Banks lose overdraft charges case

"John Anderton" wrote

Of couse there's a debt (in the case that was cited)...

If a bank has inappropriately taken money out of a customer's account, then the bank owes the customer that money back. That is a debt.

Reply to
Tim
Loading thread data ...

But I keep my savings in a different place from my current account to get a better rate.

Reply to
Jonathan Bryce

Do you have a cite for that ? I know unfair contract terms are unenforcable but this is not about enforcing a current contract if the customer has paid the charges.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

A disadvantaged customer is always going to have to pay the charges before he complains. Why should he lose his right to a refund because he complains after 6 months instead of 6 hours? (As I said, he does lose this right after 6 years)

Or perhaps you think that he should be expected to initiate court action to remove the unfair tems before he signs up (because in MegaBank v LittleMan, he has absolutely zero chance of having them removed by negotiation)?

(Hint, the reason that we have UTCCA 1999, is so that he doesn't have to try!)

tim

Reply to
tims next home

No, he/she doesn't and many people haven't.

I don't know he doesn't, that's why I asked for a cite.

No, he can, as many have, refuse to pay on grounds that the contract is unfair.

What's UTCCA 1999 ? (or did you mean UTCCR 1999

formatting link
1999/19992083.htm ? )

Cheers,

John

Reply to
John Anderton

No, he/she doesn't and many people haven't.

I don't know he doesn't, that's why I asked for a cite.

No, he can, as many have, refuse to pay on grounds that the contract is unfair.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As the money is deducted directly from your account, how can you refuse to pay?

tim

Reply to
tims next home

The account is overdrawn. The customer can simply transfer enough money in so that the balance would be zero if the unfair charges were not applied and then notify the bank that they wished to close that account based on the premise that the balance was zero.

Cheers,

John

Reply to
John Anderton

I thought the ruling meant that the OFT could decide what charge is fair.

If you agree to the amount stated then primae facia it is a fair agreement but if there are extenuating circumstances it would be possible for the judge to agree the fee was too much.

Reply to
PeterSaxton

charges for

I wrote that the courts and OFT don't have an issue with the banks bouncing payments (rather than providing an unauthorised o/d).

They might have an issue with charges imposed for bouncing payments, but that's a separate issue.

Reply to
Andy Pandy

I don't know - IANAL.

But, if they were penalty charges then they would have to be a reasonable _estimate_ of the costs incurred.

As the court has said they aren't penalty charges, the only other customer recourse seems to me to be for the contract clause that causes these charges to be levied to be unfair. If it is unfair then the clause is void and ALL the charges will have to be refunded.

Even if the OFT said a single 12GBP charge for "setting up" or extending an unauthorized overdraft would be a reasonable term in the contract I don't see how they can retrospectively change the existing contracts, especially as that would be to the disbenefit of customers.

Tim.

Reply to
google

Yes, we've discussed it at length with them. Their stance at the moment is that they will not consider fee disputes whilst the test case is/was pending, all they will do is send out a standard letter stating that they believe that their charges are 'reasonable and enforcible' and they wil not discuss the matter any further until the case is resolved.

Reply to
pcb1962

Er, no. If it is "unfair" then it is "not binding", not "void" according to the "Unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations

1999"
formatting link

Cheers,

John

Reply to
John Anderton

Then they get debt collectors on your case.

Reply to
Seb

At which point the debt collectors would be sent :

a) The court ruling which found the charges they are attempting to collect unfair and therefore "not binding" under the terms of the "Unfair terms in consumer contracts" regulations 1999 b) A copy of the UTCCR 1999 c) Some sort of "Cease and desist" letter

All copied to the bank. I've a feeling the court in question would be interested too.

Cheers,

John

Reply to
John Anderton

I managed to arrange a £4000 o/d limit while a student, and have so far convinced the bank to let me keep it. I don`t use it, but it covers me if my employer forgets to pay me for a couple of months :-)

Reply to
Simon Finnigan

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.