Are
penalty charges bank robbery?
Banks are making billions of pounds
each year from penalty charges. But now the legality of these charges
- which cost their customers an average of £30 a time - is being
called into question and thousands of customers want their money back.
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO FORWARD THIS
REPORT ONTO FRIENDS, FAMILY AND WORK COLLEAGUES ... THEY'LL THANK
YOU FOR IT!
STOP PRESS
Banks Retreat in Test Case Over Charges
Banks handed out hundreds of thousands of pounds in refunds to customers
yesterday rather than defend their actions in court.
Leeds Mercantile Court was due to hear more than 200 cases from
customers demanding the return of overdraft charges they believe
were unlawfully imposed on their accounts.
Judge Simon Grenfell planned to use some of the claims as a test
case that could be referred to if more actions were brought. But
the banks settled the claims at the last minute rather than allowing
him to set a precedent.
The cave-in gives new hope to thousands pursuing their banks over
unfair charges following recent setbacks that appeared to put the
banks in a strong position.
In May, Lloyds TSB became the first bank to win a court case after
being sued by a customer for imposing supposedly unfair overdraft
penalty charges. A District Judge at Birmingham County Court decided
the bank's charges were legitimate and legal. This ruling was later
cited by a judge in Hull who threatened to strike out claims by 20
bank customers seeking the refund of overdraft charges. Their cases
are due to be heard next week.
It appeared that the banks were gaining ground in the battle over
reclaiming charges, but yesterday they were in full retreat.
Around 250 customers had originally been listed to appear at the
Leeds court for a case management hearing in relation to their claims.
However, the majority settled overnight reducing the number to 75.
Despite only 24 individuals turning up or being represented at the
hearing, Judge Grenfell said he was hopeful of finding one or two
that could go to trial.
Such a move could have led to an 'authoritative ruling' being made
by the courts over the legal status of charges that can go as high
as £39, but, campaigners claim, cost banks as little as £2.50.
Judge Grenfell indicated that finding one or two people to go forward
to trial would be the best way to cope with the matter, amid thousands
of similar cases being heard in courts across the UK.
He told the claimants and bank representative present that dealing
with all cases one by one would be cumbersome while group litigation
would be expensive. 'What we want to achieve today is to pick a few
cases that are likely to bring the issue before court so that there
is an authoritative ruling,' he said, adding that such a verdict
would not be binding on all other cases but would be 'persuasive'.
However, during the afternoon it emerged that the majority of the
remaining claimants had settled with their banks, with a handful
having their cases held over while an agreement was sought.
Finding himself without suitable claims, Judge Grenfell said: 'I
do not have any particular test cases. I think it would be fair to
say that the message is that there doesn't appear to be any particular
mood to make a definitive ruling on matters of fact and law in this
case.'
Take part in our quick survey on unfair bank charges
The furore surrounding the charges intensified in April last year
when the Office of Fair Trading indicated that penalty charges, of
up to £39, for going overdrawn or bouncing a cheque were likely
to be illegal. This guidance prompted thousands more customers to
reclaim charges dating back six years.
The banks have employed a range of delaying tactics to prevent customers
from pursuing their claims. Some have refused to provide back copies
of bank statements - a breach of the Data Protection Act. Others
have dragged out responding to complaints beyond the redress period
in the industry's code.
Some have even closed the accounts of the customers involved as
an act of retaliation, a move condemned by the Financial Ombudsman
Service
£36,000 Bank Charges Victory
The recovered sum, which dwarfs the £5,000 offered
to law student Stephen Hone last year, comes as banks face a consumer
backlash over controversial penalty fees.
The anonymous Norfolk businessman recovered £35,987.94 from
NatWest after the bank charged him £30 every time it refused
to pay a direct debit or a cheque bounced because there were insufficient
funds in his firm's account.
Over 28 months, from 2000 to 2002, he estimates the bank charged
him £24,000 in illegal overdraft fees. 'At the time I was paying £2,000
to £3,000 a month in charges,' he said. 'I felt I was being
ripped off - they were quite happy to take bank charges from us but
were not willing to give us an overdraft.'
Using standard letters like those published below,
the businessman, who runs a successful windows and conservatory firm,
demanded the return of £24,000 plus £12,000 interest.
After the bank failed to reply, he started legal action using the
Government's Money Claim Online service and had a case conference
set for May 11. But on Friday, a cheque for the disputed amount arrived
in the post, without admission of liability.
Campaigners claim the fees of up to £39 levied on consumers
who go over agreed overdraft limits or bounce payments are illegal
as the real cost to banks is around £2.50. According to the
Consumer Action Group, banks have so far returned around £10m
to almost 7,000 people. Marc Gander, of the group, said: 'The general
message is that the banks are paying out substantial sums to avoid
going to court.'
The Daily Mail and This is Money have led the campaign
to raise awareness of the illegal charges since 2005, providing advice
on making a claim. Hundreds of thousands of
customers are demanding refunds that could top £300m. But banks
are taking their revenge by closing accounts.
To date, no court ruling has been made regarding the controversial
charges despite a large number of challenges by unhappy customers.
The Office of Fair Trading was due to rule on the issue last month
but delayed any judgment until the end of the year to avoid making
a 'quick fix' that could disadvantage customers in the long run.
NatWest, which is owned by the Royal Bank of Scotland, refused to
comment on the latest pay out, saying it does not discuss individual
cases.
|
Campaigners claim penalty charges are illegal.
Here we explore what the banks and their regulators are doing about it.
Last year the top six High Street banks in
the UK made an estimated £4.5bn from penalty charges. These are charges
that are incurred for unauthorized overdrafts, bounced cheques and clearing
Direct Debits when there are insufficient funds in the account.
The Campaigner
Stephen Hone is a young father of three and
a law student based in Plymouth. When Stephen's bank, Abbey, removed £64
from his account for two £32 penalty charges he called his branch
and asked them to pay it back.
"I was livid, I was really annoyed
that they refused to give me the money back, the banks are always trying
to say they're sympathetic," says Mr Hone. His bank pointed
out that these charges were fair and within the terms and conditions
of his contract. Mr Hone, however, believed those terms and conditions
were unfair and therefore illegal.
Abbey offered to refund one of his charges.
The Legal Position
Stephen argued that under the Unfair Terms
in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999) all penalty charges have to truly
reflect the cost of administering them.
They are not permitted to be a profit-making
enterprise for any business. He believes if a penalty charge is higher
than its administrative cost, it is illegal.
It's
very, very difficult to assign costs to specific aspects of the
customer relationship
Joe
Garner, HSBC |
Stephen called Abbey again and threatened
it with court action if it didn't refund both of his charges. Furthermore
he told the bank he would reclaim all the charges he had incurred over
the previous six years if it did not reconsider.
The bank declined the offer and said it would
defend its policy in court.
So Stephen went through his bank statements
from the past six years (the legal maximum period of time that money can
be reclaimed in the UK) and filed a claim at the small claims court.
Shortly after filing his claim,
Abbey paid Stephen back £840. Stephen used some
of this money to set up a website that
advises others how to reclaim their bank charges.
The Banks
The key point in this case is that none of
the banks want to reveal their true administrative cost for penalty charges.
 |
THE BANK COMMISSION
The
highest cost banks could justify for bouncing cheques
is £4.50
|
How the Money Programme's "bank commission" worked:
The Money Programme "bank commission"
Most lenders impose hefty penalty charges on their customers.
Having failed to get even a rough indication
from any of the major banks about how much it costs them to process their
customers' defaults, they decided to set up a commission of experts to
try to answer the question.
They deliberately avoided campaigners and
prominent critics of the banks.
Instead they chose two eminent business academics
Prof Philip Molyneux of the University of Wales, Bangor, and Prof John
Struthers of the University of Paisley, and an experienced banker, Ian
Jarritt, formerly a senior executive with NatWest.
They asked them to work out the highest costs
they thought banks could possibly justify for dealing with defaults, taking
every relevant expense into account.
The commission began work in October and
met in London a month later to reach their final conclusion.
They decided that the highest cost banks
could justify for bouncing cheques (the most labour-intensive procedure)
was £4.50.
For other items, such as bouncing direct
debits or dealing with unauthorised overdrafts, the commission judged £2.50
to be the highest cost banks could reasonably justify.
Both figures are vastly lower than the average £30
penalty banks have been charging for defaults.
Recently the BBC's Money Programme commisioned
a study into the cost of adminstering cahrges.
They asked Joe Garner, of HSBC, what it costs
his bank to process a charge.
"You'll understand that I won't
go into specific details of individual costs", said Mr Garner.
They then asked him to give a rough cost
of these charges to which he replied: "again it's very, very difficult
to assign costs to specific aspects of the customer relationship. It's
very, very hard to attribute a specific price tag to each aspect of that
and that's why fundamentally we don't agree to looking at one specific
charge".
After asking all the big banks the same questions,
without getting an answer, the BBC decided to find out for themselves with
a Money Programme "Bank Commission".
They asked two professors of banking and
a former NatWest executive to estimate the banks' costs.
The highest figure they concluded that banks
could justify was £4.50 - much lower than what the
banks currently charge.
HSBC also told them it settles customer claims
for refunds before cases are heard in court.
It's
odd that the banks have not chosen to fight a case to date; it
suggests that they are finding it difficult to justify the charges
that they impose upon their
customers
Kieron Beal, barrister |
We are unaware of any bank opting to defend
its charges in a court.
Kieron Beal, a barrister from Matrix chambers,
said: "It's odd that they've not chosen to fight a case to date.
It suggests that they are finding it difficult to justify the charges that
they impose upon their customers".
He believes that if a bank did go to court
it would lose.
And Nick White, head of personal finance
at price comparison site Uswitch.com, says that if a bank did lose a case
there would be huge publicity around the issue that would alert many more
consumers to the fact they could challenge the banks. It would make it
much harder for the banks to defend their charges.
The regulators
The Office of Fair Trading has already forced
banks to reduce their penalty charges for credit cards to a maximum £12,
and it has now opened an investigation to establish what the real costs
of current account penalty charges are.
Why are the banks paying up when customers
demand their penalty charges be refunded?
By Michael Robinson
Bankers are not famous for handing out money
on demand - certainly not to the tens of thousands of people they privately
acknowledge have already reclaimed their penalties.
But talk to bankers or their trade association
about what's going on, and you enter a Banker Wonderland.
For example, you might suggest to the banks,
as I've been doing over the past couple months, that they're repaying penalty
charges because they think they're on a legal loser and don't have a hope
of defending themselves in court.
Not a bit of it, has come a bankers' chorus
in reply. "Our charges are all completely legal".
So what's the reason bankers themselves give
for paying up?
"We don't want to be in court with
our customers" one banker tells me. "It doesn't make
economic sense to fight such small actions." says another.
"We want to keep a good relationship
with our customers - fighting in court wouldn't help that." says
a third.
But these arguments don't answer a more a
basic question.
Are penalty charges legal?
Imagine you were not talking about penalty
charges, but overdraft interest instead.
Try writing to your bank demanding they refund
all the overdraft interest you've paid, or you'll sue.
It's easy to imagine the letter you'd get
in return - polite banker-speak for "push off and forget it".
If you were mad enough to take your bank
to court, you'd almost certainly end up with nothing but a lawyers' bill
and egg on your face.
Why? Because however much you may resent
the interest your bank charges on your overdraft, no-one challenges its
legality so your bank is entitled to keep it.
But with penalty charges, the situation is
very different. Penalty charges are widely challenged as unlawful by campaigners.
The Office of Fair Trading is now scrutinising them as well.
Are banks charging fees or penalties?
Not surprisingly, banks are spending plenty
of money on top lawyers trying to develop legal arguments to justify their
charges.
The banks' latest line, revealed this month
by their trade association, is that what everyone thinks of as penalty
charges aren't, in fact, penalties at all - but fees for the service banks
provide.
People may not like having their cheques
or direct debits bounced, this argument goes, but it is all part of the
service and that means it's legal.
How confident are banks in this new argument?
Well, if willingness to try it out to court
is any guide, not very. Because in every case we have come across, banks
have paid up rather than challenge a customer in court. And there's no
sign that's changing.
Why don't banks go to court?
Which brings us to one final question for
the banks.
If banks don't ever go to court to defend
themselves against customers who ask for their penalties back, why do they
tell customers that's precisely what they're going to do?
I suggested to the bankers' trade association
that for banks to try to scare off customers by telling them they'd see
them in court when they clearly had no intention of doing that amounted
to little more than "bluff and lies".
The association thought the phrase was "pretty
strong stuff" and "rather unnecessary" but,
given that banks have never once defended themselves in court on this
issue, it's hard to see what else it amounts to.
In November Walter Merricks, the chief financial
ombudsman, effectively told the banks to put up or shut up: to prove their
penalty charges are legal or pay customers' claims in full.
Perhaps the time has come for banks to stop
bluffing and to turn up in court to defend their charges.
But with the legality of well over £10bn
of charges in the balance, what would happen if they lost such a case is
a question most bankers don't even want to think about.
The Bovingdon factor
The Money Programme went to Bovingdon - a
typical English village - to find people that had also been affected by
the banks' charges and to see if Stephen Hone's advice on how to claim
back these charges really worked
UK
banks could earn £5bn a year from penalty charges 
Open University
|
Jemma Miozga, a mother of one who works in
a garden centre, had been charged up to £39 each time she exceeded
the overdraft limit agreed with her bank, Halifax.
"The banks, I think are putting
these charges on to make a profit, no-one would agree with the charges," she
says.
"They are there for the banks to make
a profit and it's not fair. I just thought it was what banks did. So, I
was astonished when Stephen said [the charges] were illegal."
Mickey Boulton, a self-employed builder was
frustrated with his bank over the amount it had charged him. "We've
got in six months just under a £1,000 worth of charges. They've had
a lot of money out of us, and I want it back."
As a result of Stephen's advice, Jemma successfully
claimed back just under £5,000, while Mickey was
offered £600, which he has accepted.
While the country waits in anticipation for
the outcome of the Office of Fair Trading's inquiry, is it time to reclaim
your charges?
If you think you have been a victim
of what some are calling Bank Robbery, why not follow the step-by-step
guide to reclaiming your bank charges, which includes letter templates
to send to your bank?
How to claim back penalty charges
Here's a step-by-step guide to claiming back your bank account, credit card
and store card penalty charges. We have also provided you with templates
for form letters that you can send to your lender.
Penalty charges can be incurred for the following: unauthorised overdrafts,
unpaid items such as cheques, direct debits or standing orders. These are
also known as returned or bounced items.
You can claim the last six years of charges,
or five if you live in Scotland (for claiming back your fees in Scotland,
see the special entry below).
Some lenders have threatened to close the
accounts of people after they have claimed back their charges. This is
rare and unlikely to happen but if you are worried you should open an account
with another bank, just in case.
You have all
your statements from the past six years |
- Highlight all the penalty charges in your last six
years of account statements.
- Add up the total and then fill in all the information
on the document in the box below, called '14 day letter'.
- Next, post this letter by Recorded Delivery, to the
branch address of your bank/lender including a photocopy of the highlighted
statement pages.
- The bank/lender will usually respond to the letter
by either refusing to meet your claim or by offering to settle in part,
or in full.
- If the claim is small, the bank/lender may want to
settle it quickly to reduce its legal and administration costs. If
the claim is large, it is more likely the bank/lender will do nothing
- waiting until you actually go ahead and file a claim at court.
- Check online with the Post Office to confirm the
date that the bank/lender received your letter and then allow 14 days
from that date for it to respond.
- If, after 14 days, you have received no response
at all, or are unhappy with the bank/lender's response then the next
stage is to file a claim at your local small claims court (see section
titled 'File at Court' below). There is a fee to file a claim. If your
bank pays up, this fee is refunded at the point of settlement.
- The bank/lender is then obliged to defend its case
before the judge or else to pay the amount you are claiming against
it. If it chooses not to defend itself, as well as paying the full
amount of your claim, it will also refund your court fee. So far no
bank/lender, we are aware of, has defended its penalty charges in court.
(see section titled 'File at Court' below).
DOWNLOAD THE LETTER
Bank
charges '14 day' letter [14KB]
Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe
Reader
Download the reader here
You have only some
statements from the past six years |
You can submit an estimated claim if you
genuinely believe you have been charged during a period for which you have
no statements. Calculate all the charges from the statements you have and
if you believe the missing statements would also record similar charges,
then estimate the missing amount by doing the following equation:
- If one year's statements show £70 of charges
then you can estimate the total amount of charges for 6 years will
be: £70 x 6 = £420.00
- If you have 5 months of statements and these show
that you have accumulated £150 of charges in that time, then
you can calculate that you have been charged on average £30 a
month. (£150 divided by 5 = £30). There are 72 months in
six years so 72 x £30 = £2,160.00 (if your account hasn't
been open for the past six years then only multiply the average amount
by the number of months the account has been open).
- Fill in the necessary details in the template for
the "estimated charges letter" in the box below and post
it Recorded Delivery to your bank/lender's branch address.
- Your bank/lender will almost certainly work out how
many charges you have actually incurred in the past six years. It may
contact you within 14 days to either make you an offer, in part or
in full, or to state that it has refused to refund your money.
- If the claim is small, banks/lenders tend to settle
the claim quickly to reduce their legal and administrative costs, but
each organisation reacts differently. If the claim is large, then it
is more likely the bank/lender will do nothing until a claim is filed
at court.
- Check online with the Post Office to confirm the
date that the lender received your letter and then allow 14 days from
that date for it to respond.
- If, after 14 days, you have received no response
at all, or are unhappy with the bank/lender's response then the next
stage is to file a claim at your local small claims court (see section
titled 'File at Court' below). There is a fee to file a claim. If your
bank pays up, this fee is refunded at the point of settlement.
- The lender is then obliged to defend its case before
the judge or else to pay the amount you are claiming against it. If
it chooses not to defend itself, as well as paying the full amount
of your claim, it will also refund your court fee. So far no bank/lender
we are aware of has defended its penalty charges in court. (see section
titled 'File at Court' below).
DOWNLOAD THE LETTER
Bank
'estimated charges' letter [14KB]
Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe
Reader
Download the reader here
What to do if you
have no - or very few - bank records |
Check to see how far back you can access
your statements through your bank's or lender's website.
If all your statements are not available
online, then phone the bank or lender to ask for the relevant information.
You may be charged for this.
If the charge is more than £10 and
you are unhappy to pay it, there is the option of submitting a Data Protection
Act (DPA) disclosure request (see section below titled Data Protection
Act disclosure request for further information).
When the statements arrive, follow the advice
from the first section "You have all your statements from the past
six years".
Data Protection Act
Disclosure request |
This request is made under the Data Protection
Acts 1984 and 1998 and refers to the "right of subject access" under
the acts.
Use the draft Data Protection Act letter
below as it has been written to avoid confusion and delay. Using the DPA
route does delay the process of claiming back penalty charges by as much
as 40 days. It is therefore a last resort.
Make a note of any calls you make and what
the lender tells you. Also note when you post letters etc as this will
make it much easier to keep track of everything.
Once the statements or charge details arrive,
then follow the advice from the section entitled "You have all your
statements from the past six years".
DOWNLOAD THE LETTER
Data
Protection Act letter [14KB]
Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe
Reader
Download the reader here
Filing a claim in
the Small Claims Court (England & Wales) |
If you are unhappy with your lender's response
to your "14 day letter", then the only option left is to go to
court.
First check that the lender received your
recorded letter and that 14 days have passed, then download the form from
the link below.
You can access the Claim From online, using
the links in the box below.
- Print out the form and make two additional copies.
- Take all three copies and register the claim at your
local County Court.
- You can find the address of your local County Court
by calling the High Court on 0845 456 8770.
- If you have all your statements, attach a highlighted
copy of them to each claim form.
- If you don't have all your statements and you are
estimating your claim then include a copy of the statements you do
have that show a charge to each of the claim forms.
- When you file a claim, you are entitled to claim
interest on all the penalty charges your bank/lender has levied against
you - from the date they were originally deducted from your account.
If you decide to claim the interest, attach a copy estimating the interest
to each of your three N1 claim forms.
The time it takes a lender to settle claims
can vary.
SMALL CLAIMS COURT FORMS
N1
claim form for the Small Claims Court
HM
Courts Service guidance
HM
Courts Service: how to make a claim
Guide
on filling in form N1 [15KB]
Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe
Reader
Download the reader here
In Scotland, you can claim back five years
of penalty charges, not six.
You need to fill out a Small Claim Summons
document and take it to the Sheriff Court.
There will be a charge for filing the claim.
Guidance Notes on how to fill out the form
can be found here:
DOWNLOAD THE FORM
Scottish
small claim form [102KB]
Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe
Reader
Download the reader here
Sheriff
Court guidance notes
No time but still
want to claim? |
If you don't have the time or inclination
to claim back penalty charges yourself, there are several companies on
the internet that will do it for you. They usually keep a percentage of
your claim as their fee.
All the advice given and enclosed documents
are courtesy of Stephen Hone and his website www.penaltycharges.co.uk and
have been used with his consent.
If you manage to make a successful claim
as a result of this article please let us know Here
Further Comment:
I have been a member for some years now...
do you think informing your members of this site would turn out to be helpful?
There are loads of petitions they can sign up to etc.
I give the link below.