Unauthorised Overdraft Charges

I think most people realise this.

Unfortunately, the law is the law and the law in a nutshell is that: penalty charges for breach of contract may not produce a profit for the issuer. If the Banks are turing a profit from penalty fees, it matters not how we get there but sooner or later they will be forced to stop doing so.

tim

I agree with you on this one Mogga. I can't for the life of me see that this is something that the EU should be meddling in. If people don't want to pay high roaming charges they are easily avoided.

tim

It's odd that they can program their systems to send out letters and make charges, but cannot stop a payment which would go beyond the limit.

That suggests that they don't want to stop the payments, but do wish to write the letters, make charges and change the rate of interest levied, once the agreed limit has been passed.

Because there is a law that says this charge *cannot* be a contractual arrangement.

The clause that seeks to introduce this charge is void under general contract law, not because of anything that is specific to credit cards (and banks).

For consumers to know where they stand, the law has to be applied equally to all types of business. You can't say to the local 'clamper' that he can't charge 1000 GBP to unlock the clamp on your car because it represents an illegal penalty charge (and is hence void) whilst saying to the banks that it's ok for them to ignore this law because everyone knows that they use the proceeds to subsidise some other service.

I agree with you. Unfortunately general contract law does not.

tim

It isn't actually that easy to stop this.

But I agree

tim

In message , Peter Saxton writes

Yes, in general that is quite correct, although there are still occasions when the bank cant stop it till its too late.

Yes. A better example would be the newsagent charging you for him slamming the till draw shut just before you got you hands on the dosh and in so doing trapping your fingers.

>

The Law Society regulates solicitors, not barristers.

Regards,

[snip]

I have become increasingly Eurosceptical as sclerosis has set in, but ISTM that this is precisely the kind of thing "that the EU should be meddling in". Almost no-one is against a common market.

So what has a common market done for us?

Which could be described as "an unauthorised penalty charge" which may, or may not, break fingers, thus attracting the "do-gooders".

In message , ®i©ardo writes

POhew, I was beginning to think I was the only one who thought this!

They do, but there are charges for these unpaid cheques, standing orders and direct debits. There is, generally, no charge for declining a card transaction. But if it was the kind of card transaction that was not pre-authorised by an online system or a cheque drawn under the cheque card guarantee scheme (there are still a few people still using this) then the bank cant not pay them and an unauthorised overdraft occurs.

In message , ®i©ardo writes

Yes. A&L were, in effect, buying a distribution network and client bank, and a sort or metal glassy office thingy in Netherton, Bootle.

>

In message , ®i©ardo writes

Exactly! No doubt a law stating all till thieves must pass a health & safety awareness test and wear protective finger guards and all shop owners must take the 'Awkright Till Safety Course' to NVQ level 3.

In message , snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.co.uk writes

borrowing?

Why? Whichever way you cut it, a mobile phone is a luxury, no-one needs to have one and no-one needs to make international calls from it.

ISTM that the companies providing the mobile service are free to set the charges to their own customers at whatever level they like and let the market decide. (I accept that there should be regulation as to how much of their costs they can pass onto non customers).

What has the cost of mobile phone calls got to do with a common market. You could just as easily argue that it should cost the same in each country to send a letter or take a bus ride

tim

And what has that got to do with lawyers?!

----------

99% of lawyers give the other 1% a bad name

LOL!

[snip]

Careful, John, this is the kind of thing of which you do better to steer clear

A businessman from Norfolk has recovered a record 35,987.94 from NatWest after accusing it of charging him unlawful overdraft fees.

Anyone think the bank paid up this much money because they had a case? It just goes to show once again they know they havent got a leg to stand on otherwise they would fight for that much money.

The case is simply that the charges are unlawful not whether thc customer went overdrawn.

This amount repaid isnt typical but the banks must have coughed up millions to thousands of customers by now just to avoid going to court.