Unauthorised Overdraft Charges

"Peter Saxton" wrote

Exactly! - You were wrong when you said: "That seems like a penalty diguised as a service".

Then the bank will win in court when the customer sues for return of the money that he is claiming the bank has been taken from him without permission.

Consumers are protected from unfair terms and conditions in contracts with business. They don't have to cross it out, they can just ignore it. If the business and the consumer cannot agree, eventually one or other will have to sue for the money they think they are owed/have had taken. The courts will then decide whether the term of the contract was fair or not. If it's ruled fair the consumer will have to pay. If it's unfair the business won't be able to enforce the term.

The fact that the banks appear to be rolling over whenever anyone seems determined to take it to court suggests that they're not confident they will prevail. By avoiding court, anyone who thinks the term is fair will continue to pay. If the court does rule the term is unfair then those consumers who won't dispute the charges will now know that they were unfair and they are entitled to a refund.

Personally, I think a business run on the premise that "we'll make our profit from charging people who don't complete our paperwork exactly the way we want" is on a very sticky wicket when it comes to unfair terms in contracts. You, of course, are entitled to disagree (either with my characterisation of the banks modus operandii or with whether this is unfair to consumers) but from the consumers point it makes no difference whether the term is ruled unfair in court or whether the bank choses not to try to enforce the term and collect the money they think they are entitled to (or return money already taken)

Tim.

No, I wasn't.

You seem to be getting two different examples confused. The example I was referring to was that put forward by John: "You do A and we will waive all our transaction and service charges for your account. But if you do B then you will have to pay for these services which will be collected in proportion of the amount of B that you do by charging you £XX for every act of B."

You seem to be deliberately misleading - a true scoundrel - to add to your lies regarding your claim to post a list of checks which makes a bank reconciliation unnecessary "when I have time". I didn't believe you then and I don't believe you now.

"Peter Saxton" wrote

No, you seem to be forgetting that a specific example can be of the same type as a more general one ...

"Peter Saxton" wrote

Yes - and I was referring to a *specific* type of John's general example, thus :-

"You [come for a first hour's consultancy] and we will waive all our transaction and service charges for your account. But if you [come back for subsequent consultancy] then you will have to pay for these services which will be collected in proportion of the amount of [returning for subsequent consultancy] that you do by charging you XX for every act of [subsequent consultancy]."

Now, if (as you say) John's general example "seems like a penalty diguised as a service", then any specific example derived from it would *also*. [Or are you too stupid to realise that?]

"Peter Saxton" wrote

Resorting to name-calling just shows that you've lost the argument.

Saying you are a liar and giving an example of you lying means I've lost the argument? That's more rubbish you are spouting.

Whether in the UK people have any qualms about taking other people's without asking permission.

How do they take money without asking permission?

"Peter Saxton" wrote

What example?

I haven't had time to produce a full, comprehensive, list -- and you won't even reduce the job by giving a valid reason why a B.R. is necessary, that I could refute with just a few other checks.

Away with you, scoundrel!

"Peter Saxton" wrote

I have given a valid reason.

If it takes such a long time to produce a list of checks to make a bank reconciliation unnecessary then most sensible people would think that is a pretty good argument in favour of a bank reconciliation!

In message , Peter Saxton writes

Eh? It is merely asking the client to pay what is due.

If the account is empty, they stick their little card into a hole in the wall and take more...

The bank could refuse to give them money so the bank is agreeing to give them the money.

It looks like they are being asked to pay a penalty.

The court have yet to be asked this question.

How can you be sure?

far too complicated

tim

In message , Peter Saxton writes

As stated here and in uk.finance ad nauseam, many atms are not online at the time of the withdrawal.

In message , Peter Saxton writes

Not from here it doesnt, it looks like a straightforward scale of fees.

In message , tim..... writes

I agree.

Be so sure about what? (I'm not trying to be awkward, I am just not sure what you think I am sure about)

Oh! It seemed quite simple to me.

Could be. But it is generally easily avoidable by making the correct arrangement in the first place.

Just as you join the AA before you have a breakdown, not wait until you do breakdown.