE in working together on this. Collectively we aim

 

i. To officially request to be a party in the OFT case

ii. To lobby using the above charter to ensure a decent outcome

iii. To test whether the stay will actually hold in the courts. It is very doubtful it will

iv. Anything else that comes up - there is a meeting to discuss action very soon.

 

 

Bank Charges Consumer Charter

What's it about?

 

Below is a rough draft of a bank charges consumer charter, being worked on in conjunction with consumeractiongroup.co.uk and penaltycharges.co.uk. The aim is to create a petition (probably via the Govt website) to ask for the following key points to be incorporated in any settlement with the banks. This is a very rough draft; I wanted to open it for feedback and suggested improvements. Please remember this is deliberately a broad brush approach.

 

Martin

 

The Bank Charges Consumer Charter

DRAFT, DRAFT, DRAFT

 

The OFT and banks have agreed to go to the High Court to decide an case in principle. In the meantime a virtual moratorium has been put on reclaiming bank penalty charges. All the relevant parties should take on board the following Bank Charges Reclaiming Consumer Charter. We do not believe the moratorium should’ve been enacted, however it is important safeguards are put in place to protect consumer rights.

 

• New charge levels must apply to past as well as current customers. The bank charges settlement shouldn’t follow the OFT credit card ruling, which 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 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%, in an identical way to that applied for successful reclaimants in Courts.

• All credit file defaults from 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.

 

• The Consumer Groups behind this revolution must be represented. The lack of consultation with the three main consumer groups involved in bank charges reclaiming (penaltycharges.co.uk, consumeractiongroup.co.uk and moneysavingexpert.com) prior to the test case announcement was reprehensible. The relevant groups, who between them have helped millions of consumers, should be allowed to play a full part in any settlement and negotiation discussions.

 

• Bank charges should be stayed. The act of reclaiming bank charges has been put on hold while we await the high court decision. Considering the banks are estimated to have paid out over £500 million in penalty charge reclaiming so far this year; this tacit admittance of a problem means it is inappropriate to put a hold on those reclaiming, without putting a hold on the banks continuing to pay out.

 

• 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. We will not accept the continuation of this practice under any circumstances.

• Five pounds is a fair maximum amount for bank charges. The banks have been charging £30 for bank charges, an amount that is totally disproportionate to their actual costs. Most generous estimates are that £2.50 is the appropriate cost, yet by allowing a five pound charge this gives banks the appropriate 100% mark up which is the typical reasonable markup f any other UK High Street business.

 

Submitted by Martin Lewis of MoneySavingExpert.com, Marc Gander of Consumeractiongroup.co.uk and Stephen Hone of penaltycharges.co.uk

[Noddy73]

Great. Really happy now.

 

Will donate if you need it.

 

Glad that Martin, Marc and Stephen are working together.

 

I am in court on 24 Aug so soon the better for Removal of Stay.

[nicsussex]

Good work - but why the reference to 6 years in point 1?

[pward33]

Sensational stuff, it's a truly astonishing achievement to have put all this together so quickly, particularly given that three different groups are involved. To say I'm impressed is an understatement

[deadlykiss]

sounds great ,, agrees with pward ,, very impressed

[Kinc]

I would also suggest that as an addition to a petition on the gov.uk site, maybe the clever guys round here could draft a letter that everyone can send to their MP, telling them that if they don't kick up a fuss over this, then I won't vote for you next time round. Parties losing just 2% in a political party poll can cause policy change and ya never know, possibly dodgy dealings (with big money),

 

So, with Gordon Boy thinking about calling an early election because he's up in the poll's, we might wanna send him a message through his foot soliders that this could be his 'poll tax' by proxy, if he doesn't included 2 million+ real people in a trial to do with something that is 'plain and simply unfair' to them and more.

[adamc6671]

Hi All

 

EXCELLENT idea. However, one comment re. the following -

 

"• Bank charges should be stayed. The act of reclaiming bank charges has been put on hold while we await the high court decision. Considering the banks are estimated to have paid out over £500 million in penalty charge reclaiming so far this year; this tacit admittance of a problem means it is inappropriate to put a hold on those reclaiming, without putting a hold on the banks continuing to pay out. "

 

Should the last sentence read ". . without putting a hold on the banks continuing to apply charges." ???

 

All the best - Adam

[Destinyofsouls]

This has been posted on both Penalty Charges and MSE:

 

This is just one part of a cohesive strategy. Penaltycharges.co.uk is joining the CAG and MSE in working together on this. Collectively we aim

 

i. To officially request to be a party in the OFT case

ii. To lobby using the above charter to ensure a decent outcome

iii. To test whether the stay will actually hold in the courts. It is very doubtful it will

iv. Anything else that comes up - there is a meeting to discuss action very soon.

 

 

Bank Charges Consumer Charter

What's it about?

 

Below is a rough draft of a bank charges consumer charter, being worked on in conjunction with consumeractiongroup.co.uk and penaltycharges.co.uk. The aim is to create a petition (probably via the Govt website) to ask for the following key points to be incorporated in any settlement with the banks. This is a very rough draft; I wanted to open it for feedback and suggested improvements. Please remember this is deliberately a broad brush approach.

 

Martin

 

The Bank Charges Consumer Charter

DRAFT, DRAFT, DRAFT

 

The OFT and banks have agreed to go to the High Court to decide an case in principle. In the meantime a virtual moratorium has been put on reclaiming bank penalty charges. All the relevant parties should take on board the following Bank Charges Reclaiming Consumer Charter. We do not believe the moratorium should’ve been enacted, however it is important safeguards are put in place to protect consumer rights.

 

• New charge levels must apply to past as well as current customers. The bank charges settlement shouldn’t follow the OFT credit card ruling, which 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 is reached, customers must be allowed to reclaim all amounts above that for the prior 6 years. Until the banks declare their true costs, we should claim it all back

 

• 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.

I would prefer to claim it back. I would like to see my 6 yrs statements and know that I am getting every penny back I am entitled to.

• Repayments should include 8% statutory interest. Repaid charges should include interest at 8%, in an identical way to that applied for successful reclaimants in Courts. Agree

 

• All credit file defaults from 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.

 

• The Consumer Groups behind this revolution must be represented. The lack of consultation with the three main consumer groups involved in bank charges reclaiming (penaltycharges.co.uk, consumeractiongroup.co.uk and moneysavingexpert.com) prior to the test case announcement was reprehensible. The relevant groups, who between them have helped millions of consumers, should be allowed to play a full part in any settlement and negotiation discussions. Absolutely 100%. Plus should have a say in the proceedings as expert witnesses.

 

• Bank charges should be stayed. The act of reclaiming bank charges has been put on hold while we await the high court decision. Considering the banks are estimated to have paid out over £500 million in penalty charge reclaiming so far this year; this tacit admittance of a problem means it is inappropriate to put a hold on those reclaiming, without putting a hold on the banks continuing to pay out. Rather than that, I would like to see the stay lifted on claims. I personally have around 15K in claims.

• 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. We will not accept the continuation of this practice under any circumstances.

 

• Five pounds is a fair maximum amount for bank charges. The banks have been charging £30 for bank charges, an amount that is totally disproportionate to their actual costs. Most generous estimates are that £2.50 is the appropriate cost, yet by allowing a five pound charge this gives banks the appropriate 100% mark up which is the typical reasonable markup f any other UK High Street business.

 

Submitted by Martin Lewis of MoneySavingExpert.com, Marc Gander of Consumeractiongroup.co.uk and Stephen Hone of penaltycharges.co.uk

regards,

DOS

[Destinyofsouls]

I tried to put a petition on the downing st site to overule the FSA regulation. It was rejected because ' there was another identical petition on there'

 

Looked for hours but could not see one

[PeterAnderson]

Subscribing

 

WELL DONE GUYS

[jules1973]

subscribe.

 

keep up the good work

[McIavelli]

Just subscribing

[Destinyofsouls]

did you know you can click the top of each thread where it says thread tools and in the drop down box, click subscribing, and hey presto you're subscribed

[jules1973]

I would also suggest that as an addition to a petition on the gov.uk site, maybe the clever guys round here could draft a letter that everyone can send to their MP, telling them that if they don't kick up a fuss over this, then I won't vote for you next time round. Parties losing just 2% in a political party poll can cause policy change and ya never know, possibly dodgy dealings (with big money),

 

So, with Gordon Boy thinking about calling an early election because he's up in the poll's, we might wanna send him a message through his foot soliders that this could be his 'poll tax' by proxy, if he doesn't included 2 million+ real people in a trial to do with something that is 'plain and simply unfair' to them and more.

 

I agree, does anyone know of any MP's that are on our side? I know there is a lim dem one which i could probably find out details on, but dont know of any Labour ones that are looking out for us, I really think that Kinc has come up with a good idea, that may just help this huge and worthwhile cause.

[McIavelli]

did you know you can click the top of each thread where it says thread tools and in the drop down box, click subscribing, and hey presto you're subscribed

 

I do now DoS

 

I've clicked your scales for you

 

Best Regards

 

McIavelli

[McIavelli]

Come on mods, get your heads together & compose a letter for our MP's

I agree, does anyone know of any MP's that are on our side? I know there is a lim dem one which i could probably find out details on, but dont know of any Labour ones that are looking out for us, I really think that Kinc has come up with a good idea, that may just help this huge and worthwhile cause.

 

In any case, it can't do any harm; This campaign affects our lives right now; Furthermore, once they realise the size of the groundswell of opinion & the votes to be had (or lost) on the back of it, politicians being the self serving, manipulitive, power hungry individuals that they are (hmmm sounds like my namesake heh heh), will come onside.

 

Well we DO live in a democracy don't we?

[granby]

as was noted someone has put a petition on the p m.s webby

but he states that they are "illegal" who ever it was could you please try and edit it to "unlawful"

there is also the step of writing to your local mp or going to their surgery's

[Destinyofsouls]

I do now DoS

 

I've clicked your scales for you

 

Best Regards

 

McIavelli

 

 

Thanks appreciated

[vincymum]

This has been posted on both Penalty Charges and MSE:

 

This is just one part of a cohesive strategy. Penaltycharges.co.uk is joining the CAG and MSE in working together on this. Collectively we aim

 

i. To officially request to be a party in the OFT case

ii. To lobby using the above charter to ensure a decent outcome

iii. To test whether the stay will actually hold in the courts. It is very doubtful it will

iv. Anything else that comes up - there is a meeting to discuss action very soon.

 

 

Bank Charges Consumer Charter

What's it about?

 

Below is a rough draft of a bank charges consumer charter, being worked on in conjunction with consumeractiongroup.co.uk and penaltycharges.co.uk. The aim is to create a petition (probably via the Govt website) to ask for the following key points to be incorporated in any settlement with the banks. This is a very rough draft; I wanted to open it for feedback and suggested improvements. Please remember this is deliberately a broad brush approach.

 

Martin

 

The Bank Charges Consumer Charter

DRAFT, DRAFT, DRAFT

 

The OFT and banks have agreed to go to the High Court to decide an case in principle. In the meantime a virtual moratorium has been put on reclaiming bank penalty charges. All the relevant parties should take on board the following Bank Charges Reclaiming Consumer Charter. We do not believe the moratorium should’ve been enacted, however it is important safeguards are put in place to protect consumer rights.

 

• New charge levels must apply to past as well as current customers. The bank charges settlement shouldn’t follow the OFT credit card ruling, which 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 is reached, customers must be allowed to reclaim all amounts for the prior 6 years up to the date of the decision. Special consideration should be given to the most vunerable who have had income related benefits such as Income Support, Child Benefit, Attendance Allowance, Unemployment Benefit, Invalid Care Allowance, Disability Living Allowance, (to name but a few) automatically taken from their accounts to pay these disproportianately high charges, which under S.187 of Social Security Administration Act 1992 are alienable. These payments by their very nature and government legislation have all been directed to be paid through bank accounts, which were believed to be the safest route for claimants receiving essential help. In reality it has just left them even more vunerable to abuses of power where the relationship is heavily weighted in the banks favour, and the customer has little if no power to negotiate at all.

 

• 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%, in an identical way to that applied for successful reclaimants in Courts.

 

• All credit file defaults from 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.

 

• The Consumer Groups behind this revolution must be represented. The lack of consultation with the three main consumer groups involved in bank charges reclaiming (penaltycharges.co.uk, consumeractiongroup.co.uk and moneysavingexpert.com) prior to the test case announcement was reprehensible. The relevant groups, who between them have helped millions of consumers, should be allowed to play a full part in any settlement and negotiation discussions.

 

• Bank charges should be stayed. The act of reclaiming bank charges has been put on hold while we await the high court decision. Considering the banks are estimated to have paid out over £500 million in penalty charge reclaiming so far this year; this tacit admittance of a problem means it is inappropriate to put a hold on those reclaiming, without putting a hold on the banks continuing to pay out.

 

• 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. We will not accept the continuation of this practice under any circumstances.

 

• Five pounds is a fair maximum amount for bank charges. The banks have been charging £30 for bank charges, an amount that is totally disproportionate to their actual costs. Most generous estimates are that £2.50 is the appropriate cost, yet by allowing a five pound charge this gives banks the appropriate 100% mark up which is the typical reasonable markup f any other UK High Street business.

 

Submitted by Martin Lewis of MoneySavingExpert.com, Marc Gander of Consumeractiongroup.co.uk and Stephen Hone of penaltycharges.co.uk

 

 

 

Just my 2 pennies worth. In the name of justice claimants should be placed as far as possible in the same position as they would have been in had it not been for the extraction of monies by the banks to pay such charges. Please feel free to comment.

[pward33]

"• Bank charges should be stayed. The act of reclaiming bank charges has been put on hold while we await the high court decision. Considering the banks are estimated to have paid out over £500 million....

 

According to the Guardian today, new figures suggest that the amount paid out is closer to an astonishing £1bn! See:

 

Bank charge refunds may have hit £1bn | | Guardian Unlimited Business

[Michael Browne]

• Bank charges should be stayed. The act of reclaiming bank charges has been put on hold while we await the high court decision. Considering the banks are estimated to have paid out over £500 million in penalty charge reclaiming so far this year; this tacit admittance of a problem means it is inappropriate to put a hold on those reclaiming, without putting a hold on the banks continuing to pay out.

Presumably this should read 'levy charges'

[spicester]

I don't know the legal ins and outs of the wording etc but I just have to congratulate the admins of all three groups for pulling together on this one. United we stand etc etc.

 

Well Done we are all right behind you!!!

[steven4064]

Bank charges should be stayed.

The act of reclaiming bank charges has been put on hold while we await the high court decision. Considering the banks are estimated to have paid out over £500 million in penalty charge reclaiming so far this year; this tacit admittance of a problem means it is inappropriate to put a hold on those reclaiming, without putting a hold on the banks continuing to pay out.

Shouldn't this also incluse a request/demand that if there is a moratorium in claims there should also be a moratorium on charges? (ie £0 not £5 pendingthe outcome of the case)

 

Also, I have a business account with NatWest where I have to pay (preumably a fair price) for each transaction. They charge me 38p for paying a DD via BACS. It cannot cost them more than that NOT to pay it!

[Vital Spark]

Just my 2 pennies worth. In the name of justice claimants should be placed as far as possible in the same position as they would have been in had it not been for the extraction of monies by the banks to pay such charges. Please feel free to comment.

Couldn't agree more vincymum.

 

Why the 8% and not the compound for which moderators were asking us to claim?

 

Maybe I'm too cynical but I'd like to know the OFT's funding source? I wouldn't put it past any governmnet to get involved to sweeten their standing with the banks.

 

Could be we'll all lose out.

 

So what's the Scotland situation? Our laws are different?

[fzrkitten]

The link to the petition that was already on the government website is this one:

Petition to: Ensure UK citizens have the right to recapture illegal bank charges up until the day a UK court find them legal.

 

it was on vitalsparks thread.

 

BW,