UK bank charges
Jun 29th 2005, 8:20 pm
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
UK bank charges
Student wins claim over bank charges
By Simon de Bruxelles
Consumer groups welcome a groundbreaking victory that could lead to
cheaper fees
A LAW student is expected to be awarded hundreds of pounds in
compensation against his bank after claiming that the £32 that it
charged him every time he went overdrawn was unfair.
Consumer groups and banking watchdogs yesterday welcomed the victory
and said that it could open the way for thousands of similar claims
and could help to bring about changes in costs to bank customers.
Stephen Hone, 29, brought the civil court action against the Abbey
bank, on the grounds that the penalty was “disproportionate� to the
costs incurred by the bank.
He claims that the charges are in breach of the Unfair Terms of the
Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, which state that a consumer
should not pay a disproportionately high amount of compensation if he
or she fails to meet an obligation.
In his claim, entered at Plymouth County Court in Devon, Mr Hone said
that he had been charged a total of £2,000 over six years.
He wrote: “Your charges do not reflect any actual or real loss;
instead, they appear to represent a lucrative profit-making scheme.�
Although Mr Hone filed the claim last month, Abbey failed to submit a
defence and the student won by default. District Judge Andrew Moon
said that he had no option but to find in Mr Hone’s favour. He said:
“The defendant must pay the claimant an amount which the court will
decide, and costs.�
Although the case was won on a technicality, Eddy Weatherill, of the
Independent Banking Advisory Service, said: “It’s great news . . . and
something that’s been accepted by consumers for too long. These
charges do not reflect the costs banks incur in any way whatsoever.
“I hope that others will follow his example.�
The precise amount of compensation to which Mr Hone, a
father-of-three, is entitled, will be decided at a hearing next month.
The case centres around the penalty fee of £32 imposed when direct
debit payments are refused. Each time it happened an automated letter
was sent to Mr Hone informing him of the charge. It is the first time
a customer has won such a claim relating to direct debit charges.
A spokesman for Abbey said that it had been unable to defend the case
because it had not been notified of the court date. “The banking
charges which Abbey levies are legitimate and proportionate to the
administrative costs incurred by the bank for situations such as
direct debits,� he said.
OVERDRAFT FEES
Authorised
Abbey: 9.9%
Barclays: 15.6%
NatWest: 17.69%
RBS: 15.85%
Lloyds TSB: 18.2%
HSBC: 14.8%
Unauthorised
Abbey: 28.7% plus £30 per transaction (t/a) and £32 per direct
debit/standing order
Barclays: 27.5% plus £25 per t/a
NatWest: 29.69% plus £28 over-limit fee, £30 per t/a
RBS: 29.84% plus £28 overlimit fee, £30 per t/a, capped at £90 a month
Lloyds TSB: 29.8% plus £25 per day
HSBC: 14.8% plus £20 for exceeding agreed overdraft
Source: Moneyfacts
--
Martin
By Simon de Bruxelles
Consumer groups welcome a groundbreaking victory that could lead to
cheaper fees
A LAW student is expected to be awarded hundreds of pounds in
compensation against his bank after claiming that the £32 that it
charged him every time he went overdrawn was unfair.
Consumer groups and banking watchdogs yesterday welcomed the victory
and said that it could open the way for thousands of similar claims
and could help to bring about changes in costs to bank customers.
Stephen Hone, 29, brought the civil court action against the Abbey
bank, on the grounds that the penalty was “disproportionate� to the
costs incurred by the bank.
He claims that the charges are in breach of the Unfair Terms of the
Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, which state that a consumer
should not pay a disproportionately high amount of compensation if he
or she fails to meet an obligation.
In his claim, entered at Plymouth County Court in Devon, Mr Hone said
that he had been charged a total of £2,000 over six years.
He wrote: “Your charges do not reflect any actual or real loss;
instead, they appear to represent a lucrative profit-making scheme.�
Although Mr Hone filed the claim last month, Abbey failed to submit a
defence and the student won by default. District Judge Andrew Moon
said that he had no option but to find in Mr Hone’s favour. He said:
“The defendant must pay the claimant an amount which the court will
decide, and costs.�
Although the case was won on a technicality, Eddy Weatherill, of the
Independent Banking Advisory Service, said: “It’s great news . . . and
something that’s been accepted by consumers for too long. These
charges do not reflect the costs banks incur in any way whatsoever.
“I hope that others will follow his example.�
The precise amount of compensation to which Mr Hone, a
father-of-three, is entitled, will be decided at a hearing next month.
The case centres around the penalty fee of £32 imposed when direct
debit payments are refused. Each time it happened an automated letter
was sent to Mr Hone informing him of the charge. It is the first time
a customer has won such a claim relating to direct debit charges.
A spokesman for Abbey said that it had been unable to defend the case
because it had not been notified of the court date. “The banking
charges which Abbey levies are legitimate and proportionate to the
administrative costs incurred by the bank for situations such as
direct debits,� he said.
OVERDRAFT FEES
Authorised
Abbey: 9.9%
Barclays: 15.6%
NatWest: 17.69%
RBS: 15.85%
Lloyds TSB: 18.2%
HSBC: 14.8%
Unauthorised
Abbey: 28.7% plus £30 per transaction (t/a) and £32 per direct
debit/standing order
Barclays: 27.5% plus £25 per t/a
NatWest: 29.69% plus £28 over-limit fee, £30 per t/a
RBS: 29.84% plus £28 overlimit fee, £30 per t/a, capped at £90 a month
Lloyds TSB: 29.8% plus £25 per day
HSBC: 14.8% plus £20 for exceeding agreed overdraft
Source: Moneyfacts
--
Martin
Jun 29th 2005, 9:16 pm
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: UK bank charges
"Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Student wins claim over bank charges
> By Simon de Bruxelles
> Consumer groups welcome a groundbreaking victory that could lead to
> cheaper fees
> A LAW student is expected to be awarded hundreds of pounds in
> compensation against his bank after claiming that the £32 that it
> charged him every time he went overdrawn was unfair.
methinks you posted to the wrong group.
I'm more than happy to discuss if you post it to the right one.
tim
news:[email protected]...
> Student wins claim over bank charges
> By Simon de Bruxelles
> Consumer groups welcome a groundbreaking victory that could lead to
> cheaper fees
> A LAW student is expected to be awarded hundreds of pounds in
> compensation against his bank after claiming that the £32 that it
> charged him every time he went overdrawn was unfair.
methinks you posted to the wrong group.
I'm more than happy to discuss if you post it to the right one.
tim
Jun 30th 2005, 12:04 am
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: UK bank charges
BUT you just did discuss the posting ...stop nit picking selfd proc;aimed
cop!
John H
"tim (moved to sweden)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Student wins claim over bank charges
> > By Simon de Bruxelles
> > Consumer groups welcome a groundbreaking victory that could lead to
> > cheaper fees
> > A LAW student is expected to be awarded hundreds of pounds in
> > compensation against his bank after claiming that the £32 that it
> > charged him every time he went overdrawn was unfair.
> >
> methinks you posted to the wrong group.
> I'm more than happy to discuss if you post it to the right one.
> tim
cop!
John H
"tim (moved to sweden)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Student wins claim over bank charges
> > By Simon de Bruxelles
> > Consumer groups welcome a groundbreaking victory that could lead to
> > cheaper fees
> > A LAW student is expected to be awarded hundreds of pounds in
> > compensation against his bank after claiming that the £32 that it
> > charged him every time he went overdrawn was unfair.
> >
> methinks you posted to the wrong group.
> I'm more than happy to discuss if you post it to the right one.
> tim
Jun 30th 2005, 7:48 am
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: UK bank charges
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:16:04 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>> Student wins claim over bank charges
>> By Simon de Bruxelles
>> Consumer groups welcome a groundbreaking victory that could lead to
>> cheaper fees
>> A LAW student is expected to be awarded hundreds of pounds in
>> compensation against his bank after claiming that the £32 that it
>> charged him every time he went overdrawn was unfair.
>methinks you posted to the wrong group.
>I'm more than happy to discuss if you post it to the right one.
It was a follow up to a lost thread from a week ago.
--
Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>> Student wins claim over bank charges
>> By Simon de Bruxelles
>> Consumer groups welcome a groundbreaking victory that could lead to
>> cheaper fees
>> A LAW student is expected to be awarded hundreds of pounds in
>> compensation against his bank after claiming that the £32 that it
>> charged him every time he went overdrawn was unfair.
>methinks you posted to the wrong group.
>I'm more than happy to discuss if you post it to the right one.
It was a follow up to a lost thread from a week ago.
--
Martin
Jun 30th 2005, 8:30 am
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: UK bank charges
Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:16:04 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected].. .
> >> Student wins claim over bank charges
> >> By Simon de Bruxelles
> >> Consumer groups welcome a groundbreaking victory that could lead to
> >> cheaper fees
> >> A LAW student is expected to be awarded hundreds of pounds in
> >> compensation against his bank after claiming that the £32 that it
> >> charged him every time he went overdrawn was unfair.
> >>
> >
> >methinks you posted to the wrong group.
> >
> >I'm more than happy to discuss if you post it to the right one.
>
> It was a follow up to a lost thread from a week ago.
Indeed. It wasn't your son was it? :)
Have to say though, I'm astonished that the person in question paid so
much in charges. I've had the same bank account (same branch and account
number) since I was 18 with an overdraft facility, and have never
incurred a charge.
--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:16:04 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected].. .
> >> Student wins claim over bank charges
> >> By Simon de Bruxelles
> >> Consumer groups welcome a groundbreaking victory that could lead to
> >> cheaper fees
> >> A LAW student is expected to be awarded hundreds of pounds in
> >> compensation against his bank after claiming that the £32 that it
> >> charged him every time he went overdrawn was unfair.
> >>
> >
> >methinks you posted to the wrong group.
> >
> >I'm more than happy to discuss if you post it to the right one.
>
> It was a follow up to a lost thread from a week ago.
Indeed. It wasn't your son was it? :)
Have to say though, I'm astonished that the person in question paid so
much in charges. I've had the same bank account (same branch and account
number) since I was 18 with an overdraft facility, and have never
incurred a charge.
--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
Jun 30th 2005, 8:38 am
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: UK bank charges
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 09:30:48 +0100, [email protected]
(chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco)
wrote:
>Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:16:04 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected].. .
>> >> Student wins claim over bank charges
>> >> By Simon de Bruxelles
>> >> Consumer groups welcome a groundbreaking victory that could lead to
>> >> cheaper fees
>> >> A LAW student is expected to be awarded hundreds of pounds in
>> >> compensation against his bank after claiming that the £32 that it
>> >> charged him every time he went overdrawn was unfair.
>> >>
>> >
>> >methinks you posted to the wrong group.
>> >
>> >I'm more than happy to discuss if you post it to the right one.
>>
>> It was a follow up to a lost thread from a week ago.
>Indeed. It wasn't your son was it? :)
No I want him to ask for a refund too :-)
>Have to say though, I'm astonished that the person in question paid so
>much in charges. I've had the same bank account (same branch and account
>number) since I was 18 with an overdraft facility, and have never
>incurred a charge.
I had bank accounts for more than 40 years with Barclays without
paying charges. When my son had his problems with them and they did
everything they could to stop my daughter opening a student account.
We closed both my and my son's Barclay's accounts and transferred
everything to HSBC. Everything was great for 3 years, but now HSBC
seems to be going the same way as Barclays.
--
Martin
(chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco)
wrote:
>Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:16:04 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected].. .
>> >> Student wins claim over bank charges
>> >> By Simon de Bruxelles
>> >> Consumer groups welcome a groundbreaking victory that could lead to
>> >> cheaper fees
>> >> A LAW student is expected to be awarded hundreds of pounds in
>> >> compensation against his bank after claiming that the £32 that it
>> >> charged him every time he went overdrawn was unfair.
>> >>
>> >
>> >methinks you posted to the wrong group.
>> >
>> >I'm more than happy to discuss if you post it to the right one.
>>
>> It was a follow up to a lost thread from a week ago.
>Indeed. It wasn't your son was it? :)
No I want him to ask for a refund too :-)
>Have to say though, I'm astonished that the person in question paid so
>much in charges. I've had the same bank account (same branch and account
>number) since I was 18 with an overdraft facility, and have never
>incurred a charge.
I had bank accounts for more than 40 years with Barclays without
paying charges. When my son had his problems with them and they did
everything they could to stop my daughter opening a student account.
We closed both my and my son's Barclay's accounts and transferred
everything to HSBC. Everything was great for 3 years, but now HSBC
seems to be going the same way as Barclays.
--
Martin
Jun 30th 2005, 3:58 pm
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: UK bank charges
"John H" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> BUT you just did discuss the posting
only in a minor way.
>...stop nit picking selfd proc;aimed
> cop!
I was not nit-picking, nor being a policeman.
I am genuinely interested in discussing the subject and wanted
to avoid subjecting the group to what would be a very off topic
thread.
tim
news:[email protected]...
> BUT you just did discuss the posting
only in a minor way.
>...stop nit picking selfd proc;aimed
> cop!
I was not nit-picking, nor being a policeman.
I am genuinely interested in discussing the subject and wanted
to avoid subjecting the group to what would be a very off topic
thread.
tim
Jun 30th 2005, 4:09 pm
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: UK bank charges
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:58:17 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"John H" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> BUT you just did discuss the posting
>only in a minor way.
>>...stop nit picking selfd proc;aimed
>> cop!
>I was not nit-picking, nor being a policeman.
>I am genuinely interested in discussing the subject and wanted
>to avoid subjecting the group to what would be a very off topic
>thread.
Look at the number of posts about US bank accounts and ...
--
Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"John H" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> BUT you just did discuss the posting
>only in a minor way.
>>...stop nit picking selfd proc;aimed
>> cop!
>I was not nit-picking, nor being a policeman.
>I am genuinely interested in discussing the subject and wanted
>to avoid subjecting the group to what would be a very off topic
>thread.
Look at the number of posts about US bank accounts and ...
--
Martin
Jun 30th 2005, 5:35 pm
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: UK bank charges
"Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:58:17 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"John H" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> BUT you just did discuss the posting
>>only in a minor way.
>>>...stop nit picking selfd proc;aimed
>>> cop!
>>I was not nit-picking, nor being a policeman.
>>I am genuinely interested in discussing the subject and wanted
>>to avoid subjecting the group to what would be a very off topic
>>thread.
> Look at the number of posts about US bank accounts and ...
Sorry Martin.
Why am I at fault for trying to avoid there being some more.
I really thought that you had posted to the wrong group.
It happens.
tim
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:58:17 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"John H" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> BUT you just did discuss the posting
>>only in a minor way.
>>>...stop nit picking selfd proc;aimed
>>> cop!
>>I was not nit-picking, nor being a policeman.
>>I am genuinely interested in discussing the subject and wanted
>>to avoid subjecting the group to what would be a very off topic
>>thread.
> Look at the number of posts about US bank accounts and ...
Sorry Martin.
Why am I at fault for trying to avoid there being some more.
I really thought that you had posted to the wrong group.
It happens.
tim
