Unlawful Bank Charges

[pineway]

I have now taken Legal action againsts Norwich and Peterborough Building Society.

Full details can be seen here


http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.u...130472-nowrich-peterborough-bank-charges.html

I sent them a letter asking for repayment of incorrect fees charged of which they replied and said, they cant complete my complaint until the test case in London is completed. They advised it could take many months.

So i took court action which they wont be too pleased with

Regards

Dave

 

[aidan1980]

my understanding is they have suspending all payouts untill the court case has finished. I don't think you taking legal action at this stage will help you out i'm affraid

 

[pineway]

Hi

that said, if i can have the case heared at court and judgement passed, then they will be foreced to pay, or the men in sutes go into there head office.

My case report now consist of almost 60 pages which will be used againsts them in court

Now i will also inform the courts, If my legal action is stayed then so should any future charges made by the bank until its clear on the test case.

 

[creospace]

The court action will be suspended until the high court test case is complete, no judge would be foolish enough to make a singular decision when there's a test case going through.

 

[aidan1980]

The court action will be suspended until the high court test case is complete, no judge would be foolish enough to make a singular decision when there's a test case going through.

thats what i was trying to get at

 

[pineway]

I agree there is a risk of any action being stayed but there has been successful cases in the courts recently.
where the stay has been lifted and court case allowed to continue.

Regards

Dave

 

[Moneyline]

With respect, your POC will be ripped to peices by the banks sols. You haven't said WHY they are unlawful by quoting the necessary legislation. The general consensus now is not to use MCOL as there is not enough room on the claim form for a decent POC.
You should really have taken advice before sending that.

Here is a normal POC

Particulars of ClaimOn or around the (date you opened account) the claimant opened an account (account number (insert number) sort code (insert number) with the Defendants, the claimant believes this was on the defendant's standard term and conditions. There was no negotiation on these terms it was either a take it or leave it policy. In fact the claimant had no option but to agree to the terms, as he would have met the same reply at any other Bank. The Claimant has requested a copy of his/her contract and a copy of the defendants terms and conditions on two occasion but the defendant has not supplied either After reading about these types of charges in the Media, the Claimant decided to send the defendant a Data Protection Request letter dated (insert date) (attachment A) asking the defendant to supply him with a copy of his bank statements dating from (date) to (date).After going through these statements the Claimant discovered that the Defendant had applied charges to his current account since the (date of first charge you are claiming) to (date of last charge) totalling £xxxx (insert amount) .A itemised breakdown of these charges are entered as attachments On the (date you sent LBA) the Claimant sent the Defendants a letter (recorded delivery) informing them that he believed the charges were a penalty charge (attachment C1 to 2 etc) the Claimant then asked the defendant to confirm/prove that the said charges were a true reflection of the defendants administrate cost, or refund the said charges.Regrettably the defendants refused to do either. In addition the claimant also requested that the defendants highlight which clauses in the defendants Terms and Conditions they were relying to make these charges moreover to point out each term that the said charges had been applied against. Again the Defendants refused.Because the defendant has continually refused to prove that they have any legal right or contractual right to apply the said charges furthermore they have refused to offer any evidence that the said charges are a true estimate of the administrative cost involved. The claimant has been left with no option but to issue a claim.It's the claimant's contention that the defendants charges are a disproportionate penalty and therefore are unenforceable, the claimant relies on the followingCommon law Principles (Penalty charges are irrecoverable at common law).The precedent for this was:Dunlop Pneumatic v New Garage [1915] AC 79. Lord Dunedin set out some tests that are considered even in modern cases when the court is asked to rule on penalty charges.They are; 1) If it is "extravagant and unconscionable" i.e. that the cost incurred by the business because of the breach is lower than what the consumer is being expected to pay because of the breach. 2) It is also a penalty where the consumer is to pay a larger sum due to failure to pay a smaller sum.It was held that a contractual party can only recover damages for an actual loss or liquidated losses. Murray v. Leisure play [2005] EWCA Civ 963"English contract law recognises that, if the parties agree that a party in breach of contract shall pay an unjustifiable amount in the event of a breach of contract, their agreement is to that extent unenforceable"CMC Group Plc And Others V Zhang [2006] EWCA Civ 408. "'Whether a provision is to be treated as a penalty as a matter of construction to be resolved by asking whether at the time that the contract was entered into the predominant contractual function of the provision was to deter a party from breaking the contract or to compensate the innocent party for breach. That the contractual function is deterrent rather than compensatory can be deduced by comparing the amount that would be payable on breach with the loss that might be sustained if breach occurred."Furthermore or in the alternative penalty charges are also contrary to:The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulation 1999 No 2083SCHEDULE 2 Indicative and Non-Exhaustive List of terms which may be regarded as unfair (e) Requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a dis-proportionately high sum in compensationFurther or in the alternative if the defendants state that there was no breach of contract and that the charges are for a service, then it is the Claimants belief that the defendants have attempted to restructure accounts in order to present events of default spuriously as additional services. However The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, are concerned with the intention and effects of terms, not just their mechanism. For example, a charge for 'agreeing to' or 'allowing' a customer to exceed his credit limit is no different from a charge for the customer's 'default' in exceeding his credit limit. The claimant claims from the defendant a sum equivalent to the total amount unlawfully debited from the claimant's account being (insert total charges). The claimant further claims interest pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum, being the sum of £xxxx(insert amount) and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of (enter the daily rate of interest).The claimant further claims the court fee of £xxxx (insert amount)." The claimant respectfully requests that the court makes an order for standard disclosure, when issuing this claim, as the defendants have continually refused to supply any requested information.*(I believe)(The Claimant believes) that the facts stated in these particulars of claim are true.Full name:


There is unlikely to be a decision until April/May for a result on the test case. However, the judge has implied that he may drop the waiver the FSA instigated if the result goes against the banks.

 

[pineway]

I have sent the court, Stamtement of case which includes all of this.

Hints why my case report totals 60 pages

http://www.benwell.clara.co.uk/case.pdf

http://www.benwell.clara.co.uk/Court-Documents.pdf

http://www.benwell.clara.co.uk/OFT.pdf

This is only the statement, I also lots of other stuff, which i have included.

 

[.Spiralling.]

The only court cases going through relate to Credit Card charges as the hight court action does not relate to these. All claims on bank charges have been stayed. Nothing will go through until that case has completed.

Some banks are still paying out, but only on minor amounts. Understandably they don't want to pay hundreds or thousands to customers if there's the slightest chance they won't have to.

Thankfully I got all mine back in 2006.

 

[Moneyline]

Now going by the Letter received from N&P they may try and get the case stayed. However after looking at the case in London they are not listed as
a defendant listed. So not sure if they can still use this as a defence.

Although they are not a defendant, the OFT stated that anyone who wished to sign up for the waiver can do so. All the financial industry did. Your case will get stayed and you will have to wait until the case is over or the waiver is dropped.

Even hardship cases are getting refused in court.

 

[pineway]

Ok, i do however think its wrong that banks are still allowed to charge there fees.


How can they be allowed charge £48 for stopping a £15.00 cheque as there was unclear funds which was then available the next day.

Should it not be the case, all bank charges be suspended as well?

Dave

 

[Moneyline]

Ok, i do however think its wrong that banks are still allowed to charge there fees.


How can they be allowed charge £48 for stopping a £15.00 cheque as there was unclear funds which was then available the next day.

Should it not be the case, all bank charges be suspended as well?

Dave

I agree but their argument was:

If we win the test case and you haven't paid charges for the last 2 years, you could end up owing us thousands, and you may not be able to pay that back.

 

[pineway]

That could also be said for the banks, with the amount of people that would put in a claim, some of the smaller building societys may not with stand a large amount of repayments.

So there are bad arguments that can be said for both sides (Bank and Customer)

The only way, i see banks to put a stop to this is. be harder on customers. (dont issue charges but)

1 Unpaid Item = 1 Warning
2 Unpaid Items = Final Notice
3 Unpaid Items = Account Closure

This would protect the bank from any legal issues about unfair fees. But then the bank are only there to make fast amounts of cash, so they will continue as normal

 

[Moneyline]

That could also be said for the banks, with the amount of people that would put in a claim, some of the smaller building societys may not with stand a large amount of repayments.

So there are bad arguments that can be said for both sides (Bank and Customer)

I don't think even the smaller banks would be affected by chrge claims, they are not really big enough. The credit crunch has hurt most banks, but they are still making billions.

The only thing that would hurt the banks is if there was another run.

If Fractional Reserve Banking was abolished the whole country would be better off.

 

[pineway]

Now my claim is for £225 + court Fees

its estimated 100,000 people have claimed.

so base that on £225 = £225,00000

alot of the claims will be far more then £225

I don't think even the smaller banks would be affected by chrge claims, they are not really big enough. The credit crunch has hurt most banks, but they are still making billions.

The only thing that would hurt the banks is if there was another run.

If Fractional Reserve Banking was abolished the whole country would be better off.

 

[Moneyline]

Now my claim is for £225 + court Fees

its estimated 100,000 people have claimed.

so base that on £225 = £225,00000

alot of the claims will be far more then £225

The credit crunch is likely to result in the banks writing off around £20 Billion!

Bank charges are a mere irritant for them.
We are currently on target for writing off nearly £1m from credit card companies over the last 12 months. A drop in the ocean.!

 

[Moneyline]

96% of money in circulation does not actually exist, it is purely bookeeping entries.

 

[Calibre Designs]

Can someone please point me in the right direction with regard to the new laws. Does it mean that bank charges made back in the old days can be claimed? How far back can you go if this is the case? Will everyone be rich by claiming money they never thought they could get back (no theres a thought.....)

 

[Moneyline]

Can someone please point me in the right direction with regard to the new laws. Does it mean that bank charges made back in the old days can be claimed? How far back can you go if this is the case? Will everyone be rich by claiming money they never thought they could get back (no theres a thought.....)

The law as it states now is that you can claim back 6 yrs from the date of you registering your claim in court under the Statute of limitations act.

However, there have been on or two cases where they have won further back, but it is a ve3ry complicated process and one that the courts do not seem to approve of.

12 years can be claimed for mortgaqges and secured loans.
There maybe something that conmes out of the test case which could abolish the 6 yr rule but I don't think that will happen until the test case is over, which could be 2 years or more.
The one thing that I don't understand is unauthorised overdraft. Surely there can be no such thing?

 

[Moneyline]

Can someone please point me in the right direction with regard to the new laws. Does it mean that bank charges made back in the old days can be claimed? How far back can you go if this is the case? Will everyone be rich by claiming money they never thought they could get back (no theres a thought.....)

The other problem with this is, the banks only have to send you 6yrs of statements under the DPA, so unless you have got them going back 20yrs, there's not a lot you could do.

 

[pineway]

Good News

mcol have accepted the claim

Date of Issue: 11/02/2008