Reclaiming Bank Charges
Discussion
Has the test case come through the courts yet and was there a final decision on what was to happen?
I recall all claims were put on hold pending the outcome.
[before anyone starts, I could reclaim precisely £0.00 in charges as I've never attracted any, it's purely to settle an office debate]
I recall all claims were put on hold pending the outcome.
[before anyone starts, I could reclaim precisely £0.00 in charges as I've never attracted any, it's purely to settle an office debate]
We won a case on bank charges... but not a court case 
Halifax had been charging us a non payment fee for returning a payment on a DD they where actually paying.
Initally they were claiming that we werent putting the money in the account early enough, so initally the payment was being taken at the start of the day when the money wasnt cleared (apparently) and then the payment was represented later in the day and being paid...
they claimed it took 3 days to clear cash paid in at the cash machine.. so the next month we paid it in over the counter, still got charged - again they claimed 3 days clearing on cash deposits... so paid in 5 working days before the next month... still charged... so changed the account the DD was paid from... the old account was then charged for a payment it wasnt making the next month (had checked in branch first to make sure the DD had been cancelled).
Was explaining the situation to the cashier monkey when the manager overheard us... she agreed we shouldnt have been charged looking at the account history, said leave it with her... next day she phoned to say it had been cleared by head office... who refunded all charges + interest.
pointless post i know, but its the first time i've had something sorted properly by the bank for their own mess up.
Halifax had been charging us a non payment fee for returning a payment on a DD they where actually paying.
Initally they were claiming that we werent putting the money in the account early enough, so initally the payment was being taken at the start of the day when the money wasnt cleared (apparently) and then the payment was represented later in the day and being paid...
they claimed it took 3 days to clear cash paid in at the cash machine.. so the next month we paid it in over the counter, still got charged - again they claimed 3 days clearing on cash deposits... so paid in 5 working days before the next month... still charged... so changed the account the DD was paid from... the old account was then charged for a payment it wasnt making the next month (had checked in branch first to make sure the DD had been cancelled).
Was explaining the situation to the cashier monkey when the manager overheard us... she agreed we shouldnt have been charged looking at the account history, said leave it with her... next day she phoned to say it had been cleared by head office... who refunded all charges + interest.
pointless post i know, but its the first time i've had something sorted properly by the bank for their own mess up.
People who want to claim back charges could try these steps: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/bankcharges
I had over £1100 in charges over 12 months with Natwest (eg going over my limit by 2p got me a £35 charge which then got me another £35 charge because the charge put me further into the red, this reoccured every month until the charges added up to 1100)
I had over £1100 in charges over 12 months with Natwest (eg going over my limit by 2p got me a £35 charge which then got me another £35 charge because the charge put me further into the red, this reoccured every month until the charges added up to 1100)
I was in the process of reclaiming mine:
I'll send you a letter i received:
We write with reference to your claim for the recovery of unlawful bank charges.
Before giving you an update on the OFT test case, you maybe interested to hear that we are experiencing huge success in reclaiming both credit card charges and payment protection insurance premiums, and these claims are not held by the test case, so we could reclaim what’s yours now! For more information, please feel free to contact us on the number listed or visit our website.
As you are aware all claims have now been on hold for almost twelve months. We were all hoping that the end of the road was near, which would have allowed your claim to be processed and the appropriate refund made.
The Financial Services Authorities (FSA) waiver which was put in place at the start of the test case was due to expire in a few weeks time on July 26th. As the banks were granted right of appeal, sadly, the FSA has today announced that they have extended the waiver for a further six months until 26th January 2009, to give time for the appeal to be completed.
What Does this mean?
Unfortunately, we are not able to reclaim your money back until the appeal has been completed. Should the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) who won the court case, win the appeal as well, it is then up to the FSA to lift the waiver which would allow us to continue and reclaim your money for you.
What do I do now?
If you have incurred any further charges since initially logging your claim with us, please hold onto your statements until the waiver is lifted, at which point we will contact you so that we can add these charges to your claim.
We know this news is extremely frustrating, but we can assure you we are doing all we can to get you your money back at the earliest possible moment. We are continuing to work for you on a no win no fee basis, and will keep you updated every step of the way. Remember to go to our website for information about other claims you may be able to make that are not affected by the waiver.
I'll send you a letter i received:
We write with reference to your claim for the recovery of unlawful bank charges.
Before giving you an update on the OFT test case, you maybe interested to hear that we are experiencing huge success in reclaiming both credit card charges and payment protection insurance premiums, and these claims are not held by the test case, so we could reclaim what’s yours now! For more information, please feel free to contact us on the number listed or visit our website.
As you are aware all claims have now been on hold for almost twelve months. We were all hoping that the end of the road was near, which would have allowed your claim to be processed and the appropriate refund made.
The Financial Services Authorities (FSA) waiver which was put in place at the start of the test case was due to expire in a few weeks time on July 26th. As the banks were granted right of appeal, sadly, the FSA has today announced that they have extended the waiver for a further six months until 26th January 2009, to give time for the appeal to be completed.
What Does this mean?
Unfortunately, we are not able to reclaim your money back until the appeal has been completed. Should the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) who won the court case, win the appeal as well, it is then up to the FSA to lift the waiver which would allow us to continue and reclaim your money for you.
What do I do now?
If you have incurred any further charges since initially logging your claim with us, please hold onto your statements until the waiver is lifted, at which point we will contact you so that we can add these charges to your claim.
We know this news is extremely frustrating, but we can assure you we are doing all we can to get you your money back at the earliest possible moment. We are continuing to work for you on a no win no fee basis, and will keep you updated every step of the way. Remember to go to our website for information about other claims you may be able to make that are not affected by the waiver.
I've never understood why people have been able to challenge bank charges. They lay their charges out quite clearly in their terms. Yet people seem to feel hard done by when they are imposed. I agree the fees are high, but they are clearly laid out. I think car clamping is a con and think the fines are obscene, but I make sure I don't park somewhere where I will fall foul...
It may light a few fires by me taking the moral highground here, but it's only logic. I've have never paid a bank charge in my life and work hard to make sure I don't have to and make sure I am organised enough to make sure money is where it should be when it needs to be.
It may light a few fires by me taking the moral highground here, but it's only logic. I've have never paid a bank charge in my life and work hard to make sure I don't have to and make sure I am organised enough to make sure money is where it should be when it needs to be.
Very detailed info here, complete with template letters for reclaiming:
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/oft-bank-...
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/oft-bank-...
bazking69 said:
I've never understood why people have been able to challenge bank charges. They lay their charges out quite clearly in their terms. Yet people seem to feel hard done by when they are imposed. I agree the fees are high, but they are clearly laid out. I think car clamping is a con and think the fines are obscene, but I make sure I don't park somewhere where I will fall foul...
It may light a few fires by me taking the moral highground here, but it's only logic. I've have never paid a bank charge in my life and work hard to make sure I don't have to and make sure I am organised enough to make sure money is where it should be when it needs to be.
Getting bank charges dosen't mean I \ we are incapable of looking after our finances. To give you an example got charged £35 for going 2p over limit, paid this charge, 4 weeks later got charged £72 becuase the charge of £35 took my account £35.02 over limit (even though I paid the charge instantly).It may light a few fires by me taking the moral highground here, but it's only logic. I've have never paid a bank charge in my life and work hard to make sure I don't have to and make sure I am organised enough to make sure money is where it should be when it needs to be.
Timsta said:
:yawn:
We've been over this often enough. The charges aren't lawful. They have no basis in law. The banks don't have a legal right to take the money.
How's that?
Jumping the gun a bit, is how it is.We've been over this often enough. The charges aren't lawful. They have no basis in law. The banks don't have a legal right to take the money.
How's that?
The claim by the OFT is precisely to establish whether the charges amount to penalties and are therefore unlawful and unenforceable.
Lurking Lawyer said:
Timsta said:
:yawn:
We've been over this often enough. The charges aren't lawful. They have no basis in law. The banks don't have a legal right to take the money.
How's that?
Jumping the gun a bit, is how it is.We've been over this often enough. The charges aren't lawful. They have no basis in law. The banks don't have a legal right to take the money.
How's that?
The claim by the OFT is precisely to establish whether the charges amount to penalties and are therefore unlawful and unenforceable.
bazking69 said:
I've never understood why people have been able to challenge bank charges. They lay their charges out quite clearly in their terms. Yet people seem to feel hard done by when they are imposed. I agree the fees are high, but they are clearly laid out. I think car clamping is a con and think the fines are obscene, but I make sure I don't park somewhere where I will fall foul...
It may light a few fires by me taking the moral highground here, but it's only logic. I've have never paid a bank charge in my life and work hard to make sure I don't have to and make sure I am organised enough to make sure money is where it should be when it needs to be.
I don't have to listen to you, you're a racist!It may light a few fires by me taking the moral highground here, but it's only logic. I've have never paid a bank charge in my life and work hard to make sure I don't have to and make sure I am organised enough to make sure money is where it should be when it needs to be.
crofty1984 said:
bazking69 said:
I've never understood why people have been able to challenge bank charges. They lay their charges out quite clearly in their terms. Yet people seem to feel hard done by when they are imposed. I agree the fees are high, but they are clearly laid out. I think car clamping is a con and think the fines are obscene, but I make sure I don't park somewhere where I will fall foul...
It may light a few fires by me taking the moral highground here, but it's only logic. I've have never paid a bank charge in my life and work hard to make sure I don't have to and make sure I am organised enough to make sure money is where it should be when it needs to be.
I don't have to listen to you, you're a racist!It may light a few fires by me taking the moral highground here, but it's only logic. I've have never paid a bank charge in my life and work hard to make sure I don't have to and make sure I am organised enough to make sure money is where it should be when it needs to be.
His parents are.
bazking69 said:
I've never understood why people have been able to challenge bank charges. They lay their charges out quite clearly in their terms. Yet people seem to feel hard done by when they are imposed. I agree the fees are high, but they are clearly laid out. I think car clamping is a con and think the fines are obscene, but I make sure I don't park somewhere where I will fall foul...
It is because in law the charges cannot be a penalty, ie they must only cover the administration fees that might reasonably be incurred by the bank in the event of you going overdrawn and not penalise you more than that.I encounter a similar thing in my profession, when setting up a building contract between a contractor and a client there has to be a set level of LAD's (liquidated and ascertained damages). This sets out the amount recoverable by the employer if the contractor is late delivering the building for reasons of the contractors own making.
These must be a reasonable pare-estimate of actual loss, for example, if the building project is a house and the client is renting a property for the duration of the contract at £1,000/week, then the LAD's will be set at around that level to cover the actual loss incurred by having to keep renting that property while the contractor completes the work. Similarly, on a commercial project, the LAD's might cover the weekly rent/sqft that the client might have got had the project been completed on time.
If in the first example the LAD's had been set at £5K a week when the client was paying £1K/week rent, the contractor would probably challenge the LAD's in court and as they are not allowed to be a penalty charge, simply a loss recovery mechanism, he would very likely be successful.
Edited by OzzyR1 on Friday 29th August 16:00
bazking69 said:
I've never understood why people have been able to challenge bank charges. They lay their charges out quite clearly in their terms. Yet people seem to feel hard done by when they are imposed. I agree the fees are high, but they are clearly laid out.
If the charges are not a genuine pre-estimate of the costs the banks would incur for transactions such as the 2p example given above then they can be regarded as penalty clauses, which courts won't uphold;http://www.gillhams.com/articles/326.cfm
Timsta said:
crofty1984 said:
bazking69 said:
I've never understood why people have been able to challenge bank charges. They lay their charges out quite clearly in their terms. Yet people seem to feel hard done by when they are imposed. I agree the fees are high, but they are clearly laid out. I think car clamping is a con and think the fines are obscene, but I make sure I don't park somewhere where I will fall foul...
It may light a few fires by me taking the moral highground here, but it's only logic. I've have never paid a bank charge in my life and work hard to make sure I don't have to and make sure I am organised enough to make sure money is where it should be when it needs to be.
I don't have to listen to you, you're a racist!It may light a few fires by me taking the moral highground here, but it's only logic. I've have never paid a bank charge in my life and work hard to make sure I don't have to and make sure I am organised enough to make sure money is where it should be when it needs to be.
His parents are.
Edited by crofty1984 on Friday 29th August 16:01
Timsta said:
Lurking Lawyer said:
Timsta said:
:yawn:
We've been over this often enough. The charges aren't lawful. They have no basis in law. The banks don't have a legal right to take the money.
How's that?
Jumping the gun a bit, is how it is.We've been over this often enough. The charges aren't lawful. They have no basis in law. The banks don't have a legal right to take the money.
How's that?
The claim by the OFT is precisely to establish whether the charges amount to penalties and are therefore unlawful and unenforceable.
Timsta says so.
He knows more than the judicial system.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff