Victory over bank charges could open payout floodgates: Court backs customer over hef

[Legal Beagles]

A landmark court victory against Lloyds Bank over unfair overdraft charges could open the floodgates for a billion-pound payout to customers. A judge at Taunton County Court ruled that the bank was wrong to hit Oliver Foster-Burnell’s bank account with hefty rising fees that drove him ever deeper into debt. Penalties totalling more than £700 […]

More...

[CYNthesys]

Re: Victory over bank charges could open payout floodgates: Court backs customer over

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...raft-fees.html

[dogtired]

Re: Victory over bank charges could open payout floodgates: Court backs customer over

Subscribe

[jon1965]

Re: Victory over bank charges could open payout floodgates: Court backs customer over

I am really interested in this as I have two defaulted current accounts both with significant bank charges which the companies have so far refused to refund because they are in the T&C's . Two questions really
1) If the ruling comes back to apply to everyone what would I need to do to reclaim
2) Will it make a difference to creditors issuing proceedings on O/D's ( I suppose it would be easier to counterclaim the charges+interest)

[Fred]

Re: Victory over bank charges could open payout floodgates: Court backs customer over

I am really interested in this as I have two defaulted current accounts both with significant bank charges which the companies have so far refused to refund because they are in the T&C's . Two questions really
1) If the ruling comes back to apply to everyone what would I need to do to reclaim
2) Will it make a difference to creditors issuing proceedings on O/D's ( I suppose it would be easier to counterclaim the charges+interest)

I thought that it was & still is a possibility based on financial difficulties through the FOS...........although I have read cases where the bank has just caved in & paid up especially if your main account was with them........they have the evidence right in front its always worth a letter or two if only to see what they have to defend.

[stevemLS]

Re: Victory over bank charges could open payout floodgates: Court backs customer over

It's a nice idea - on the way to ending "free banking".

However, it is a decision made by a DDJ in the small claims track, it binds no-one.

And, reading the judgment, he makes is absolutely plain that he is making a decision on the specific facts and it has no application anywhere else.

I do love the way the media report legal judgments.

[dogtired]

Re: Victory over bank charges could open payout floodgates: Court backs customer over

I have tried with Halifax but got rejected, appealed through FOS but because it went far back the bank claimed that it was fair and FOS agreed, did not accept the decision, would I be able to do so again?
It would be over three grand mostly on OD charges, in the last few months with them they changed how the did this so was almost perminetly in the overdraft and even if it was within your agreed limit you still got charged.
Left them almost four years ago but had to settle the remaining overdraft , they did " let" me pay it but only had seven weeks to do so.

[jon1965]

Re: Victory over bank charges could open payout floodgates: Court backs customer over

It's a nice idea - on the way to ending "free banking".

However, it is a decision made by a DDJ in the small claims track, it binds no-one.

And, reading the judgment, he makes is absolutely plain that he is making a decision on the specific facts and it has no application anywhere else.

I do love the way the media report legal judgments.

But I understand that the judgement is being appealed so that it covers more than just the claimant. I am not keen on the way the Daily Fascist quotes two people who don't seem to have done anything to help this case . In fact for years another site has been screaming reclaim unfair bank charges but not telling anyone how to do it

[Amethyst]

Re: Victory over bank charges could open payout floodgates: Court backs customer over

It's a nice idea - on the way to ending "free banking".

However, it is a decision made by a DDJ in the small claims track, it binds no-one.

And, reading the judgment, he makes is absolutely plain that he is making a decision on the specific facts and it has no application anywhere else.

I do love the way the media report legal judgments.

There is no free banking... just banking with transparent fees or hidden charges.

There are numerous cases on here, particularly from lloyds, where people have court claims against them for overdraft debt, which have become so large simply because of the way the terms work - if you are on a limited income, make a mistake and go overdrawn, if you can't correct it immediately ( which very often is impossible unless you use your food budget to pay the charges off) you get more charges and it snowballs very very quickly. Many people who have claims against them from old Lloyds accounts are in exactly that position and ended up simply having to abandon their accounts because the charges ended up swallowing almost their entire income each month.

It is wrong, it is unfair and it needs sorting. It doesn't really matter what the price is if the consumer has zero control over how and when those charges are inflicted.

I came up with an idea a while back (when we were in the midst of the OFT v Abbey test case) that charges incurred should be invoiced rather than taken directly from your account. So each month you get a bill, which you have 30 days to pay (or not) and keeps you in control of your money and stops the devastation that the charges on charges on charges can cause.

It'd cost them too much to do it, but banks shouldn't be allowed to put you into the position where you have no option but to abandon the account and wait for them to default it (and thus stop charging you) before you can start making sensible arrangements to repay it.

[Fred]

Re: Victory over bank charges could open payout floodgates: Court backs customer over

I have tried with Halifax but got rejected, appealed through FOS but because it went far back the bank claimed that it was fair and FOS agreed, did not accept the decision, would I be able to do so again?
It would be over three grand mostly on OD charges, in the last few months with them they changed how the did this so was almost perminetly in the overdraft and even if it was within your agreed limit you still got charged.
Left them almost four years ago but had to settle the remaining overdraft , they did " let" me pay it but only had seven weeks to do so.

I would try again, see what the bank says & take it apart bit by bit, the criteria for fitting in "difficulty/difficulties" is quite simple, the bank needs to look at this & tell you why you don't fit.

As for the FOS they very rarely re-open old cases so you need to open a new one based on the new light of day & what the bank tells over matching the criteria of "difficulty" you did reject the old FOS decision ?

I would at first email the bank & get a point of contact, then discuss it with them in the relevant dept, most the folks I know found it easy to get a decision without the FOS so I would be interested to see what they think your circumstances really were at the time.

[stevemLS]

Re: Victory over bank charges could open payout floodgates: Court backs customer over

But I understand that the judgement is being appealed so that it covers more than just the claimant. I am not keen on the way the Daily Fascist quotes two people who don't seem to have done anything to help this case . In fact for years another site has been screaming reclaim unfair bank charges but not telling anyone how to do it

And, presumably a cross appeal.

[stevemLS]

Re: Victory over bank charges could open payout floodgates: Court backs customer over

There is no free banking... just banking with transparent fees or hidden charges.

There are numerous cases on here, particularly from lloyds, where people have court claims against them for overdraft debt, which have become so large simply because of the way the terms work - if you are on a limited income, make a mistake and go overdrawn, if you can't correct it immediately ( which very often is impossible unless you use your food budget to pay the charges off) you get more charges and it snowballs very very quickly. Many people who have claims against them from old Lloyds accounts are in exactly that position and ended up simply having to abandon their accounts because the charges ended up swallowing almost their entire income each month.

It is wrong, it is unfair and it needs sorting. It doesn't really matter what the price is if the consumer has zero control over how and when those charges are inflicted.

I came up with an idea a while back (when we were in the midst of the OFT v Abbey test case) that charges incurred should be invoiced rather than taken directly from your account. So each month you get a bill, which you have 30 days to pay (or not) and keeps you in control of your money and stops the devastation that the charges on charges on charges can cause.

It'd cost them too much to do it, but banks shouldn't be allowed to put you into the position where you have no option but to abandon the account and wait for them to default it (and thus stop charging you) before you can start making sensible arrangements to repay it.

I don't disagree with you that the charging system is unfair. The invoicing system sounds a good idea to me - they can always close the account if you don't pay.

There will always be people who use financial products irresponsibly, that is a fact not a judgement.

I think a simpler way would be for them to modify their systems so that the charge is applied for whatever misdeed you have done rather than on the balance and that part of the balance which comprises of charges is "ring fenced". So, you pay the charge for a bounced cheque or whatever, but you don't pay charges based on the balance, other than the interest.

It's probably a crap idea!

[meellis]

Re: Victory over bank charges could open payout floodgates: Court backs customer over

Before I ended up B/R I had a lloyds account that was always overdrawn and in the end probably 95% of what they were chasing me for was charges. I also had a pre-packaged Barclays account and ended up having to keep swapping between the two just so I had some money left after payments were made into them. I remember Barclays ringing me one day and telling me there had been £6000 worth of charges on my account over a year because I was always overdrawn. I told them that because I was being charged for the overdraught facility it would be foolish not to use what I was paying for. The thing is the general public need to understand all these tricks that all these financial institutions use to liberate us from our hard earned and then hide behind the "they were foolish with their money and now they are paying the cost" description. On some agreements there is a term that allows the lender to ask to increase the payments to cover costs, missed payments and penalties. I have indicated to a borrower in difficulty that that term should be argued as unfair because they have given themselves the right to ask for higher payments to cover these things but if they ever invoke it it is usually long after the damage has been done and easy to remedy. They do this I believe to seem caring but in reality to make as much out of the extra charges.

[EXC]

Re: Victory over bank charges could open payout floodgates: Court backs customer over

And, reading the judgment, he makes is absolutely plain that he is making a decision on the specific facts and it has no application anywhere else.

He suggested that his decision could apply to others in similar circumstances, of which there would be quite a few.

Having said that it may well be that other consumers who find themselves in circumstances similar to those of the Claimant in this case would seek to persuade another Judge that my Judgment is at least persuasive.

[Amethyst]

Re: Victory over bank charges could open payout floodgates: Court backs customer over

I don't disagree with you that the charging system is unfair. The invoicing system sounds a good idea to me - they can always close the account if you don't pay.

There will always be people who use financial products irresponsibly, that is a fact not a judgement.

I think a simpler way would be for them to modify their systems so that the charge is applied for whatever misdeed you have done rather than on the balance and that part of the balance which comprises of charges is "ring fenced". So, you pay the charge for a bounced cheque or whatever, but you don't pay charges based on the balance, other than the interest.

It's probably a crap idea!

No it's not a crap idea I agree with you and it's pretty much what I was saying with invoicing them, just I'm going on a bigger degree of separation.

I have to say though I had the 'irresponsibly'' tags people put on cases like this, Oli went £2.70 odd overdrawn , that's a mistake not being irresponsible. Lots of people end up making a mistake, whether £2 or £100, cheques being returned late, salary being paid late etc etc, then if you are on a hand to mouth type budge the odd extra £20 here and there can be impossible to recover from.

I reclaimed over £6k in bank charges from Abbey in 2006. I wasn't irresponsible to have incurred those charges just things were incredibly tight, and once you were charged one month, it meant the next months DD's also bounced and incurred more charges and other bills went unpaid to try and catch up with the charges. I wish I'd kept all the transaction lists because it would be quite interesting to see how much I had actually 'spent' over my overdraft and how much was a direct result of their charging structure and terms.