Bank charges

[llogun]

Can anybody please give me any advice on me not paying bank charges. i have had a letter today saying i have got to pay £75 because my car insurance as took money out my account to early and left me short so they have now charged me. i have never agreed to have a over drafed. far as i was aware of, was if the money wasnt there then they could not take it. this all happan 9 of dec and only found out today by my monthley summery account.I cant close my account till i pay the money and it will just keep going up its a joke

[yozhik]

Can anybody please give me any advice on me not paying bank charges. i have had a letter today saying i have got to pay £75 because my car insurance as took money out my account to early and left me short so they have now charged me. i have never agreed to have a over drafed. far as i was aware of, was if the money wasnt there then they could not take it. this all happan 9 of dec and only found out today by my monthley summery account.I cant close my account till i pay the money and it will just keep going up its a joke

You have a bank charge of GBP 75 for a single transaction reversal?

OK - you have remedy - and there is precedent case law and rulings to support you. Bottom line is the banks can only charge what is deemed to be a "reasonable fee" that reflects the true cost of the service provided.

There are hundreds, of cases where people have objected to the level of bank charges, which the banks have been ordered to pay back. I might be hallucinating, but for some reason a figure of GBP 12 keeps flashing in my head re: "dishonour/reversal fee" ... but that could just be a combination of sleep deprivation, strong coffee, unknown toxins via GMO and e numbers :D

I would suggest a call to the Citizens Advice Bureau is a good start - if you mention "recovering excessive bank fees you have been charged", they should know what you're referring to.

You do not require any Freeman tools to assist you ;)

[bobfunkhouse]

I got back the entire sum of charges totalling about two grand in 2005 by simply writing to them explaining they were unfair , constitued a penalty , not a charge and took some advice from a guy on a bank charges website who advised me not to settle for their initial offer of half. They paid up in full because they did not want to go to court.
The problem now is the OFT have just won the first part of a massively long running court case meaning that bank's unfair charges fall under their juridstiction and all claims have been suspended until the outcome of this court case. The banks are expected to have to pay back everyone's charges.

Step by step (how i did it)
1.Get a list of all charges on your account going back 5 years (maybe 6 have to check)
2.Go to your local county court and file a claim against your bank using a template to be found at bank charge website google bob egerton , he gave me free advice , but he might be charging for help now !
3.Court will contact the bank and advise them you are seeking to claim back your charges
4.Bank will make you an offer
5. The rest is up to you!

Actually here is the latest from his site
Important: see latest news on test case

On 27 July 2007, the OFT announced that it would be starting a test case against 8 banks. The case will centre on the issue of whether or not the charges imposed by banks when a customer breaches his or her overdraft limit are default charges arising from a breach of contract by the customer, or they are charges imposed for a service provided by the bank. Specifically, the OFT is seeking a "declaration that the Relevant Terms and/or Relevant Charges are not excluded from an assessment from fairness under the 1999 Regulations by reason of Regulation 6(2)(a) and/or (b) thereof."

The importance of this case is that, if the banks were to win, it would mean that the charges are not subject to the restrictions imposed in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations and that the banks could essentially charge whatever they liked. Which is what they have been doing for years. See page "The Law".

If the OFT wins, it will not resolve the whole issue, because then the OFT will still have to prove that the level of the penalty charges is "unfair."

8 banks have signed an agreement with the OFT to allow this case to go ahead.

At the same time, the FSA and the Financial Ombudsman have announced that they are suspending all current complaints by bank customers about penalty charges until the test case is resolved.

In early August, the Deputy Head of Civil Justice wrote to all the Designated Civil Judges around the country (i.e. the most senior District Judge in each region) "inviting" them to put all bank charges claims on "stay." An invitation from the Deputy Head of Civil Justice is a bit like an invitation from the Mafia – probably best not to refuse it! Or even without such sinister undertones, if your boss "invited" you to make him/her a cup of coffee, you would probably think that your career would not be enhanced by refusing this invitation. So what has happened? Surprise, surprise, judges around the country are falling over themselves to put cases on stay as quickly as possible.

In many courts, cases are being put on stay the moment that the claim is issued, before the bank has even filed a defence. Cases are being put on stay even when the bank has filed a defence that does not use the arguments being considered in the test case. Cases are being put on stay for claims on business bank accounts which are nothing to do with the test case. So keen are the judges to put cases on stay, but they have not got time to read the cases themselves, they are getting court officers to put the claims on stay without the papers ever being put in front of a judge. It is my intention to challenge the stays on these cases.

My opinion on all of this is as follows.

If the OFT had launched this case 2 years when I, and others, asked them to do so, we would have applauded them for doing so. The fact that they are doing it now fills me with suspicion. The OFT is arguing only on the one issue of the question of a default charge versus a fee for a service. Even if the OFT wins, this will not be the end of the matter.

It appears to be a very cosy deal with the banks. The FSA and Financial Ombudsman and the British Bankers Association (BBA) were all involved in this deal but no consumer organisation was given any warning of the move. Press releases were issued by all these bankers' organisations with the same message which was that everything would be put on hold. The clear aim was to try to stop bank customers claiming for many months whilst the "test case" trundles slowly through the court system. This would be good news for the banks who have paid out hundreds of millions of pounds already this year. It will also get the OFT off the hook for a while.

It is bad news for bank customers. Over the past year, hundreds of thousands of bank customers have received refunds of penalty charge refunds because of the work done by the campaigners such as myself and those involved on other websites such as penaltycharges.co.uk, consumeractiongroup.co.uk, moneysavingexpert.com etc. Hundreds of millions of pounds have been paid out to claimants. Not a single penny of this has been because of the OFT. When the OFT made its half-hearted compromise deal with the banks on credit card default charges, it specifically ruled out doing anything about facilitating refunds of past charges. It will be exactly the same with current account charges. If the OFT wins its test case, it will do nothing to help people get back the billions of pounds plundered from their accounts in the past years.

Without the OFT test case, the campaigning groups would have succeeded in their campaign to stop banks imposing penalty charges because we were well on course to make life intolerable for the banks. The banks' administrative systems have been overloaded with these claims. With the exponential growth in claims continuing over the next few months, all the banking administration systems were in danger of collapsing.

Now the test case has given the banks a breathing space. This test case is very good news for the banks and bad news for the bank customers.

But we, as campaigners, are used to having a difficult fight. We will continue to assist and represent bank customers and we will continue the fight until we finally win.

The big conspiracy theory

For those who like conspiracy theories, how about this as an explanation of what is going on between the OFT and the banks.

The banks are massively powerful in this country. Successive governments have given banks privileged positions in society.

a) Remember Gordon Brown's famous five economic tests as to whether or not Britain should join the Euro single currency. One of tests was how it would affect the financial services industry. It said, "What impact would entry into EMU have on the competitive position of the UK's financial services industry?" No mention of how the Euro would affect manufacturing industry.

b) The government has been obsessed with PFI (private finance initiative). Under this scheme, private companies backed by the big banks, have essentially been given control of vast areas of what were previously public sector services. So now private companies build hospitals and schools and lease them to the public sector under 30-year contracts that guarantee the companies vast profits for a very long time. (If they make a cock-up, they just liquidate the company and the public purse has to pick up the pieces – see Metronet and the London Underground £1 billion farce.)

c) The government has been on a crusade to shut down post offices and force low income families into the arms of the banks. 20 years ago, a family could manage without having to have a high street bank account by using a Girobank account run through the post office network, have benefits paid into it and draw cash from their local post office etc. Now it is virtually impossible to function in modern society without a high street bank account.

I have no doubt that the banks are blackmailing the government and the OFT over this issue of penalty charges. What they will be saying to them is, "If you screw us on this issue, we will close down a third of all personal accounts because we will lose money on them. You will have to pick up the pieces. We will no longer cooperate on things like the Post Office Card Account. If there is a crisis in a second rate bank or hedge fund or similar, we will not do anything to save the financial system, we will just look after our own interests. And your public sector borrowing requirement will be impossible for you to finance without our cooperation." Faced with these threats, the government has decided that it has no option but to go along with whatever the banks demand.

So how will this latest move by the OFT end? Here are some possibilities:

1) The OFT "win" and the court rules that the charges are imposed as a result of breaches of contract and are, therefore, subject to the rules in fairness in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations. But that is only the first stage. It does not mean that the charges currently being imposed by the banks are automatically unfair. The OFT will then have to put forward the case that they are too high and should be reduced. This could take them another 12 months to formulate their case. Meanwhile, all those individual cases that have been stalled in the court system will have to be pursued by the individual claimants. The banks will concede on these but they will have bought themselves a respite in the intervening period. Then, after a further 12 months, the OFT will reach a deal with the banks, set a maximum default charge of £12, will pay no heed to the fact that a bank might impose 15 charges in one day, but it will announce that the problem is solved. It will do nothing about helping get refunds for excessive charges prior to then.

2) The OFT put up a weak argument in court, make a total mess of their case, and the banks "win." But shortly thereafter, the OFT and the banks present a joint statement saying that nevertheless they have agreed to restrict future fees for this type of incident to a maximum of £12.

3) Before the test case makes it to court, the OFT and the banks announce a deal. Yes, you've guessed it, the banks agree not to impose fees of more than £12. There is no admission of anything having been wrong in the past. The legal issue of whether the charges are default fees or fees for a service will have been side-stepped. And the OFT and the banks will say what a brilliant, innovative deal this is as it is a win-win result for everybody. An OFT spokesman admitted to me in a telephone conversation that the test case might not get to court. I suggested to him that the OFT and the banks would do a deal prior to going to court and he admitted that the OFT would be obliged to consider any "undertakings" made by the banks rather than go to court.

If I had to put my money on any of the above scenarios, it would be on number 3, i.e. the OFT and banks do a deal and the test case does not get to court. Meanwhile, in any of the above scenarios, I and many others will continue the battle to get real justice.

(Update, January 08. Well, I was wrong in thinking that a deal would be done before they got to court. The case has started. From all accounts, the OFT barrister is not exactly a slick performer and he is irritating the judge at times. However, he is putting forward all the right arguments about why the terms in banks' contracts are a sham and should be subject to the UTCCR.)

See BBC News where OFT spokesman said that the case may not got to court!

For a copy of the agreement between the OFT and the banks on this issue, see OFT press release of 26 July. To download a copy of the agreement, see Agreement

To download a copy of the particulars of claim lodged by the OFT, see Particulars of Claim

For the OFT update on the case (October 2007), see Update

The OFT has refused to publish copies of the banks' defences on its website or to make them available in any other way for consumers. The OFT cites "confidentiality" reasons. However, Bob the Bankbuster is pleased to be able to make them available. To view them, click on the links below – the documents (pdfs) will download to your computer.

Abbey defence

Barclays defence

Clydesdale defence

Halifax (HBOS) defence

Royal Bank of Scotland (including NatWest) defence

Lloyds TSB defence

HSBC defence

What should anyone thinking about starting a claim do?

If you can afford to pay the upfront court fee now and wait for many months for the result, I would suggest that you go ahead with your claim. You will get into the queue and we may be able to get your case progressed through the system before the test case is resolved. In the worst case, you might have to wait until next year. Making the claim now is particularly important if you are claiming back charges to 2001. The maximum period allowed for a claim is 6 years. So, in September 2007, you can claim charges back to September 2001. If you delay your claim until early 2008, you will only be able to claim back charges from early 2002. You will have lost out forever on the charges made to your account in 2001.

If you really cannot afford to invest the court fee and wait, then you may be better waiting for a few months to see what happens in the courts in the mean time. Then reassess the situation in October or November. Contact me if you want more advice.

What should anyone who has a claim in the system be doing?

The main thing to remember is that you have not lost your claim. It is still there in the system and, at some point, the court system will have to deal with it.

Remember also that if your claim included the statutory 8% interest on top of the charges, your claim against the bank will continue to accrue interest at this 8% rate until they finally pay up. That is a very worthwhile interest rate to get on your money. So the longer the claim takes, the more interest you accumulate. If you can afford to wait for your money, this will be the best investment around!

For background reading on the Office of Fair Trading, see OFT.

For latest news, see various news stories, in particular test case Nov 08.

[merlincove]

As far as i was aware, as things stand at the mo, the banks were ordered to pay everyones fee's back who objected to the being excessive, the banks obviously objected and while it is all going through the courts the banking ombudsman will now queue claims until a final decission on bank charges is made.

if you speak to the ombudsman you will be put in a queue.

Basicaly the banks are still allowed to shaft us and we have to pay them their money. Once a decission is made however, should it be that theoir charges are over the top (which we all know they are) then you will be able to claim the excess money back. But i'm pretty sure that that will be some time away.

Check money / credit / financial websites for more info.

This applies to everyone unless they can show financial hardship, that if the pay the charges they will have no money for food etc.

Not sure if the case has been finallised, but when i was looking a few weeks ago it stood still.

[merlincove]

http://www.bankcharges.info/

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/campaigns/bankcharges/article.html?in_article_id=456194&in_page_id=507

http://www.debtwizard.com/site/OFT_Bank_Charges_High_Court_Test_Case.html

[freedom_thoughts]

You could do what I am trying to do, and that is open a new bank account and don't bother paying the extorsionate charges your other bank has put on you.

That is of course aslong as you don't need a 'good' credit history ... I don't, so I am happy to do this!

Even if you already have a 'bad' credit history, there are plenty of basic accounts that you could apply for, I have applied for one with Citi and so far have been provisionally accepted, so fingers crossed I'll have a new bank account open with a week or so.

Then my old bank can bugger off if they think I am paying them back over £200:eek: for a £35 direct debit that didn't go through because I didn't have enough money in my account to pay it!:cool:

[boots]

Can anybody please give me any advice on me not paying bank charges. i have had a letter today saying i have got to pay £75 because my car insurance as took money out my account to early and left me short so they have now charged me. i have never agreed to have a over drafed. far as i was aware of, was if the money wasnt there then they could not take it. this all happan 9 of dec and only found out today by my monthley summery account.I cant close my account till i pay the money and it will just keep going up its a joke

Their bloody criminals over in the UK (banks) in Australia that is like $162.00 it would equate to 34 GBP here.

This happen to me just last week. So I rang them up immediately and said it was the fault of the corp who took the money out. Bullshitted of course. I just forgot. They gave me back the money they took out. If they had not then I could have said in what part of the contract where I signed ( They put up the charge, after I had opened the account) did I agree to the rate increase. I would have said that's not good business practice I will take it further. Be nice about it, act the victim:rolleyes: .


Having said this it looks like you have gotten good advise from the other posters in this Thread. Those UK banks are CRIMINALS.

.

[bones]

you could send a letter to the bank asking them for a giro to pay it off in full!


if they send you one for the ammount due

do the following! write in blue ink at 45 degrees.

accepted for value
exempt from levy
deposit to the uk treasury
id ********* (national insure number)
and charge the same to
(your name ALL CAPS)

send with a cover letter to the ceo of the bank telling him /her that it is a specie of money and failure to to do what you ask is fraud and you will contact the inland revenue and treasury for fraud.

now if you dont know this process ? then i suggest you learn accepted for value process make sure you are competant enough to apply it.

(you cant pay off a debt with a debt note,) clue there......

watch money masters on google for more uderstanding...

[yozhik]

On the subject of banks, I was doing my usual researching/exploring today and I stumbled across something I am still trying to work out. I'm not sure exactly what it means, but will put it here for someone to take further ...

I did a "whois" on federalreserve.gov.
The IP address info stated that only 1 other site was hosted or shared this IP address.
Curiousity got the best of me, so I dug to see which site it could be.

Zentralbank.us had the same IP address as federalreserve.gov

I'd never heard of Zentralbank.us before, so did a little bit more exploring.
The "Registrant" for Zentralbank.us was given as; Adam Weishaupt Foundation, Inc.

Does that name ring any bells with anyone?
Here is the Wikipedia entry for "Adam Weishaupt" ...

Johann Adam Weishaupt (February 6, 1748 in Ingolstadt – November 18, 1830 (in Gotha) was a German philosopher and founder of the Order of Illuminati, a secret society with origins in Bavaria.

His death info brings an even bigger smirk ...

Death November 18, 1830 (aged 82) (Gotha, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha)

Those same secret societies and names just keep coming up everywhere :rolleyes: ... but for this to be registrant info on the only website to share the exact same IP Address as the Federal Reserve seems to be too freakin' obvious!

... anyway, is off topic in terms of a "Freeman" thread, but thought it relevant to the banking topic.

If someone wants to check this and correct any naive "discovery" I have detailed, please feel free. :)

[boots]

Hi yozhik,

All to relevant when you show it like this.

I'm just watching a vid (55 mins) on credit cards and mind control. Very interesting this guy has his own radio show and has helped 100's of thousands of people wipe out credit and having a 360 on there thinking about money and paying back, so called debt and how all the so called experts we see telling people how to pay of their cards actually work for the banks.

The world is changing in all quaters.


Not to sure where to post this as it doesn't talk about freeman technology directly but it is certainly along the same lines.

http://www.consciousmedianetwork.com/members/jmartinez.htm

[bobfunkhouse]

Also quite amusing that lloyds tsb got slapped with a multi million pound fine themselves today for illegally hiding the origin of money transfers from Iran and Sudan!! Been doing it for years apparantly;)

[yozhik]

Also quite amusing that lloyds tsb got slapped with a multi million pound fine themselves today for illegally hiding the origin of money transfers from Iran and Sudan!! Been doing it for years apparantly;)

tip of the iceburg for Lloyds ... they should also check out their operations in the islands and their money washing operation in combination with a company in New York.

Lloyds has a very loooooooooooooooooooooooong history in laundering. :mad:

[vostran]

zentralbank.us was registered by someone who gave some bogus details and pointed it at the ip 132.200.33.130, that ip isn't registered to anyone specifically and is part of a range which was handed to the FRB, Federal Reserve Bank before reistration was commenced. The server at 132.200.33.130 reports it as unrecognized hostname as they probably get a lot of people registring domain names like this.... In other words it's a curiousity nothing more.

/endhijack

[llogun]

Thanks so far for all the imformation

[yozhik]

zentralbank.us was registered by someone who gave some bogus details and pointed it at the ip 132.200.33.130, that ip isn't registered to anyone specifically and is part of a range which was handed to the FRB, Federal Reserve Bank before reistration was commenced. The server at 132.200.33.130 reports it as unrecognized hostname as they probably get a lot of people registring domain names like this.... In other words it's a curiousity nothing more.

/endhijack

It would seem more curious if the Federal Reserve was open to "curiosities" on an external server, don't you think?

Surely the Fed would be up to its eyeballs in security and would not have to rely on an external hosting service, nor would it risk it ... would it?

Oh well, another small question mark :)

[yozhik]

Again, another titbit re: banks, from elsewhere on the David Icke forum ..did everyone see this?

The Bank of England will be able to print extra money without having legally to declare it under new plans which will heighten fears that the Government will secretly pump extra cash into the economy.

The Government is set to throw out the 165-year old law that obliges the Bank to publish a weekly account of its balance sheet – a move that will allow it theoretically to embark covertly on so-called quantitative easing. The Banking Bill, which is currently passing through Parliament, abolishes a key section of the law laid down by Robert Peel's Government in 1844 which originally granted the Bank the sole right to print UK money.

:D :D :D :D

Now this DOES belong in the Freeman section ... just shows how ridiculous the current "money creation" system is; biggest fraud known. It beggars belief how many people stand up for this deception and dismiss the Freeman/Commercial Redemption ideology outright.

So now the government is set to throw out the weekly account, meaning no accountability and no auditing. Exactly the same as exists in the EU - no records and no audit.

How can there be "debt" if there are no records of it?

Farcical.

:D :D :D :D

[vostran]

yozhik, well no not really, anyone can registered a domain name and point it anywhere and the IP is registered to them, so it's most likely not a 3rd party server but there own in house server farm that's dealing with the request.

There is nothing unusual about this, people do it all the time for a laugh.

[yozhik]

yozhik, well no not really, anyone can registered a domain name and point it anywhere and the IP is registered to them, so it's most likely not a 3rd party server but there own in house server farm that's dealing with the request.

There is nothing unusual about this, people do it all the time for a laugh.

Fair enough.
As I said, I might be wrong ... I have been before, I will be again. :)
Thanks!

[pleasuredome]

is there a time limit on how far back you can reclaim the charges?

[grenadene]

is there a time limit on how far back you can reclaim the charges?

6 years I believe.

[pleasuredome]

6 years I believe.

maybe i'll need to use a NoUI&CoR then :D

[stemcg1983]

i was wondering if anyone couldhelp me?

I received a bank statement today stating i was £500 overdrawn due to a company trying to get a direct debit out of my account when there was no money in to get.

i called my bank and he stated the charges are for that, and i told him tofuck off i am not paying it.

is there anyway ofreversing this.

i know there is a battle going on at the moment about things this nature.

anybody got any advice.

ps: i said to him how can they justifie charging me for money that doesn't even exist.
he gave reply

[outelligent]

you could send a letter to the bank asking them for a giro to pay it off in full!


if they send you one for the ammount due

do the following! write in blue ink at 45 degrees.

accepted for value
exempt from levy
deposit to the uk treasury
id ********* (national insure number)
and charge the same to
(your name ALL CAPS)

send with a cover letter to the ceo of the bank telling him /her that it is a specie of money and failure to to do what you ask is fraud and you will contact the inland revenue and treasury for fraud.

now if you dont know this process ? then i suggest you learn accepted for value process make sure you are competant enough to apply it.

(you cant pay off a debt with a debt note,) clue there......

watch money masters on google for more uderstanding...


Can I ask why write in blue ink at 45 degrees?
What does exempt from levy mean?
Or were did you find out about how this works?

Thanks Paul.

[bones]

Can I ask why write in blue ink at 45 degrees?
What does exempt from levy mean?
Or were did you find out about how this works?

Thanks Paul.

the 45 drgree thing is just they way its done.blue ink symbolises the colours of the sea and also could be that blue ink proves it aint a copy. who knows???

and exempt from levy is i beleve taxation? any comments on this would be gr8.

[yozhik]

the 45 drgree thing is just they way its done.blue ink symbolises the colours of the sea and also could be that blue ink proves it aint a copy. who knows???

and exempt from levy is i beleve taxation? any comments on this would be gr8.

All of the stamps I have seen or read about, specifically ordered for this process, are in red.
I'm not sure if blue is the correct colour. :confused:

[kweli]

Can anybody please give me any advice on me not paying bank charges. i have had a letter today saying i have got to pay £75 because my car insurance as took money out my account to early and left me short so they have now charged me. i have never agreed to have a over drafed. far as i was aware of, was if the money wasnt there then they could not take it. this all happan 9 of dec and only found out today by my monthley summery account.I cant close my account till i pay the money and it will just keep going up its a joke

Check this site out, it's awesome, can't recommend it enough.


http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...-forums-center

Consumer Community
The Consumer Forums are concerned with all aspects of Consumer Rights. We already have a great deal of experience and expertise in reclaiming bank charges.However, The Consumer Forums are much more than a bank charges pressure group. Over the last three years we have developed forums to help people deal with debt problems, payment protection insurance, parking and traffic offences, mobile and fixed line telephone companies, utility companies, retail stores, landlord and tenant issues, along with many other consumer related issues.
And what's more - all our advice and assistance is free of charge."

[bones]

All of the stamps I have seen or read about, specifically ordered for this process, are in red.
I'm not sure if blue is the correct colour. :confused:

i went to the confrence in derby in november and we learned that the red was used but was rejected on many occasions also blue was used and ppl got more remedy using it. i suppose it depends on who you deal with,

there was a lady with 7 k of debt and she set it off using her nat in number
when she checked her account she had zero balance.

her name was kirsty.

it also depends on the cover letter too.

[merlincove]

you could send a letter to the bank asking them for a giro to pay it off in full!


if they send you one for the ammount due

do the following! write in blue ink at 45 degrees.

accepted for value
exempt from levy
deposit to the uk treasury
id ********* (national insure number)
and charge the same to
(your name ALL CAPS)

send with a cover letter to the ceo of the bank telling him /her that it is a specie of money and failure to to do what you ask is fraud and you will contact the inland revenue and treasury for fraud.

now if you dont know this process ? then i suggest you learn accepted for value process make sure you are competant enough to apply it.

(you cant pay off a debt with a debt note,) clue there......

watch money masters on google for more uderstanding...

bones, thanks for the link here, but can someone explain how this works, have tried to watch money masters but can not seem to get it to load - takes ages and then i get a not responding screen.

Where does the payment come from / where does the debt / bill go?

Does the bill get levied against tax payments or some such?

some more info on this would be ideal at the moment - have just been hit with a £500 charge from the bank out of the blue, which was a little shocking tbh. Actually the charge is £611 for a £500 overdraft which i paid off last year....

Any links would be great as i can't seem to locate any :-)

i will have another go at Downloading the google vid over the weekend.

peace :-)

[elek]

Trying to avoid/transfer debts or fines by use of "acceptance for value" and "comercial redemption" has been doing the rounds in different incarnations for some ten years and has no basis in fact.

A good overview of the variations on these therioes, the originators of some of the ideas and the reality of what happens when applied in practice, can be found at:

http://www.tpuc.org/node/412

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/deadissues.htm

[epsom]

Can anybody please give me any advice on me not paying bank charges. i have had a letter today saying i have got to pay £75 because my car insurance as took money out my account to early and left me short so they have now charged me. i have never agreed to have a over drafed. far as i was aware of, was if the money wasnt there then they could not take it. this all happan 9 of dec and only found out today by my monthley summery account.I cant close my account till i pay the money and it will just keep going up its a joke

Ask for a bail out!!!

What's good for the goose, so to speak. ;)

Seriously, you should be able to get your money back. I have been charged overdrawn fees many times--and always got it back within a few weeks.

Good luck!

[bsmurph83]

Trying to avoid/transfer debts or fines by use of "acceptance for value" and "comercial redemption" has been doing the rounds in different incarnations for some ten years and has no basis in fact.

A good overview of the variations on these therioes, the originators of some of the ideas and the reality of what happens when applied in practice, can be found at:

http://www.tpuc.org/node/412

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/deadissues.htm

Sorry to burst your bubble there, 'elek', but what you yourself have just stated has no basis in fact. I myself have used accepted for value with approximately TWO GRAND worth of traffic infringements ranging from parking 'violations' to red light rubbish and driving an unlicensed car. I have also been in communication with others who have used A4V successfully. This is not opinion, theory or hearsay but direct personal experience.

Accepted for value works.

It is not a theory. It is merely an observable fact.

You can choose to observe or you can choose not to. I love it when people 'poo-poo' things before they've actually put them into use for themselves, or even taken a minute to acknowledge those who have.

[signalnorth]

there was a lady with 7 k of debt and she set it off using her nat in number
when she checked her account she had zero balance.

her name was kirsty.

i.

If this is true, and I'm not saying it is not true, then it is stunning and demands a FULL and COMPREHENSIVE outing on these boards with full details names and facts that can be checked against. We get these stories circulating but you know we never game the full pack drill of where when who and what.

So?.....

[signalnorth]

So it seems there are no facts to back this up

[yozhik]

So it seems there are no facts to back this up

I believe your answer comes in post #31

[bsmurph83]

I don't know if anyone is still following this thread, but I'd welcome any comments on the following:

I went to the bank (ANZ bank Australia) and asked how much it would cost to have a history of statements printed off (I stupidly threw them all out not realising how expensive it woukld be to get them re-printed again).

The lady told me it would cost $14 PER - FRICKEN - PAGE !!!!

I had planned to get my credit history and reclaim the penalty fees and other unlawful charges, but I had no idea it was this expensive to do. Is there a way I can get it for less? Doesn't that seem a little ridiculous to anyone else?

Comments and solutions please, if anyone has any :(

[yozhik]

I don't know if anyone is still following this thread, but I'd welcome any comments on the following:

I went to the bank (ANZ bank Australia) and asked how much it would cost to have a history of statements printed off (I stupidly threw them all out not realising how expensive it woukld be to get them re-printed again).

The lady told me it would cost $14 PER - FRICKEN - PAGE !!!!

I had planned to get my credit history and reclaim the penalty fees and other unlawful charges, but I had no idea it was this expensive to do. Is there a way I can get it for less? Doesn't that seem a little ridiculous to anyone else?

Comments and solutions please, if anyone has any :(

I'm sure I have read that you can lawfully ask for these for a lot less.

I'm really digging deep in the memory banks of the grey matter here, and could risk pulling some incorrect information out of my ass instead ... but I'm sure I have read on the www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk website (UK relevant) that when asking for "proof of claim" part of the process is to officially request (by statute requirement) copies of all statements to prove their claims for fees, etc.

Now, when asking for proof of claim for a CCA, the statute fee is £1.
Certainly not NZD$14.

I also believe that you would have remedy in the definition of "reasonable" when it comes to interpreting bank fees.
I do not think there would be any justification for NZD$14 to be deemed "reasonable" in terms of a fee or charge.
Check the governing legislation or call the ombudsman for the Financial Services or whatever the regulatory body is and ask for information re: "reasonable" and bank charges.

Failing all of that, call Citizens Advice Bureau; they may have examples of recent rulings to offer as precedent.

[bsmurph83]

thanks yozhik, I'll have to find out the Australian equivalents. One way or another, I hope to get these illegal penalty fees back in my account and out of their grubby little hands. I can't stand banks. The woman in there was trying to convince me that it's justified asking for $14 per page because of 'maintenance' and such.

What a jackass. I know you work in a bank and all, so my expectations for your cognitive capabilities are not sky high, but come ON. I mean, really...