For those of you interested in reclaiming bank charges

There has been the first ruling on them - unbelievable!

Reuters - 28 minutes ago

LONDON (Reuters) - Lloyds TSB became the first British bank to defeat a court challenge by a customer seeking to claim back overdraft fees on Tuesday.


A district judge at Birmingham County Court dismissed a claim for more than 2,000 pounds in fees and interest from Lloyds customer Kevin Berwick on the grounds that charges levied by the bank were for a service, the Press Association reported.

"The court has agreed with us that these are charges for a service and not default or penalty fees as has been argued by others," Lloyds said in a statement.

Thousands of Britons have reclaimed bank charges in recent years, encouraged by an Office of Fair Trading investigation into charges and anecdotal evidence that banks are repaying charges in full and are reluctant to go to court.

Consumer campaigners said customers should continue reclaiming charges as Tuesday's decision did not set a precedent in the way that a High Court judgment would.

"People should not let today's decision put them off reclaiming their bank charges. This was a county court ruling and does not set a precedent," said Emma Bandey, personal finance campaigner for the Which? consumer association.

 

Windass in overdraft ban

Was on't beeb hours ago.

 

Has it been posted on this site?!

 

We got our Statements in this mornings post . Our lass as spent all of 3hrs going through them all' Reams of the buggers there is? Says shes sick of seeing paid referrals''.

Hope to buggery i get mine back . They'll be enough i reckon for a new van (second hand) or cheapish holiday....
....Goes to show eh ''....



(doh) ....

 

Keep your finances in order then!

FFS! It's a bloody business not a charity.

 

I meant

A Windass on Reuters as it was only on their site 28 mins ago according to your post.(givinfinger)

 

spoken like a true colleague

 

Thats not the point - the charges are against the law.

I'm sure they could make £3.4 billion instead of £3.8billion without causing as much misery.

They are making money out of the poorer end of the population also - which to me seems to be morally incorrect.

 

Its also morally incorrect to be going overdrawn and expect a cheap loan!

 

I think you've picked the wrong case to try and make your point, Chef.

""The court has agreed with us that these are charges for a service and not default or penalty fees as has been argued by others," Lloyds said in a statement.""

I interpret that as meaning in this particular instance the Bank charged for services provided rather than notification fees for going overdrawn without prior
authority. That's why the guy claiming a refund lost his case.

Besides, why do people think it's ok to effectively use other people's money to fund their lifestyle/business (which in essence is what going overdrawn without authority is)
and not have to pay for that privilege? As Eaststander says, Banks aren't charities - they are businesses. OK, you can argue the toss with the Banks that their charges are
excessive or unreasonable - but that's not happening in the majority of cases as folk are claiming for FULL refunds of the charges, mainly egged on by the media.

Whatever transpires with all these claims for refunds, if the Banks end up losing the argument, it'll only end up with everybody being charged for bank facilities - which means
those who keep their finances in good order and in credit will suffer as well as those that don't!

 

You're right i should .... (Y) ....

And your right on the Banks not been a charity.... S) ....Cor i think you could be the one .... (babyhaha) ....
....




(jadore) ....

 

RE: I think you've picked the wrong case to try and make your point, Chef.

I've been overdrawn once, got charged, no problem.

It's people that see the overdraft as there to use all the time that gets me, it's an emergency facility, not to increase your salary buy a grand a month!

And in the bank agreement signed when you open an account it details what charges will be incurred and when, so you've signed the agreement, I really don't see how they can be challenged.

 

i dont know the full details of the case.

the point is that the charges can not be punitive under unfair contract terms act 77 . the charges are punitive, they should just be made to cover costs and that is it. the banks are profiting from the charges. therefore, there would be no need for any "losses" to be passed over to other customers - the banks should simply make less profits.

the judge may have decided that the charges weren't punitive from that statement, but i dont think its clear either way - it could have been a decision on the facts or a point of law.

 

RE: i dont know the full details of the case.

So what would the charge be to merely cover costs? And in what way would that discourage people from going overdrawn rather than thinking they can have a cheap loan?

 

you aren't getting a "cheap loan"

because you are still paying interest on the money which goes overdrawn. thus, it would be equal to a loan.

that isn't what is in dispute - its the punitive charges.

 

Well I'll agree to disagree

because I agree with punitive charges to discourage people from going overdrawn

 

see post above

you would still go overdrawn and pay interest - you just should not be punished for doing so.

 

because it says by statute that you should not be charged

no contract can get around that legislation.

 

OK - fair enough.

But the law states otherwise

 

Are you seriously saying their is a UK law that says Banks cannot charge for folk going overdrawn?

Sorry - that's blx - no such law exists. If it did then the Banks would be straight into the courts to contest restraint of trade.

Banks can charge for their services (which includes overdrafts) in the same way as other businesses charge for their services.
An overdraft facility these days is effectively a 'buffer' for both the banks and their customers - it avoids the necessity for the
banks to contact their customers when they go £1 overdrawn (as used to be the case 20-30 years ago) and it gives the
customer the peace of mind that if they go marginally overdrawn the bank will cover it.

The charges that are the subject of this latest media-driven furore, in the main relate to things like charging £35 for overdraft
letters, charges for bouncing cheques/direct debits and the like. The Banks outline these charges when customers open accounts
with them, so ignorance of them is no excuse really. It's fair enough for customers to query the scale of these charges e.g.
does it really cost £35 to send out a letter?, and challenge that in the courts if necessary - but that's not happening here.
Folk are claiming full refunds based on the fact they think it's unfair to be charged in the first place.

What gets me is... say you've got £1000 per month to live on, and you spend £1500 in that month - who do you think funds
the additional £500 that you withdraw from the Bank? Essentially it's other customers who maintain their deposits at the Banks -
so unless you've got prior authority to borrow that extra £500 you're effectively stealing it from other people. I know that's a
simplistic approach but that's one of the basics of banking. And folk then complain because they get charged to do that?