Reply to: Bank Charges

[Mailman]

Was it HSBC who sold a heap of money machines to company that charges to use its machines and on further inspection one of, if not the only, owner of that company was HSBC?

Mailman

[tim123]

I wonder when they are going to have a look at the charge for using ATM's, 47p cost, £2.50 charge - scandalous!

This is a fee for a service that is subject to market forces.

Bank defauk charges are technically a charge for a breach of contract and are thus subject to a different set of rules.

In any case, where do you get this 47p cost from. Is that the fee that the banks charge for performing the transaction. This isn't the only cost of running an ATM there are lots of other costs to add in.

tim

[vetran]

punitive

I wonder when they are going to have a look at the charge for using ATM's, 47p cost, £2.50 charge - scandalous!

[dazza12]

Got onto this one quite late, but I'm one of the customers that are currently suing their bank.

I'm looking at about 3.5k, with interest applied (once it gets to court) it's about 4k. It's currently at the stage where court action has been applied for, the bank have been served.

I've been using the Consumer Action Group website (url earlier in the thread), and I highly recommend it. Plenty of information and help, and plenty of other people in the same situation to assist anyone who's thinking about it.

[Mustang]

See my other post. I have been offered £260 and I haven't even told them I thought my charges were unfair - I had only asked what the charges were!!!

Once I know what the charges have been THEN I will probably respond further!

[ASB]

Nearly three hours you have had an thats all you can come up with?

Im sadly disappointed in your poor effort ASB!

Mailman

In my defence I've been to the accountants and on a conference call. That and I couldn't really be arsed to hone my rapier like wit.

[Mailman]

Is this some sort of hitherto undiscovered kiwi marsupial with greater than the average number of testes ?

Nearly three hours you have had an thats all you can come up with?

Im sadly disappointed in your poor effort ASB!

Mailman

[ASB]

Im sorry but you are talking a pile of syed bollacks here!

Is this some sort of hitherto undiscovered kiwi marsupial with greater than the average number of testes ?

[Mailman]

People can vote with their feet but apathy is the banks friend!

Anyway, of all the big banks HSBC is the only one where the majority of its profit comes from its personal banking customers and not its business customers! So much for there being no money in personal banking!

Mailman

[TheMonkey]

Banks are slowly getting the idea that you can vote with your feet. I have 4 accounts and move everything over occasionally to keep them on their toes. They tend to be quite flexible (particularly HSBC in my experience!).

[tim123]

I stuggle to understand this.

As a general principle people agree terms to a contract, often with consequence for non performance. On that basis (and only that basis) the charges are fair - it was agreed.

No it wasn't agreed. It was presented to you as a fait acompli. The bank gives you no possibility of negotiating the charge away, you agree to their terms or you don't get the account.

Consequently, we have laws that make these clauses void if they are unfair, and this one has been deemed to be unfair.

tim

[Mailman]

Wow. Are you a freelance judge too Mailman?

You left off executioner!

I suspect banks would simply argue that the charges are actually fair. Given that we’re informed of the charges when we open accounts, the banks have us over a barrel don’t they?

Banks can argue what ever the hell they want BUT the day they actually front up with justification (ie. clear explanations for how they work the cost of the charges out) for their high charges is the day the charges move from being unfair to fair.

However, I doubt banks will ever do that simply because they have far more to lose if this ever becomes public knowledge and are most likely more than happy to accept a few cases where they pay out than being swamped by claims going back years and costing them plenty of moolah.

Mailman

[NetwkSupport]

Hey ALM some of the sources are:


http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/cgi...41050760,24632,

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/surveyresults.php


An intersting read....

[Lucifer Box]

Look, lads, there's no point arguing about it. For once Mailman is correct and Dalek Supreme had it right at the beginning. The OFT themselves reminded the banks on 6th April 2006 that penalty charges for breach of contract that exceed the costs incurred are in breach of English law and cannot be enforced. The OFT have also stated that they would consider any penalty charge for breach of contract in excess of £12 to be unenforceable (the courts have forced refunds of much lower amount however).

For those who still want to debate the ins and outs, this site has all the relevant details and provides a variety of form letters and so on: The Consumer Action Group

[ALM]

Seeing as they have so far paid out 50% of claimants straight away with no argument and the rest after threatening futher action then i think they are quite aware that they are operating unfairly!!

50%? If true, that is impressive. Do you have a source for this?