[Sussex] Bank charges, important court case

[Andy Smith]

On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 10:57:09AM +0100, John D. wrote:
> Additionally, bank charges are, according to the (surprise surprise) "banking 
> code of practice", only supposed to cover their costs (using the example of 
> exceeding an overdraft facility), but not penalise the transgressor. It does 
> IMO appear that they are applying penalties - which is probably the 
> barristers' stand point. Or is it, that he knows stuff that we are unaware of 
> and "smells a profit" ???

They definitely are charging more than the costs and making a profit
off it, of that it seems there can be little disagreement.  However,
if the customer agrees to those conditions then whose fault is it?
I don't see what is so bad about a penalty charge because if you get
penalised then you really are less likely to do it in future.  It's
a bit strange to me that the banking code should prohibit this --
since it does it's also a bit odd that any bank dares to charge more
than a few pounds these days!

Like I say there are bank accounts with fewer facilities where you
have no overdraft, and I would like to see more differentiation like
that to help the people who are trapped in debt.

Cheers,
Andy
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/sussex/attachments/20070407/f1d84a1d/attachment.pgp