Twenty Two Years And Counting.
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Bank charges
I sent a letter to my bank asking for my bank charges back, over a year ago.
In that time I also requested my old bank statements though I have not yet sent those off.
I didn't realise that after 14 days you had the right to write again and so did not do so. I have now however just received a letter from my bank (the first one so far) declining to pay back my charges. The letter states that since the court case dated 25th Nov 2009 they do not have to pay the charges back, but obviously they must have received my letter way before this date.
Is there anything I can do to move this forward or just a write off?
In that time I also requested my old bank statements though I have not yet sent those off.
I didn't realise that after 14 days you had the right to write again and so did not do so. I have now however just received a letter from my bank (the first one so far) declining to pay back my charges. The letter states that since the court case dated 25th Nov 2009 they do not have to pay the charges back, but obviously they must have received my letter way before this date.
Is there anything I can do to move this forward or just a write off?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by emmakwall. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Agree with the fact that these charges should exist actually, on the few occasions I've been overdrawn I've immediately called the building society, explained that I will put funds in straight away and the'yve reversed them for me, very reasonable I thought! If the bank took money off of us we'd expect to be compensated for it, what's the difference?
-- answer removed --
So the answer, as damaskrose may be implying, is to shop around and find a bank that charges an amount you can afford. I think damaskrose is referring to A&L.
Whilst on the face of it banks do seem to be making a profit on these charges, I can't see why anyone should interfere in how they structure their charges. All businesses charge prices that we could claim are unfair- I bet clothing in any fashion store costs the store less than one quarter of what they charge for it, and the mark up on most products is very large. This is because all firms have overheads which are not always visible to the consumer. For example it may only cost a pub 50p for a pint of beer that it sells for £2.50 but many pubs are still uneconomic because of all the assosciated costs.
Whilst on the face of it banks do seem to be making a profit on these charges, I can't see why anyone should interfere in how they structure their charges. All businesses charge prices that we could claim are unfair- I bet clothing in any fashion store costs the store less than one quarter of what they charge for it, and the mark up on most products is very large. This is because all firms have overheads which are not always visible to the consumer. For example it may only cost a pub 50p for a pint of beer that it sells for £2.50 but many pubs are still uneconomic because of all the assosciated costs.
Well that topic had a right good airing last night. The arguments on both sides are very passionate.
The main argument seems to be 'if I go slightly overdrawn, why is it fair to be charged a lot compared to the amount I went overdrawn'. Clearly being told 'that's what you signed up to under the terms' doesn't impress many, and I can understand why. However in law the issue can only be resolved now if the individual can show those terms were unfair. Since the OFT have decided not to pursue it further, it doesn't seem like that is possible.
Arguing on here that 'it only costs the banks a few pence to send me a letter' won't hold water - it assumes an individual can account for the way a bank constructs its operating model direct costs and overhead. Just as daft as someone marching into a High Street clothing store and demanding to be sold a blouse at £5 because that's 25p more than the store pays its supplier in the Far East. Banks have big overheads, unfortunately, including running the accounts of people like me who have never ever paid a bank charge in their life.
The main argument seems to be 'if I go slightly overdrawn, why is it fair to be charged a lot compared to the amount I went overdrawn'. Clearly being told 'that's what you signed up to under the terms' doesn't impress many, and I can understand why. However in law the issue can only be resolved now if the individual can show those terms were unfair. Since the OFT have decided not to pursue it further, it doesn't seem like that is possible.
Arguing on here that 'it only costs the banks a few pence to send me a letter' won't hold water - it assumes an individual can account for the way a bank constructs its operating model direct costs and overhead. Just as daft as someone marching into a High Street clothing store and demanding to be sold a blouse at £5 because that's 25p more than the store pays its supplier in the Far East. Banks have big overheads, unfortunately, including running the accounts of people like me who have never ever paid a bank charge in their life.
Thank you damaskrose for all your constructive advice and conversation.
The rest of you need to get a grip. I asked a question....if you don't know the answer, then just leave it!! It's not really anyone's business what I do with my finances or how much I get paid or how overdrawn I am. I simply asked a question about bank charges. I didn't ask for anyone's jumped up, and frankly quite ridiculous opinions. People going on about how it's "fair" of the banks to make these charges and how people should "get a better job" if they can't afford to pay their bills are living in a dream world.
I haven't got enough money, WHY didn't I think of getting a better job?! Now it's all so clear!! Idiots.
The rest of you need to get a grip. I asked a question....if you don't know the answer, then just leave it!! It's not really anyone's business what I do with my finances or how much I get paid or how overdrawn I am. I simply asked a question about bank charges. I didn't ask for anyone's jumped up, and frankly quite ridiculous opinions. People going on about how it's "fair" of the banks to make these charges and how people should "get a better job" if they can't afford to pay their bills are living in a dream world.
I haven't got enough money, WHY didn't I think of getting a better job?! Now it's all so clear!! Idiots.
As is so often the case, you appear to be only interesting in listening to the views of people who subscribe to your own opinion or support what you would dearly like to hear. I think it's the called the 'halo effect'. Damaskrose may have produced 'constructive advice' in your opinion, in which case go ahead and write to the bank and claim their charges are unfair. Virtually every else seems to regard yours as a lost cause in terms of getting any money back.
There ought to be a box to tick when posting the original question saying the the poster only wants to hear certain answers, nothing that goes against what he or she believes.
It's always quite amusing when people get upset because they dont get the answers they want!
'SHUT UP!!!!!!! SHUT UP!!!!!!! SHUT UP!!!!!!! These are not the answers I want to hear'
It's always quite amusing when people get upset because they dont get the answers they want!
'SHUT UP!!!!!!! SHUT UP!!!!!!! SHUT UP!!!!!!! These are not the answers I want to hear'
Oh guys will you just chill out.
Of course I'm prepared to accept peoples answers, whether they are beneficial to me or not. What am I not prepared to listen to is unwanted opinions on matters which are quite simply - irrelevant!
You all have way too much time on your hands. This is the first time I've ever used this service and I'm just really surprised how many people are so quick to jump up and try to be smart alecs.
Of course I'm prepared to accept peoples answers, whether they are beneficial to me or not. What am I not prepared to listen to is unwanted opinions on matters which are quite simply - irrelevant!
You all have way too much time on your hands. This is the first time I've ever used this service and I'm just really surprised how many people are so quick to jump up and try to be smart alecs.
Okay I'll stick to the point.
You asked "Is there anything I can do to move this forward..". I agree with the consensus view that it seems very unlikely you will have any chance of success. There's no harm in asking your bank again and they might decide to give you something back as a 'goodwill gesture', but I think the chances of this are slim as banks now just seem to be firing off standard letters setting out the court ruling.
The fact that they received your letter over a year ago is not relevant as the banks always claimed the charges were not unfair and the courts have now supported this.
I hope this answer won't upset you.
You asked "Is there anything I can do to move this forward..". I agree with the consensus view that it seems very unlikely you will have any chance of success. There's no harm in asking your bank again and they might decide to give you something back as a 'goodwill gesture', but I think the chances of this are slim as banks now just seem to be firing off standard letters setting out the court ruling.
The fact that they received your letter over a year ago is not relevant as the banks always claimed the charges were not unfair and the courts have now supported this.
I hope this answer won't upset you.
The unfair terms point has some merit. It's not as technical as the point already argued. All the banks have adopted the same policy.Either you accept their ,similar, terms or you don't get a bank account. You really have no choice. That the charges are excessive which they oblige you to agree to,applied regardless of the facts of any case, bearing no resemblance to their costs or the cost of the risk to them, seems to bring a compelling argument that the banks are abusing their position of strength and the terms are unfair.
It may not get us very far in the long term, unless their new way of extracting fees for a bank account e.g monthly charges (as my French bank does) is itself unfair by virtue of being effectively universal and excessive.
It may not get us very far in the long term, unless their new way of extracting fees for a bank account e.g monthly charges (as my French bank does) is itself unfair by virtue of being effectively universal and excessive.
Emma,your last post comes across as posted by a very sulky and opinionated teenager.
You have been given the answer that you have no chance of getting your charges back,it makes no difference whether this is fair or not.You have no basis in law for challenging the charges after the case collapsed in court late last year.Unfortunately you just have to accept that you have now lost that money and will in future have to try and make sure you never go overdrawn again.
You have been given the answer that you have no chance of getting your charges back,it makes no difference whether this is fair or not.You have no basis in law for challenging the charges after the case collapsed in court late last year.Unfortunately you just have to accept that you have now lost that money and will in future have to try and make sure you never go overdrawn again.
If you ask nicely the bank may just refund your charges from time to time if you have a good enough 'sob' story . My bank did that just this morning, wasn't a lot, but at least I didn't have to go over drawn. Discretionary they said even though they will not do it again this year. Lloyds TSB! broccoli adverts tho'
Latest Posts
The Perils Of Privatisation - Part X
News14 mins ago
Home & Garden19 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles47 mins ago
