Add Comment

Credit to the Govan Law Centre for their general work and on this issue in particular.I am currently chasing my banks for a refund of charges like many.When are the Banks going to be in court for deliberately breaking the law due to their greed???I'm sorry if I appear mean spirited,however the law of the land is there for us all to uphold.It would appear in modern Britain some of us are more equal than others.A vote for Labour is a vote for more of the same.Finbar Bryson ex-Labour voter.

Well done to Govan Law Centre and the Evening Times for highlighting this important issue. I used letters from bankcharges.info and got a refund of £1,500 from HBOS!

The banks are basically con men with suits on.I wonder why the Labour Party hasnt done anything about the daylight robbery of bank charges.Maybe its because they have become supporters of big business.

New Labour is in the back pocket of big business.How do you think Tony and Cherie plan to meet their mortgage payments after the 'party is over'???Watch this space for their next shameful move.New Labour betrayer of the working class.

Any advise would be welcome. I have, what I believe to be, a claim for a total of £3,253.50 from Jan 02 thruough to Dec 06. Should I claim each year individually, to avoid the £750.00 an limit for individual claim?

IF YOU HAVE BEEN CHARGED EXCESSIVE PENALTY FEES/CHARGES BY YOUR BANK OVER THE LAST SIX YEARS, YOU CAN TAKE THEM TO COUNTY COURT TO RECOVER THOSE FEES AND IT WON’T COST YOU A PENNY IF YOU RECIEVE INCOME SUPPORT BENEFIT, JOB SEEKERS ALLOWANCE, OR YOU MIGHT HAVE TO PAY A REDUCED FEE IF YOU GET FAMILY TAX CREDITS. IF YOU HAVE NO JOY IN YOUR CONTACT WITH THE BANK, JUST POP ALONG TO YOUR COUNTY COURT OFFICES AND FILL IN A SHORT FORM WITH 2 PROOF OF ID, AND PROOF THAT YOU ARE GETTING BENEFIT, THEN AFTER FILLING IN THAT FORM, FILL IN THE COUNTY COURT FORM TO ISSUE THE SUMMONS AT THE SAME TIME AND THAT’S IT. GET THE BALL ROLLING, GET THOSE CHARGES BACK. SHOW THEM YOU ARE NOT MESSING ABOUT, IT’S EASY,AND IF YOU WERE WORRIED ABOUT THE COST, DON’T BE, PROVIDED YOU FALL IN THE CATAGORY ABOVE, IT WON’T COST YOU ANYTHING…NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN…. GOOD LUCK TO YOU ALL BANKS DON’T WANT CCJ’S get your money back ! This problem arises from the banks using poverty as a source of profit—a great deal of profit. The bank commission of BBC 2’s “The Money Programme”, which included eminent business academics and a former senior NatWest executive, concluded that the absolute maximum administrative cost to a bank of processing a bounced cheque—the most labour-intensive of the processes in question—is £4.50. For all other items, such as unauthorised overdrafts or bounced direct debits, the commission concluded that the absolute maximum, in this electronic age where everything is done automatically through a computer, is £2.50. However, the average charge is approximately £30. Some are as high as £38, and they are charged every time people make what the banks consider to be an unauthorised transaction. That is a substantial profit for the banks, which rake in some £4.5 billion, without even taking account of the similar examples that the Federation of Small Businesses found in business banking accounts. Almost all of what is charged is profit, not costs. It is profit at the expense of hard-up customers. It is the biggest bank robbery in Britain, and it involves the banks robbing their own customers, especially their poorest ones. A common response when the practice is described is that there should be a law against it; but there is a law, or there are laws. First, under common law, disproportionate and punitive charges have always been illegal. In layman’s terms, if a consumer breaks the contract the other party—the bank, in this case—cannot impose a charge greater than the reasonable estimate of its loss. That common law has been unchanged for 100 years, and numerous cases in the higher courts have confirmed it. However, we can go further. The rights in question are protected by statutory instrument. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 made that clear. Get Your Money Back, You can even email the Abbey To Complain About Your Charges And Tell Them What You Think About Penalty Charges Which Are Deemed Illegal. Email the abbey at; customerservices@abbey.com[/bold][/bold]

Many thanks to the Govan Law centre website. I used there downloadable standard letters to reclaim my bank charges.I did not think the letters had done any good and was at the point of taking the bank to court, then one morning received a letter from the bank offering to refund me £750 which was basically my charges in full but without any interest. I was happy with that. Great work GLC.

now that we can claim back bank charges,what is the possibility of claiming back credit card charges?after all most banks are responsible for these cards and way over the top charges.

[bold]PRAISE FOR GOVAN LAW CENTRE[/bold] , The information you give on your site is amazing and shows just how badly banks exploit customers with their rip off charges. Both my wife & I are in the process of claiming bank charges bank (my wife from LLOYDS TSB & me from NATWEST), LLOYDS TSB have written to my wife stating that they will not refund charges (claiming that the charges are fair & a condition of the account) on receipt of letter 1 but we are pursuing the matter and have today sent Letter 2, as of yet I have not heard anything back from NATWEST. We are prepared to pursue the claims to settlement and greatly thank your site for giving us the knowledge and courage to take on the RIP OFF BANKS!!! We have recommended your site to several people so they can share in your information. ******************** ******************** ******************** ******************** ******* WE WOULD GREATLY ENCOURAGE ANYONE WHO IS CONSIDERING CLAIMING BANK CHARGES BACK TO GO AHEAD WITH IT TO SHOW THE BIG BANKS AND THE INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE THAT WE WILL NO LONGER STAND FOR THE RIP OFF TACTICS THEY EMPLOY IN THEIR DAY TO DAY BUSINESS. ******************** ******************** ******************** ******************** ******* Yours Truly Mr O Davis & Mrs K Davis

3.0 Bank Charges 3.1 It is not disputed that a bank is entitled to damages (reimbursement of its direct actual costs) following a breach of contract by a customer, and it is entitled to include a liquidated damages clauses to cover specified breach by its customers. A penalty is however unenforceable. 3.2 To decide whether a bank charge is a penalty or is liquidated damages the likely costs incurred by the bank needs to be examined to establish whether or not the banks charge represents a genuine attempt at pre-estimating its likely loss caused by the customer’s breach. 3.3 In a recent study undertaken in Australia* it was estimated that the cost of processing a dishonoured cheque by an Australian Bank was (generously) likely to be in the region of $3.00 to $6.00. A direct debit dishonour was estimated to be in the likely region of 54 cents. No data was published by the Australian banks to confirm or deny this. By reviewing the banks’ charges against the above figures, the study estimated that banks could be charging: a. between 5 to 16 times what it costs them to process a cheque dishonour. b. between 64 to 92 times what it costs them to process a direct debit dishonour. *Nicole Rich, “Unfair fees: a report into penalty fees charged by Australian Banks” 3.4 The study’s key findings stated that in its opinion the Australian Bank’s cheque and direct debit dishonour fees (bank charges) were likely to be penalties at law. 3.5 Further in an American study* (also referred to in the above Australian study) it had been estimated that the American’s Banks’ cost to process a dishonoured cheque was between US$ 0.50 and US$1.50 (estimated actual cost being 11 to 32 times less than the bank’s actual charge). To process a dishonoured direct debit payment was between US$0.48 and US$0.65 (estimated actual cost therefore being 9 to 11 times less than the banks’ actual charge). * 1998 American Study on cheque dishonour fees by the Consumer Federation of America “Bounced Cheques : Billion Dollar profits II”. 3.6 Unfortunately I could find no similar research for the United Kingdom’s Banks. Further, as far as I am aware (perhaps for obvious reasons), the United Kingdom Banks do not publish any details to support how their bank charges are calculated, nor what their actual costs associated with such breaches are, nor what revenue they derive (after actual costs) from such bank charges. 3.7 Therefore, whilst regrettably I am unable to do anything other than speculate, given the findings reported in the American and Australian studies, and the use of computer automation, apparently similarly employed by the banks in the United Kingdom, it is difficult to reconcile how a bank can incur costs of £25 to £39 in the process of: a. sending a computer generated letter if a customer exceeds authorised overdraft limit (even by a minor amount) to advise the customer of the breach and resultant charges, or b.returning a dishonoured cheque plus notice to the customer, or c. the non payment of a direct debit. 3.8 Such charges may therefore be found to be a "penalty" if the matter went to court. However, under the rule of law, the burden of showing that the clause is a penalty clause would rest with the person bringing the proceedings (i.e. the customer”). 3.9 However, I understand that in most instances the need to pursue such matters via proceedings is unnecessary. The banks often “waive” their charges following customer’s threats to “vote with their feet”. Another reason is that the vast majority of people are unaware of their legal position, or even if they are, and the banks do not “waive” their charges, they are naturally reluctant to incur the time, trouble and expense of embarking on legal proceedings for a relatively small amount. 4.0 Summary: 4.1 A penalty clause does not seek to compensate the innocent party for his actual loss, but rather it seeks penalise the defaulting party. Such clauses are not enforceable. 4.2 Whether a clause is a penalty clause is a question of construction of the contract, to be determined at the date of the contract, and not at the date of the breach. 4.3 A court is likely to uphold a liquidated damages clause to the extent that it is satisfied that, at the time of the contract, the specified sum was a reasonable estimate of the probable loss flowing from the breach that would be incurred by the innocent party. 4.4 The courts are likely to construe a term as a penalty where the predetermined sum to be paid is wholly disproportionate or extravagant, exorbitant or unconscionable in comparison with the probable loss suffered by the innocent party (at the time of the contract). 4.5 There could be a difference in the approach of the court between a claim brought by an individual consumer to that of a company, but this is unclear. 4.6 Whilst not analysed in any detail, bank charges do, prima facie, appear disproportionate and excessive. 4.7 If the matter progressed it may therefore be that bank charges would be found to be a penalty, and unenforceable, but this would depend on the circumstances of the case. 4.8 However as with all proceedings, this result cannot be guaranteed. These issues have never been tried and tested in a court of law, hence there is no legal authority established by precedent. Further, there is no data available from the United Kingdom banks in order to determine how the various bank charges have been calculated. 4.9 Finally where the bank account is a consumer contract, excessive bank charges (if found to be the case) may also be in breach of the Unfair Terms of the Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. I also understand that the Office of Fair Trading Office has recently ruled that credit card charges of up to £25 for people who were late in making payments, or who exceeded credit limits, were unfairly heavy sums, and have also threatened to also investigate the validity of bank charges already made. 4.10 Individual customers are deterred from taking the matter to court because of the legal and other costs involved in dealing with relatively small individual amounts in dispute. The corollary to this being that if many thousands of individual cases were taken against the banks, the banks would suffer huge legal and other administrative costs in defending such claims. Anecdotal evidence shows that those people that do object to the banks’ charges frequently have the charges withdrawn as a “gesture of goodwill” – but perhaps, taking a more cynical view, the withdrawal of the charges may have more to do with the banks’ desire not to have the matter tested in court rather than anything to do with goodwill. Peter Barnes 20 January 2006

I got £149 back from NatWest bank today. Thanks for all your help! warm regards, Pete G

my husband and i are in the process of claiming bos just now.we started in febuary and feel we are no further forward.we sent letters from govan law centre which was very useful,however i feel very let down by the small claims limit in scotland,which is£750.00.whereas in england it is£5000.00.the only option we have is to go with the financial ombudsman which is snowed under with scottish claims and therfor taking a couple of months to be investigated.i think the small claim limit in scotland should be revised and equal the english limit,afterall,we are part of the same country!

Hi, I wonder if anyone can help or had the same problem with the Clydesdale bank, in February this year I sent my first letter away to the Clydesdale bank along with my £10 fee to get a copy of all my statements so I can claim my bank charges back, I still haven't received a thing from them except excuse after excuse , I have called time and time again, I have written letters, I had been given about 8 different date to when I should receive them, but I am still here waiting for my statements to come through. My last telephone call to them was yesterday only to find out that, as from the 27th July all claims are suspended, I feel now that I have been stalled as the bank knew this test case was due to be heard and the suspension date. I also contacted the financial ombudsman yesterday to explain to him of the problem I have been having with the bank, but due to this case coming up there's nothing they can do. Can anyone help Mr H.

I am having International Student Account with HSBC since one year. I am on student visa in UK since past one year. Is the charge unfair and illegal as HSBC charges International Student Bank Account charges of 5 pounds per month or 50 pounds annually. I am paying 5 pounds every month as bank charges. The bank has given me a switch and not solo debit card. Can anyone suggest me what should I do to recover these charges back please ? I am having one Savings Account and another International Student A/c. Thank You.

After sending a copy of my charges summary back to the bank along with a demand that they be refunded, I today received a letter stating that because of the ongoing court case with the OFT (Office of Fair Trading) my claim had been put on hold until the case is resolved. Does anyone know what the correct procedure would now be?

[quote][bold]Mr H[/bold] wrote: Hi, I wonder if anyone can help or had the same problem with the Clydesdale bank, in February this year I sent my first letter away to the Clydesdale bank along with my £10 fee to get a copy of all my statements so I can claim my bank charges back, I still haven't received a thing from them except excuse after excuse , I have called time and time again, I have written letters, I had been given about 8 different date to when I should receive them, but I am still here waiting for my statements to come through. My last telephone call to them was yesterday only to find out that, as from the 27th July all claims are suspended, I feel now that I have been stalled as the bank knew this test case was due to be heard and the suspension date. I also contacted the financial ombudsman yesterday to explain to him of the problem I have been having with the bank, but due to this case coming up there's nothing they can do. Can anyone help Mr H. [/quote] Apparently the best procedure is to send letters recorded delivery, then you are able to see when the letters were received by the bank, therefore this gives them no excuse to say that they have not received it. Also a template letter for this curcumstance is available from a BBC News article http://news.bbc.co.u k/1/hi/business/6170 209.stm