I see that a barrister is taking NatWest to court over charges of several thousands of pounds made in response to his frequent breaching of his overdraft limits.
Basically, he was taking money which wasn't his in that his account was empty. I wonder how the Law Society would have viewed his actions if, instead of taking money that belonged to the bank, without permission to do so, he chose to "borrow" from his clients' funds account instead?
Yeah, but he's a young whipper-snapper trying to make a name for himself, and if he fails, serves him right.
Tiddy Ogg.
The money probably did not 'belong to the bank', but was customers' money loaned out by the bank at a profit. A profit of which little was returned to the customers, who were and are being charged exorbitant fees in return for very little work done by the bank.
Power to his elbow.
In message , Robin T Cox writes
No. It was the bank's money.
What about credit interest?
But why does he think he has the right to take it without permission? At least in France that remains a criminal offence!
The fees are effectively a discouragement of criminal activity.
Because the banks do allow it to happen.
The Bank's are perfectly entitled to never allow people to go over their overdraft. But if they choose not to stop people, they are still not allowed to overcharge someone who does.
tim
It's nothing to do with the Law Siciety.
Yup. But this is no excuse for this supposedly intelligent person who apparently could not manage is money responsibly. The fact that he might have been a student is hardly an excuse.
The banks will probably say that these charges are charges for a 'service'... like if you run out of petrol and call the AA to bail you out. Or more like you are not a member of the AA, but decide to join the AA when you run out of fuel.
Whose fault is it there is not enough petrol in your car..? Certainly not the AA..!
It seems we must wait until at least the 30th of April to find out.
But it was amusing that the Bank apparently 'forced' the disputed amount into his account in an attempt to kill the case dead. Fortunately for the barrister, the bank apparently underpayed, which should allow the case to continue.
No one can dispute the fact the bank can make charges. The dispute it because they are not allowed to profit from penatly charges. Given thatmany experts onf the field cannot come up with a rea cost of more than a fiver then they are clearly profiting from the penatlies. If the banks were right they would have gone to court ages ago. Thats why this guy is really trying to force the bank into court to justify thier charges. If it happens it will be a first. I hope he wins if only to show them up be have been conning customers for years. Im surprised more courts havent had a go at the banks for wasting court time by allowing papers to initially take up court time only for them to be settled in every single case.
he's just qualified hasn't he? And if he loses he will be disbarred?
It ought to be as it comes down to question of honesty.
But what gives this chap the right to take money that doesn't belong to him, without even asking if he can? You don't go into your local newsagents, collect a paper and just help yourself to £50 out of the till, do you, just because you've run out of money?
...and why shouldn't any business profit from its commercial activities, especially when the agreement between customer and provider has been broken by the customer - many times, it would appear in this case.
A likely outcome of all this is that the banks will simply decide to charge for banking services which they currently offer 'free'.This will be to the disadvantage of the vast majority of customers who manage their accounts responsibly unlike the young Barrister.
te:
His point was that the Law Society only deals with solicitors and therefore will not concern itself in any way with a barrister. Furthermore barrister's don't hold clients' funds, only solicitors do that.
The Bar Council would be *highly* offended if the Law Society tried to interfere with a barrister's professional status. Fur would fly.
Likewise if mbile phone companies are made to reduce their overseas call charges then surely they'll want the same profit and will have to squeeze it from all users not just those who don't manage to get it together enough to get a sim card for overseas...
I think your mixing up The Law Society and the Bar.
But I can walk into my local newsagent and pick up some stuff and go to the till, get it all totalled up and then realize I've forgotten my wallet. The newsagent will say "Just pay when you're next in." It's only happened once but it made him laugh when I went to put it all back on the shelves. He could, of course, have refused to let me take the stuff until I paid. (He did say that he won't let people have cigarettes without payment although some do ask)
AIUI, and I've never tried but I've heard stories of others who have, the banks will refuse to take an instruction that they are not to make payments that will take you outside of any overdraft limit. This would be like me saying to my newsagent "Don't let me take anything on credit" and then him still doing so. The difference being that it's quite hard to accidentally take things on credit from a newsagent, it's fairly easy to go over an overdraft limit unless you are extremely disiplined if money is a bit tight.
Tim.
As has already happened on the credit card front, where items not previously included now attract interest charges, e.g. purchase of gift vouchers and paying for your football pools, as if they were cash drawings.
Why do these socialist control freaks (and Which?) have to meddle with things that they don't understand just because those incapable of understanding a contractual arrangement, combined with an inability to manage their affairs, jump up and down and scream a lot when their fecklessness comes home to roost?
Sorry, yes, of course. I was wrongly putting the entire legal profession into one box - or should it be a cage? It does remind me of a joke though, which could apply equally to solicitor and barrister:
Why do those members of the legal profession always wear a collar and tie? Because it stops their foreskins rolling over their heads!
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.