Latest DJF & Bank Charges News

All is not lost!
4th March 2010

Following the shocking and extremely disappointing decision of the Supreme Court that bank charges cannot be assessed for fairness under the UTCCR and the even more disappointing decision of the OFT to not fight the decision the future for reclaiming looked bleak.

However a Scottish Court has now allowed a Claimant to amend her claim to include a different part of the UTCCR’s as well as the Consumer Credit Act (Amended 2006) and a trial has been set for June 2010.

This could open up the doors for reclaiming and as such we will await the outcome of this case and any appeal before amending our clients claims. All new claims shall be brought under these differing rules and whilst the FOS has stated they will not currently consider the arguments we are hopeful that should the Scottish Case be successful we will once again be able to recover all charges that have been gratuitously and unfairly levied by the banks.

PPI claims etc are now all go so the amendments to site we spoke about in 1986 may now be useful again!!

Hurry up and Wait!
29th September 2009

Whilst the most recent test case has now been heard by the House of Lords Committee, the Committee was replaced by the Supreme Court Committee prior to the case being fully considered.

We are now awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court Committee and whilst no date has been set the decision is due sometime in the autumn.

The great backdown!
29th September 2009

The bank of Scotland and Halifax (HBOS) have announced that they are to drastically reduce their charges,.

Earlier this month RBS Group, which has 12.5 million customers, said it would be cutting its unauthorised overdraft penalties. Fees for bouncing returned cheques and standing orders are being slashed from £38 to £5 while the unauthorised overdrafts fee is going down from £28 to £20. Both RBS (Natwest) and Lloyds Banking Group, parent company of Halifax, are companies in which the Government has a significant stake. Have the Government applied pressure as a shareholder to force the banks to lower their charges? Barclays and HSBC, which do not have any Government shareholding, have both said they are not planning any cuts in their account charges before the Supreme Court's decision is announced.

G'day mate!
1st August 2009

The banking giant NAB who own Clydesdale bank and Yorkshire Bank have abolished bank charges in the Australian banks with their New Zealand banks to follow.

They have said this is to improve relations with their customers who clearly believe these bank charges to be unfair. They have not stated at this time that they intend to refund any previous charges but with immediate effect they are to abolish their charges for bounced cheques or for going overdrawn etc.

Unfortunately but somewhat unsurprisingly with the current test cases in progress they have stated that they will not abolish charges in their UK banks - so whilst those down under are going to be treated fairly - it is almost an open admission that they intend to continue treating UK customers unfairly.

This is almost staggering in its disregard for UK customers but should come as no surprise when it is clear that none of the UK banks have any concern for their customers at all and will pull out all the stops to keep the income generated from these unfair bank charges.

Still Frozen Solid
1st August 2009

Whilst the disappointing whether this summer may make some question the effects of global warming - the state of bank charge recovery is colder still with the FSA extending the freeze on reclaiming yet again by another six months.

The FSA are supposed to regulate the banks but have so far taken every step possible to allow the banks to continue charging these unfair bank charges whilst preventing customers from being able to do anything about it.

Last week ABBEY notified thousands of customers that they had forgotten to charge them in previous months and therefore informed them that they would be charged £100's of pounds in charges the next time they got paid! what have the FSA done about this? absolutely nothing at all.

The longer unfair bank charge recovery is on hold the more apparent it becomes that in this economic downturn the only ones that don't matter are consumers. the very people that the economy relies upon. The very ones that are now cash strapped with their hands tied by the very government agencies put in place to guarantee they are treated fairly.

little wonder that the Conservatives have seen a way to attack the government here, with David Cameron announcing that he believes bank charges to be unfair and requesting that the banks deal with matters far quicker than is currently the case whilst the exhaust the legal process.

A clever way to gain votes or a true opinion we just don't know but so far he hasn't raised the issue at Westminster - lets hope that changes soon.

In the meantime if you are suffering from financial hardship your claim may progress as before.

Decision Awaited
30th June 2009

The Law Lords have now heard the complex arguments from both sides and are due to return with their decision next autumn.

Both sides have put detailed arguments forward - the bank having the cheek to state that they cannot afford to repay the millions of pounds the unjustly took from consumers and that if they are forced to repay this they may have to charge for accounts. some would argue that they are charging anyway!

The OFt barrister has raised the issue that if the banks have taken money unjustly and invested this and made a profit then this profit should be shared amongst those whose charges were used to make it!

It has also been argued that the length of time for claiming should be 12 years not just six!

We will of course let all DJF CC clients know when an outcome is reached.

In the meantime if you are suffering from financial hardship your claim may progress as before.

Bank charges test case rolls on the Lords
29th April 2009

Well, the saga continues!

As all our clients are painfully aware the bank charges test case between the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and the Banks has been ongoing since June 2007 when a hold was placed on reclaiming charges.

The current score between the banks and the OFT is 2:1 to the OFT.

The banks were successful in their defence that the charges represented penalties under the common law and therefore these charges are not unlawful.

However the OFT were successful at the High Court and the Court of Appeal in their arguments that the OFT have the power under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Credit Regulations (UTCCR) to decide that the charges are unfair.

The banks have now appealed this to the House of Lords - the Highest Court in the land and a provisional hearing date has been set for 22 June 2009. This is somewhat sooner than expected and is good news for everyone wishing to reclaim charges.

Unfortunately this will not be an end to matters. If the banks lose they can appeal to the European Courts and even if they don't, there will be a whole new test case commenced to decide what a fair charge is.

The OFT can conclude that charges are unfair if they are successful but they do not have the power to set the level of new charges or order the banks to repay the amounts previously taken - only a Court can do this.

bearing this in mind it is likely to be at least 12 months before things progress significantly.

DJF CC Ltd will of course re-commence all claims as soon as possible.

Charity Night - 3rd May
24th April 2009

We are hosting a charity night in aid of the Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths FSID at the Stanhill Inn, Oswaldtwistle on Sunday 3 May and hope all our clients past an present can join us to raise as much money as possible for this worthy cause.

If your Elton or Elvis, Queen or Prince donn your glad rags and join the fun!

OH LORDS!
6th April 2009

Well, despite the Banks losing in the High Court and the Court of Appeal and not withstanding the fact that half of the banks in the test case are now owned by the taxpayer, the House of Lords have granted the banks leave to appeal to them directly.

This means that more tax payers money will be spent by the OFT in taking the case against the publically owned bank to the highest Court in the land.

It is expected that the case should take place toward the end of this year with a decision due next year.

Unfortunatley this means that all bank charge recovery claims remain on hold untill the next decision is received.

This is outrageous and so unfair on customers as the bank are still allowed to charge the fees - some now charging £5.00 per day which could be £155.00 per month for being only slightly overdrawn.

Remember that business bank charge claims and credit card claims are not on hold and charges paid may still be recovered.

Ready....Steady....WAIT!

Great News! the bank have had their appeal case thrown out!

this meens that the Court of Appeal have decided that the Judges ruling in the High Court was correct and that the Office of Fair Trading does have authority to assess the Banks charges for fairness in line with Unfair Consumer Contract Regulation.

So are bank charges now recoverable?

the unfortunate and disappointing answer is that NO they are not yet recoverable and the freeze applied by the Financial Services Authority remains in place.

This is for two reasons

1) the cases that have been in Court so far including this appeal case, are only concerned with the question - do the OFT have the power under the regulations to assess the banks charging structure or not. the answer now is that YES they do.

So the OFT will now conduct an investigation into the fairness of bank charges. if as expected they decide the charges are unfair the bank can either accept their finding or start a whole new round of Court cases, asking the Courts to assess the fairness of the bank charges!

2) Although the Court of Appeal has not given the banks leave to appeal the decision the banks can appeal directly to the House of Lords and they have 28 days from today to decide if they are taking this action. the likelihood is that they will appeal to the H of L and this could take the case into 2011.

It is also possible the the European Courts could become involved at some point meaning the case could run and run.

However it is most certainly round two to the consumers and in the current economic climate with tax payers having a large stake in most banks it is hoped that they will stop throwing good money after bad and will now throw in the towel and simply accept the results of the OFT investigation.

We will of course keep you posted.

On the Move!

DJF Charges Consultants are moving as from 01 March 2009

our new address is

Fox House
28 Hargreaves Road,
Stanhill,
Oswaldtwistle,
Lancashire,
BB5 4RN

25th July 2008

Frozen solid!

As recoverbankcharges.com predicted, the FSA, the Courts and the FOS have agreed to extend the freeze on all bank charge claims for a further six months until January 2009!

This is unfair and unjust for consumers whilst the banks continue to rake in £10million pounds per day in unfair charges - why are these not also on hold?

it is not expected that all matters will be resolved by january 2009 and we predict that the FS will crumble to the banks will and further extend this waiver.

its not all bad news though - claims can still be made going back to 2001 and therefore we can recover over 6 years worth of charges - but you must get your claim lodged NOW!!

remember the freeze only applies top bank charges claims - CREDIT CARDS, STORE CARDS, MORTGAGE AND LOAN CLAIMS ARE NOT ON HOLD

CLAIM NOW!

30th May 2008

Barclays - The first to crumble?

It has been announced today that Barclays bank have reduced their bank charges from up to £35.00 to just £8.00!

Although the bank charges test cases will still go ahead and the freeze on reclaiming will remain in place it has come as a welcome surprise that Barclays, Britain's third largest bank have come out ahead of the pack and stated that after listening to their customers (that is a surprise!) they have decided to reduce their unauthorised overdraft and bounced direct debit fees to just £8.00.

We eagerly await the outcome of the Office of fair Trading investigation due in a fortnight and wait with bated breath to see which banks if any, are brave enough to follow Barclays lead.

DON'T DELAY - CLAIM TODAY

23rd May 2008

Appeal allowed but its not all bad news

The banks and the OFT were back in the High Court yesterday and unsurprisingly the banks stated that they wished to appeal the Judges decision last month that the OFT had legal jurisdiction to rule on the fairness of bank charges under the remit of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract regulations (UTCCR). the Judge has allowed this appeal.

it does not appear that the OFT have asked for leave to appeal the decision given in the banks favour, that the charges are not penalty fees and are therefore irrecoverable under common contract law.

the Judge has forced the OFT to say when it will conclude its investigation into the fairness of bank charges and whilst their barrister initially stated that they were unable to commit to a date the OFT later stated they would conclude their investigation by the second week in June.

so in June we will kinow if the OFT believes bank charges to be unfair and if so what amount they believe the banks should be charging. This investigation will however be meaningless if the banks are successfull with their appeal against the OFT jurisdiction.

the appeal hearing is scheduled for sometime this autumn with a hearing in relation to the OFT investigation (in the likely event that the banks do not accept their decision) scheduled for the end of the year.

so whilst at the moment all bank charge recovery cases remain on hold with the FSA, Court and Ombudsman retaining the freeze on claims, we should have a firm decision within 12 month.

the issue of limitation, the six year limit allowed on claims for a fixed sum of money imposed by the Courts shall be an issue once th freeze is liftted. in the meantime it is essential that claims are registered with the banks NOW!

DONT DELAY - CLAIM TODAY

25th April 2008

Following the decision of the High Court yesterday both parties will reconvene in front of Mr Justice Andrew Smith on 22 May 2008 where they will advise if they wish to appeal.

The hold on claims will certainly remain untill this time and we shall update this site further once the outcome is known.

It is advised that new claimants do make a claim as soon as possible as the time barr applied to existing claim may not apply to new ones!

Dont delay - claim today!

24th April 2008

Banks Lose High Court Test Case

Mr Justice Andrew Smith agreed with the OFT that bank charges were subject to the test of reasonableness set down in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations.

As such the OFT may now continue with an investigation into whether the charges are fair or not.

Mr Justice Smith did not decide if charges were fair or not, only if the rules of the UTCCR applied.

What happens next?

The banks may appeal this decision and accordingly the matter will progress to the Court of Appeal and ulimately could go to the House of Lords as the banks will wish to continue charging £10m per day and will not be giving the money back without a fight.

Should the banks not appeal the OFT investigation will continue and it is expected that they will find charges are unfair but that banks may charge a smaller fee.

It is not expected that the banks will offer refunds without a claim being made and the freeze applied to claim has not yet been lifted.

The victory is a tremendous vindication of the rights of consumers but whilst we await sight of the full judgement and whilst the banks and the OFT must consider the judgement and its implications carefully all claims will remain on hold at this time.

30th January 2008

Bank Charges test case enters third week!!

The Barristers for all Defendants, Abbey, Barclays, HBOS, Clydesdale (Bank of Scotland/Natwest), HSBC, Lloyds TSB, Royal Bank of Scotland and Nationwide, have completed their initial submissions to the Court, stating that the charges applied to bank accounts do not fall within the remit of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations.

It is now the turn of Mr Doctor QC on behalf of the Office of Fair Trading to retort in an attempt to persuade the Judge that they do.

If the Judge finds that the rules do apply there will be a further case later this year to see if the charges are unfair and if so the UTCCR will apply and the charges may be recoverable once more. If however it is decided that these rules do not apply then that would be an end to the matter.

UTCCR

The rules are designed to protect consumers from terms in contracts that are clearly in favour of the companies and as such cause an imbalance in the relationship to the detriment of the consumer. If a rule or a term within a contract are deemed to be unfair than that term is given no legal effect and is removed from the contract.

There are two instances when the rules do not apply.

1. If the term is in relation to the price of goods and/or services

The banks have argued that providing immediate overdrafts when a payment is authorised without sufficient funds is actually a service and therefore these rules cannot apply.

2. If the term in the contract is a core term

If the term is of such importance as to be deemed a core term of the contract then these rules do not apply. The banks argue that it is imperative to the supply of a bank account that consumers pay for services such as paying a cheque when there are insufficient funds. Or indeed not paying said cheque.

If the banks persuade the Judge that either of the above apply to bank charges then the UTCCR will not apply and the OFT case will fail.
It is anticipated that whichever party losses an appeal will follow but this is much more likely from the banks than from the OFT who do not have a bottomless pit of funds.

9th January 2008

BANK CHARGES TEST CASE LOOMS

The time is almost upon us, with the trial window for the bank charges test case set for between the 14 January and end of February, the case is expected to start soon.

The test case does not unfortunately resolve all the issues and in fact is only concerned with one main issue.

It is the case of the OFT that bank charges are unfair - as per the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations (UTCCR) - as the banks and their customers are not of equal standing and the standard terms in the contracts relating to bank charges are weighted in the banks favour and are therefore unfair to consumers.

Should this be the case, the terms in question will be given no legal effect and withdrawn from the contracts allowing consumers to reclaim the charges.

The banks deny that the UTCCR apply at all in this instance for two main reasons.

Firstly, the UTCCR cannot apply when the dispute is in relation to the costs of goods and/or services. The banks state that the charges are not a penalty for breaching a contract but are instead charges for a service. These 'services' include allowing an instant unauthorised overdraft in order to meet a payment when there is not enough money in the account, or to stop a cheque to prevent a customer going overdrawn, among others.

Secondly the UTCCR do not apply to 'core terms'. These are terms within a contract that if removed would render the contract unworkable. The banks argue that if customers were simply allowed to go overdrawn et cetera with no cost to them then supplying a bank account at all would be impossible. Therefore charges et cetera are core terms and the UTCCR cannot apply.

It is up to the court to decide which sides arguments it prefers. If it agrees with the banks that the UTCCR do not apply then this may be an end of the matter as the main reason for recovery will have been removed.

If however the Court side with the OFT clearly everyone concerned will state that the UTCCR do apply. This will not mean that the charges are unfair or unlawful or that the charges should be reimbursed. What this will mean is that the OFT's basis for believing the charges to be unfair will have been upheld.

The OFT will then continue their investigation into charges or apply to the Court to add the question of reasonableness of charges to the Test case, specific provision has been made in this regard in the Particulars of Claim lodged by the OFT with the High Court. These can be seen at http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/personal-current-accounts/PCA-particula

Whilst the industry is now preparing for the battle and looking forward to the outcome, it is highly likely that which ever party loses the argument will seek leave to appeal meaning that we could all be in for a much, much longer wait.

Important News

ALL CLAIMS ON HOLD

The Office of Fair Trading last night announced that an agreement had been reached with Halifax Bank of Scotland, HSBC, Abbey, Lloyds TSB, Nationwide, Barclays, Clydesdale Bank (Yorkshire Bank) and Royal Bank of Scotland – Natwest, to take a test case to the High Court in order to establish whether the provisions of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations that deal with unfairness apply to unauthorised overdraft charges.

In light of this the Financial Services Ombudsman has stated that it will put all claims on hold pending the decision of the High Court. A factsheet has been produced and can be found here.

The Financial Services Authority has agreed that all banks may place the complaints process on hold pending the decision of the High Court and their decision may be found in full here.

DJF CC Ltd are regulated by the Ministry of Justice and accordingly we have today received specific guidance on how to deal with claims during this period and we have re-produced the relevant parts of that guidance below;

Impact on claims management businesses

4. The FSA has issued a ‘waiver’ from its complaints handling rules which means that until the test case is resolved any bank or building society will not be required to handle complaints relating to unauthorised overdraft charges. It is therefore likely that the banks will put on hold outstanding complaints, whether they have been made directly or though a claims management business, and new complaints will not be accepted until the case is settled.

5. Those businesses that have been advertising and marketing a service is respect of bank charge claims need to change their advertising and marketing, including websites, to take into account these developments and to ensure that a false impression isn’t given to consumers about the prospects for reclaiming bank charges in the near future.

6. Where businesses have outstanding cases then these must be handled in accordance with the terms of the contract between the business and the client. In many cases this will mean that the business must put the complaint on hold but then complete dealing with it when the test case is settled.

Communication with clients

7. Under the Rules of Conduct claims management businesses must keep their clients properly informed of the progress of their claims. They will therefore need to communicate directly with clients whose claims they are handling to explain the implications for their claims of the announcements by the OFT, FOS and the FSA. Business may find it useful to send a copy of the FOS consumer factsheet with such communications. The factsheet is accessible at http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/faq/bank-charges.html.

Advice to consumers

8. The following statement is being given to people who enquire about the claims management regulatory position –

“ On 27 July the Office of Fair Trading announced that a test case on bank charges is being referred to the High Court. The Financial Ombudsman Service has announced that pending the outcome of the case it has put its own work on hold; a similar response is expected from the county courts. This means that where a consumer has made a complaint through a claims management company then no further action is likely to be taken on the complaint until the test case is settled. Claims management businesses are being reminded that they must act in accordance with the contract that they have with clients. In many cases this will mean the claims management company putting the case on hold until the test case is settled. Claims management companies are being advised to communicate directly with their clients when they have considered the implications of the OFT announcement on their contracts.

So what does all this mean for DJF clients?

Well firstly this does not mean that your claim is over. Your claim is on hold awaiting a decision of the High Court.

Once that decision is made we will recommence your claim and inform you immediately as to the decision and tell you what will happen next.

Unfortunately we do not have any time scales as none have yet been made.
We will keep our website updated but will be unable to return any telephone calls until the decision has been made.

Thinking of making a claim?

We will continue to take on new claims and will register these claims with the banks. The claim will then be placed on hold with all others pending the decision of the courts.

22nd October 2007

OFT wavering?

Amid rumours that the OFT are to drop the bank charges test case against the banks if they agree to reduce their charges, Lloyds TSB appear to be the only bank to be changing the fees and these have effectively gone up! See Sneaky Lloyds news below.

It does therefore look like the test case will go ahead at the end of January next year but with lawyers tricks, appeals and further appeals it could be years until the banks are forced to stop ripping customers off.

Virgin Rocks!

The indefatigable Richard Branson has indicated his intention to save Northern Rock from being broken up into pieces and sold off by specialist buy out companies.

Virgin has tabled a plan that would keep the bank intact, provide Virgin with a 51% controlling share and keep all jobs. However even if Virgin is able to come up with the estimated £30 billion needed by Northern Rock to repay the £16 billion drawn from the Bank of England emergency funds and further bank loans that will soon require repayment, the share prices that have plummeted will need to drop further according to a Virgin Money spokesman.

These reports emerge as the banks chairman resigns and is informed that he will not receive any golden handshake payment following the disastrous turn of events suffered by the bank over the last month.

26th September 2007

Injunction by Cancer suffer against bank!

Mr David Lloyd 61 of Manchester has taken Halifax bank to Court following 762 calls from the bank which Mr Lloyd believes amounted to harassment.

Following a diagnosis of cancer Mr Lloyd was unable to continue work as a salesman and was therefore unable to maintain loan payments. Far from taking a reasonable and understanding approach the bank bombarded first Mr Lloyd and his wife with up to six calls a day and when they changed their telephone number the bank took to calling his daughter.

The matter ran to a court hearing in Exeter County Court and ended with the bank providing an undertaking in court and promising never to call again and to only contact the couple via solicitors.

Halifax are keen to point out that this is a commercial decision and that no court ruling has been made.

Are Banks and lenders finally accepting responsibility for the countries debt problems?

Following years of banks encouraging borrowing in order that they may recoup massive interest payments, not to mention late payment and overdraft charges, Barclays have now slashed up to half a million customer’s credit limits and tightened the criteria for lending.

Barclays have said that the move is not a reaction to the customer revolt against bank charges, the forthcoming High court case against the OFT or the recent Northern Rock problems but follows an review carried out last year.

HSBC are currently contacted customers who have not used overdrafts or credit cards for some time to see if they are still required. Again this is believed to be in light of recent market slumps and the intervention of the Government following the first run on a bank in over 100 years and may now herald a much tighter lending culture.

Northern Rock to honour dividend payments despite borrowing money!

Despite the well publicised problems of Northern Rock bank In the last few weeks the bank have announced that they are to pay out over £59 million pounds in dividends.

In what is likely to be a much scrutinised decision CEO Adam Hogarth will receive over £14000.00 and yet share prices are plummeting as the bank struggles to find a buyer.

20th September 2007

Bank of England U Turn to Bail out the Banks

In an amazing U Turn, the Bank of England came up with an extra £10 billion to help ease the crisis highlighted by the fall of Northern Rock.

Mervyn King, the Bank of England governor ruled out a move of this nature only last week stating that it would give the wrong message to the banks and would in effect reward their irresponsible lending when in fact they should be punished.

The High street banking chiefs together with the Financial Services Authority have been putting pressure on the Bank of England to follow the lead of American and German leading banking institutes and stump up the cash to alleviate the crisis.

Until yesterday however the Bank of England had stood firm in its refusal to hand out the extra cash. Indeed only last week the Bank of England injected £4.4 billion into the banking system.

Whilst the £4.4bln last week was heralded as a timely and well calculated move by the bank, the fact that Northern Rock was hit so hard with queues of people clamouring for their savings, the move is now thought to be too little too late and during a parliamentary Treasury Committee meeting later today Mr King is likely to come under serious scrutiny.

19th September 2007

Banks get off lightly as customers continue to pay unfair bank charges

Whilst the consumer revolt against unfair bank charges is placed on hold pending the forthcoming High Court test case the bank continue to charge up to £58.00 for a one off error and yet they pay about a quarter of this amount in penal charges to the Bank of England.

This inequality highlights the difference between a big company and us consumers who are not able to negotiate special rates are terms and conditions with the bank but have to pay what we are told when we are told even if the law prevents it.

On the up!

Following the Bank of England loan and the government guarantee that all Northern Rock savings will be protected, the US Federal Reserve cut interest rates by 0.5% in a bid to prevent a slump in the economy becoming an all out crash.

The actions have shown that the economies of developed nations are much less solid than thought and the impact from America has already been felt in Germany and the UK.

This should however make for a much less turbulent few months and hopefully leave the banks with plenty of money to refund to customers wishing to reclaim their unfair bank charges.

18th September 2007

Northern Rocky

Anxious customers are continuing to withdraw savings from the beleaguered bank following announcements that the bank have had to borrow millions from the bank of England emergency fund.

Over £2.5 billion has been withdrawn by worried customers not wanting to see their hard earned savings lost by the bank or used to repay the loan.

The bank is currently the target of possible take over bids most noticeably by Lloyds TSB and HSBC who will see the troubled bank as easy pickings and as a cheap investment should the share prices continue to plummet.

The bank of England, Financial Services Authority and the Treasury have advised customers that their money is safe and not to panic but Northern Rock have now agreed to open for an extra two hours per day in order to beat the queues of people attempting to withdraw their money.

Barclays Bank ABN takeover looks unlikely

The boss of Dutch Bank ABN Amro has stated that Barclays takeover bid id now unlikely to succeed following a fall in Barclays share prices.

The share prices have fallen rapidly following economic and banking uncertainly in this country, which is as a direct consequence of the mortgage problems faced in the US.

A consortium led by the Royal Bank of Scotland Group, looks set to have their rival bid succeed as their offer, whilst slightly less is made up of cash rather than share offers. Whilst the shares of banks are now rising again slowly it is not thought that Barclays shares will increase enough to outstrip the offer of the consortium.

18th September 2007

Consumer power wins again!

Was it Russia or Runcorn? With queues reminiscent of the Soviet Republic or Argentina, the outside of Northern Rock branches up and down the country made grim viewing for the troubled CEO Adam Applegarth.

With share prices continuing to fall and with the banks still reeling from problems in America and the home spun troubles such as the consumer revolts against unfair bank charges, Mortgage exit fees and payment protection insurance, other banks and building societies started to feel the squeeze.

Alliance and Leicester and Bradford and Bingley most noticeably saw a fall in share prices and amid real fears of a banking and economic collapse not seen since Black Wednesday in the mid 1980s the government stepped in and guaranteed all funds held by Northern Rock customers.

This means that all money held with the bank is safe. Customers may continue to withdraw funds if they so wish but any monies left with the bank come with the personal guarantee of Her Majesties Government. This is an unprecedented but much needed step that at least buys a little breathing space for Northern Rock and other lenders.

18th September 2007

A breakthrough for those willing to pay!

Five more people in Scotland seeking to reclaim controversial bank charges have been allowed to proceed with their legal bids in a move predicted to see countless English cases brought to Scottish courts.

The ruling at Edinburgh Sheriff Court on Tuesday saw five unfair bank charge cases against HBOS, Bank of Scotland and Abbey National ordered to proceed to proof after motions on behalf of the banks to suspend the actions were refused.

Sheriff Noel McPartlin is the latest Scottish sheriff to decide that he could not be bound by a test case being pursued by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) in England which has frozen customers cases there. His decision on Tuesday follows a similar move at Inverness Sheriff Court last week giving another two customers in Scotland permission to continue with legal action against their banks.

This could mean that all banks with a registered office in Scotland will continue to face litigation there whilst the High Court decision here prevents further claims.

However the small claims limit in Scotland is £750.00 after this you need a lawyer to handle the case and this means you will have to pay that lawyer for the work. You cannot use an English solicitor and accordingly will have to find a solicitor based and working in Scotland.

We will of course put you in touch with a solicitor in Scotland if necessary but the costs of this are not included as pert of our agreement and would have to be paid separately.

Alternatively you may play the waiting game and settle the matter in the future as per the agreement between us.

18th September 2007

Jailed for seeking justice?

A CARLISLE businessman , Simon Tucker, 26, spent a night in jail after a row over bank charges led to two cheques worth £90 bouncing.

Mr tucker was quite understandably, furious after police arrested him at his home where he was socialising with friends.

He blamed Barclays Bank, with whom he had been in dispute after £240-worth of unfair bank charges , for his arrest.

The former Annan Athletic and Workington Reds player reportedly threatened to close his account unless the charges were refunded and told bank officials to transfer its balance to his personal account.

Barclays, however, claimed Mr Tucker instructed them to close his account.

He said: "I have never been in trouble with the police before and the arrest was very upsetting."

Police, who accused him of obtaining property by deception because the cheques were dated after the bank account was closed, released him on bail the following morning and later dropped the investigation.

And despite the Financial Ombudsman investigating the incident and ruling that Barclays were not at fault for the incident, the bank has offered him £1,000 compensation to the account of his firm - Tucks Limited - as a gesture of good faith, which Mr Tucker is understood to be considering this offer.

A Barclays spokesman said that in light of funds being removed from the business account, two requests for the account to be closed Mr Tucker not attending an appointment, management thought he no longer wanted to retain his account.

He added: "Mr Tucker is upset the dishonour of the cheques led to his arrest. However, he asked for the account to be closed and requested the money in the account be removed.

"He would therefore have been fully aware that the account had insufficient funds and it either was closed or was being closed and no further cheques should be drawn on it."

18th September 2007

Lloyds TSB Updates.

Although Lloyds TSB has become the first of the high-street banks to reduce its charges, it has actually increased the amount of those charges when looked at from a monthly perspective.

so what has the bank actually done? we looked to www.motelyfool.com who explained;

1. From 2 November, new and existing current-account holders of Lloyds TSB will face a monthly charge of £15 for slipping into the red without permission. On top of this, there is a sliding scale of daily penalty fees ranging between £6 and £20, depending on the size of the unauthorised borrowing.

2. At present, Lloyds TSB levies a daily penalty of £30 for unauthorised overdrafts, regardless of their size, capped at £90 per month. Under the new system, the ceiling will be ten daily penalties in total -- which could amount to a staggering £200 a month!

3. Under the new fee structure, Lloyds TSB customers will pay £6 per day for overdrafts which are up to £25 over their agreed credit limit. Unauthorised overdrafts of £25 to £100 will cost £15 per day, and those over £100 will cost £20 per day.

4. Lloyds TSB's penalty for bouncing payments (including cheques, direct debits and standing orders) will drop from £35 to £20. This is a genuine step forward, but isn't nearly enough (see my final comment).

5. Lloyds TSB will no longer charge a penal rate of interest on unauthorised overdrafts. As I warned in The Great Overdraft Sting, presently it charges a whopping 29.8% EAR on unapproved borrowing. This will fall in line with standard rates of interest for authorised overdrafts, which range from 10.4% EAR to 19.3% EAR. Again, this is an improvement, but Lloyds TSB could still do better.

6. Lloyds TSB is set to introduce a text-message warning system to warn customers who are within £50 of their overdraft limit, or have already exceeded it. Initially, this warning service will be free for the rest of 2007, but will then cost £30 a year. Internet bank Cahoot provides a similar text and email service, but this is completely free. Hence, Lloyds TSB stands to make handsome profits from its £2.50-a-month service, so this doesn't get my seal of approval.

7. Customers who lodge funds in their account (by cash or cleared bank transfer) by 3.30pm on the day of the unauthorised overdraft will escape these penalty charges completely. This corrects an unnecessary evil, so I'm not about to give Lloyds TSB three cheers just yet!

13th September 2007

Lloyds TSB reduce charges to £15.

In view of the impending high court case Lloyds TSB have become the first bank to pre-empt the decision and have reduced all fees to a maximum of £15. they have of course stated that this is not as a direct result of the court case but no one really believes them.

This is not an admission that the charges were too high or illegal. It does however, mean that future charges will be considerably less and shows that whilst the banks are willing to go to a test case at the high court, they do not believe despite what they repeatedly tell us, that the charges are actually fair.

No other banks have announced a reduction in fees to date but we anticipate that it wont be too long before they do.

Homeowners face Higher Mortgages

In a unprecedented step Abbey and Standard Life, high street banking establishments have decided to increase their mortgage fees without a precedent from the Bank of England. Tracker mortgages are usually set at a percent agreed over the bank of England base rate, but this move has led to the Bank of England claiming that it can no longer control mortgage fees.

The increase follows problems in the USA where customers have been regularly defaulting on sub-prime mortgages, where banks lend money to people who would be turned down by other lenders the money to buy property. As the customers could ill afford to repay the loans the houses were repossessed but the full loans not recovered by the lenders. This led to a shortage of money for the banks. Shame.

The rise in mortgage fees has led to a nine year high in mortgage rates and will mean that homeowners belts will have to be pulled a little tighter for some time to come.

Credit Turmoil

Mervyn King, the bank of England Governor last night warned the Treasury Select Committee that the future turmoil in banking could worsen if banks fail to cut lending risks. Whilst the current crunch is not believed to be a pre-curser to long term instability it is thought that 'if risk continues to be under-priced, the next step will be on an even bigger scale.'

With problems facing the bank on mis-sold payment protection policies, unfair and illegal bank charges and the problems in the US, the banks have been borrowing heavily off each other and HSBC reportedly made an announcement to the Bank of England that Barclays had failed to make a payment in the sum of £35 million pound following a loan. Barclays stated that it was just an error but borrowed money from the Bank of England emergency fund to cover the short term short fall.

10th September 2007

CREDIT CARD CLAIMS CONTINUE….

Although all bank charges claims are essential on hold this doesn’t impact on credit card claims.

We are not currently taking on credit card claims without a bank charge claim but all existing credit card claims are being pursued as before.

If you have a credit card and bank charge claim we will initiate the bank charges claim which will be place on hold and we will be able to run your credit card claim as usual.

HARDSHIP CLAIMS.

If you feel and can prove that you are suffering undue hardship as a result of the bank charges and them now being on hold you may still be able to recover your charges despite claims being on hold.

You will need to identify exactly what undue hardship you are suffering and provide evidence from debtors et cetera in support of your claims.

We will write to the bank and supply copies of as much evidence as possible and ask that they review your case. If the bank refuse we will pass the file to the Financial Services Ombudsman for further investigation.

OBTAIN YOUR BANK STATEMENTS NOW

If you have recently claimed or are thinking of claiming for recovery of your bank charges it is a good idea to apply for your bank statements now whilst the actual bank charges claims are on hold pending a hearing in the high court.

The banks will still have to provide your statements for a maximum allowable fee of £10.00 and this will allow us to calculate all recoverable charges to date.

If you keep all future statements from now until the case is heard we will be able to calculate all further chares from these and you will not be required to obtain your statements again.

If you don’t keep future statements however the banks may indeed require a further fee of £10.00 if you request further copies in the future.

31st August 2007

A test case is due to start 14 jan 2008 and expected to last 8 days.

20th July 2007

As usual its a mixed bag in the world of bank charge recovery.

Halifax have now changed policy and will only offer a maximum of a 75% refund without the matter passing to the FSA Ombudsman or Court proceedings being issued.

Natwest, HSBC and RBS are now usually offering 100% settlement figures, although sometimes no refund is offered untill the case is progressed!

Most other banks continue to refuse any refund at all or make derisory offers untill all avenues of negotiation have been exhausted and the matter passed to the FSA Ombudsman.

11th July 2007

Bank Charge victory for the Hull 44!

DJ Beresford sitting in Hull CC recently struck out cases for recovery of bank charges stating that the banks had no case to answer. In his opinion the recent victory of Lloyds TSB in Birmingham – the “Berwick” case, proved that the bank charges were fair, reasonable and not recoverable.

However the very nice people at www.moneysavingexpert.com and the consumer action group clubbed together and formed a “fighting fund” thereby providing legal backing to the 44 claimants.

Many of the claims were against Yorkshire bank who turned up to defend the claimants arguments that the strike out orders should be revoked and the cases allowed to proceed.

The judge agreed with the claimants. He also agreed to allow the claimants to serve amended claim forms as redrafted by their legal teams.

37 of the 44 bank charges cases were settled in full or almost in full by the banks and the remaining 7 shall be allowed to proceed to trial. The banks have stated they intend to defend these cases.

However, a further and extremely important victory for claimants occurred as DJ Beresford ordered that the defending bank must disclose details of how they have arrived at their bank charges.

Until now all banks have refused to disclose this information as they say it is commercially sensitive. If the banks wish to continue to keep the bank charges structure confidential they will not be able to disclose the information in support of their defence and they will therefore have to face an embarrassing climb down.

Alternatively we shall be made privy to how on earth the banks come up with their figures.

Either way this is a remarkable victory for all consumers wishing to take on the banks.

If you haven’t reclaimed your bank charges yet our advice is to DO IT NOW!!!

21st June 2007

Business as usual

Having taken detailed legal advice we are now happy to continue running claims as before.

Many of our competitors have now ceased trading but by implementing new stratagies we remain confident of obtaining our clients a full refund.
Following Lloyds TSB victories at court and the apparent disdain for bank charge claims by the courts we feel it more fully protects our clients position to pass the file to the Financial Services Ombudsman for review rather than simply issue the small claims proceedings.

The ombudsman is independent, free and somewhat quicker than many courts that are currently working to rule.

So if you wish to recover your charges please complete the on-line form and we shall contact you shortly.

If you are an existing customer you may rest assured that you claim is progressing as swiftly as possible and you may remain confident of obtaining your money back from the banks in the near future.

16th May 2007

IS THIS THE END? DON’T BANK ON IT

Lloyds TSB have successfully defended a claim for recovery of charges. Judge Cook in Birmingham upheld the banks defence that the penalty fees were not penalty fees or charges at all and that in fact they are simply charges for a service that they provide.

LJ Cook stated "Having held that the charges complained of are not charges for breach of contract but part of the price of the services provided by the bank... he has not satisfied me that he has any ground in law for recovering from the bank the amount of any charges which he has paid to it,"

Whilst this may spell the end of being able to recover charges it must be remembered that this decision was only that of one district judge and that the decision is therefore not binding on any other court or indeed any party.
Mr. Brewick has been given leave to appeal the decision and it is most likely that he will do so, with people including Martin Lewis from moneysaving expert.com clamoring to offer the finance to fund the appeal.

Indeed Mr. Lewis states "To all those reclaiming charges it's a case of 'don't panic'. Across the country the banks are still paying out many tens of thousands of pounds a day and the weight of huge numbers of successful reclaims so far easily outweighs this one anomalous result. The banks seem to have got lucky with a sympathetic judge."

Unfortunately this will lead to further delays on all claims whilst the banks consider their position and in all likelihood will result in a stay on all proceedings until the appeal is heard.

Our opinion is that the fees cannot be seen as service fees as they relate to a service that nobody wants. If a customer has £20.00 in an account and a direct debit for £30.00 wants to go out the bank intervene. Now if they say yes then perhaps that is a service for which a charge may be made. If however they say no and charge you £30.00 for saying no, you are left £10.00 overdrawn, for which they will charge a further £30.00.
Not a service that anyone would agree too. The problem is that it the terms and conditions are accepted when the account is opened. So does this mean that the charges are fair?

Well no. If all the banks make similar charges and it is a standard term of the contract that you must accept this term then the term is subject to the Consumer Contract Regulations. If it is deemed that the term is unfair then it is given no legal effect. As the term favours the large banking establishments and is clearly unfavorable to the consumers then it may be deemed unfair and therefore be given no legal effect. Hence charges may still be recoverable.

We shall keep you informed and will continue to work on all files currently running.

Daniel Fox
Managing Director

3rd March 2007

OFT Decision Delayed

The OFT was due to release its findings in relation to unfair bank charges in April and whilst it was largely believed that the would find against the banks they have been somewhat concearned by the banks threats to close accounts, charge for accounts and generally claw the money back by other means.

Accordingly the OFT have decided that a quick fix solution is not in the public interests and will therefore carry out a much more detailed investigation in to unfair bank charges and the banking sector as a whole.

Details can be read at www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2007/54-07.
The OFT investigation should be completed by September 2007, we shall of course keep everyone informed.

3rd March 2007

DJF CC Incorporate.

As part of our continued growth and development DJF Charges Consultants are now a registered company and will will now be known as DJF Charges Consultants Ltd, Company No. 06186171 our registered office is at Mentor House, Ainsworth Street, Blackburn, Lancashire BB1 6AY.

All communication details remain the same and our service will not be interupted as a result of the changes.

19th March 2007

As from April 2007 all claims management companies must be registered with the Department for Constitutional Affairs, Justice, Rights and Democracy. Under the Claims Management Service regulations a company has many responsibilities and duties which must be adhered too.

Principles

• A business shall conduct itself with honesty and integrity

• A business shall conduct itself responsibly

• A business shall be directed by people with the necessary competence.

• A business shall ensure that any staff or other people working on its behalf have the necessary training and competence to perform their duties.

• A business shall observe all laws and regulations relevant to its business.

There are of course many more and these can be viewed here www.dca.gov.uk.

It shall be deemed an offence to provide regulated claims management services without authorisation, unless exempt, from 6 April 2007.

We have applied for authorisation and await our registaration number which shall be displayed on this site once recieved.


19th March 2007

Incorporation

As from 1 April 2007 we shall be know as DJF Charges Consultants Ltd. This will not effect the high level of service we currently provide but will enable us to grow and provide the same quality service to an ever increasing client base.

22th February 2007

Were on the Move!

As from March 1st DJF are relocating to new and improved premises and Tinkerbrook Cottages in Oswaldtwistle.

Whilst service will not be effected in the short term, the improved work space will enable us to provide quality service to an ever increasing client base.

All telephone numbers remain the same and we can still be contacted by using the details on our contact page.

20th February 2007

The Financial Ombudsman Service has concluded that the banks are unable to close peoples bank accounts as a punitive or preventative measure to people recovering unlawfull bank charges.

The Financial Service Authority state that "A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly."

Accordingly to close an account in order to deter or punish complainants is an abuse of power for which further compensation may be awarded.

16th February 2007

The Office of fair Trading has submitted a range of recommendations to raise standards of fairness in the way British banks treat their personal and businesses customers.

9th February 2007

A 100% refund together with interest, solicitors costs and court fees in the sum of £5800.00 for unfair bank charges has been agreed with Yorkshire Bank for our clients Mr and Mrs Graham.

8th February 2007

The Office of fair Trading has announced that it will refer the UK payment protection insurance market to the Competition Commission for further investigation.

7th February 2007

We obtain 100% refund for Miss Dixon against Barclays Plc in the sum of £1280.00 in bank charges.

5th February 2007

We settle against HSBC in the sum of £2560.00 in bank charges in favour of Mr Park.

2nd February 2007

Mrs Lymm accepts £2850.00 for her personal account and £7420.00 for the business account against HSBC.

26th January 2007

Banks in trouble again.

Whilst we all eagerly await the office of fair tradings decision in relation to bank accounts charges, due to be released in April, the banks appear resigned to the fact that they will be told to reduce their charges or face legal action.

Although this does not mean that they will happily refund past charges, it does spell the end of the banks massive profits in this area. So how will the banks get there money back?

It is possible that account charges will be levied on all accounts in the future, this will bring us in line with almost every other nation. The banks already manipulate the differences between borrowing and saving interest rated to net themselves a tidy profit, running into the billions.

Banks are also under fire for the sale of payment protection insurance (PPI) alongside loans and credit cards. The insurance is supposed to pay out if you cannot meet the monthly loan payments because of an accident, illness or unemployment. But it is riddled with exclusions - the Citizens Advice Bureau calculates that 85% of claims are turned down. It is also expensive: in some cases it can even triple the loan rate.

But naturally it’s good money for the banks, which sell 80% of PPI policies. In fact, the sale of the insurance accounts for about 10% of their profits.
There have been several investigations into the £5 billion PPI market. The latest report by the OFT found that the insurance failed consumers and it was referred to the Competition Commission.

The City regulator the Financial Services Authority also announced this week that it is set to fine 10 big-name banks and lenders £1 million each for mis-selling PPI to customers. The punishment could open the door for thousands of customers to claim for compensation for mis-sold policies.

Mis-selling could be widespread. Some banks, for example, automatically add the insurance to the loan. Consumers are also often led to believe they are more likely to secure the loan if they buy the insurance.

We shall keep our eyes on this and should it be possible to reclaim mis-sold policies we shall of course offer this service to all.

Look out the Americans are Coming!
Following the increase in people in Britain recovering their unlawful bank charges, American customers are looking to see if they too may be paying unlawful fees to their banks and if so how they will recover them.

10th January 2007
We obtain a 100% refund of £2550.00 in bank charges for Mr Chatburns business account, against Lloyds TSB.

8th January 2007
We settle Mr Thornburs business account refund before a hearing against Lloyds TSB in the sum of £5550.00 in bank charges.

5th January 2007
We secure a 100% refund of £550.00 in bank charges for Mr Holt against MBNA.

Lloyds TSB will now offer a maximum £750.00 refund without court proceedings but still require proceedings to be issued for any amount over this.

14th December 2006
Royal Bank Of Scotland have reached a new policy decision on bank charges and will no longer offer a refund and now invite court proceedings.

Lloyds TSB will now offer a partial refund in order to avoid proceedings!


13th December 2006
We recover £3858.00 in bank charges for Mrs T Coggins against Halifax Bank Plc.

13th December 2006

Bank Robbery

The BBC last night aired their investigation into bank charges and condemned them as unfair, disproportionate and illegal, calling them Bank Robbery.

During the investigation centered in Bovingden the BBC appointed two professors of banking and an ex executive of Natwest Bank Plc to look at the charges imposed by the banks for customers minor breaches of contract and to give its opinion on what they believe to be the actual costs to the banks.

Unsurprisingly the commission found the charges to be grossly disproportionate to the costs and concluded that the actual costs to the banks of a bounced direct debit would be £2.50, whilst the increased cost of bouncing a cheque in our antiquated banking system would be £4.50, the banks average charges are up to 16 times this amount!

Kieran Beal of Matrix Chamber, a Barrister, stated that in his opinion if a bank were to defend a claim at court, they would lose. he believes that the banks are.."finding it difficult to justify the charges that they impose upon their customers".

When pressed, Joe Garner of HSBC was unable to comment upon the charges and stated that it was ..."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".

Fight back?

Its not all one way traffic however and the British Banking Association stated during the programme....

Their argument is that the charges are not default charges or a penalty charge and that therefore the unfair Terms in Consumer Contract regulations does not apply.
they state that the charges are for services they provide. for instance looking at the account when money is due to leave and deciding whether or not to allow it. whether they allow it or not the charge applies.

The Office of Fair Trading have indicated that if their findings lead them to come to a different conclusion they will commence litigation against the banks as a whole. This could mean that there will be a case brought before the courts with the government department of the Office of Fair Trading in one corner and all banks in the other.

Although if they are unwilling to defend a single small claim against them it does appear unlikely that that will wish to defend such an enormous case with the inherent costs therein.

There is to be a demonstration at the Office of Fair trading by consumers who want action to reduce the charges imposed upon them by the banks and this could lead to some swift action by the department.

Could we be witnessing a victory for consumers against the banking establishments and even force them to reduce their charges permanently?

Links:
BBC Bank Charges Report
Office of Fair Trading

11th December 2006
DJF successfully recovers £2450 against HSBC in bank charges. This represents a 100% refund without issuing legal proceedings.

11th December 2006
Successful bank charges recovered against Yorkshire bank with a settlement of £1350.00 against £1450.00 charges.

7th December 2006
Bank updates
Lloyds, Yorkshire and Natwest continue to be the most difficult banks to negotiate with and still require court proceedings to be issued before they will offer a refund.

HSBC are playing hardball whilst they sometimes offer a 100% refund without proceedings they somewhat randomly now require court proceedings before they will offer a refund.

RBS remain the most obliging bank usually offering a 100% refund without the need for any proceedings at all.

4th December 2006
We recover £3750.00 against the Halifax. this represents a 100% refund, interest, issue fee and solicitors costs.

30th November 2006
We recover £1750.00 against Yorkshire bank including solicitors costs, interest and court costs.

29th November 2006
Successfully recovered a full refund for Mr Chapman against Lloyds, following proceedings, a defence and the filing of allocation questionnaires. Issue fee, inters and solicitors costs were also recovered.

24th November 2006
Bank Charges Recovered - we successfully recover £2764.35 for Mr Fairhurst of Leeds. The full amount of charges paid were £2150.00

15th November 2006
Following the banks attitude towards paying back charges to clients, the Office of Fair Trading has now launched a further investigation, specifically in to bank account charges as apposed to consumer contracts as a whole.

This may mean that some court claims are delayed pending an appeal but will provide certainty and clarity for both consumers and the banks.

To date this has not impacted on cases at all but as the decision will be made in February or March 2007 it may yet have an impact on all claims that are ongoing at that time.

8th November 2006
The Information Commissioners Office is due to investigate possible breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998 by the banks, following complaints that they are purposefully delaying the release of bank statements necessary to facilitate a claim against them for recovery of bank charges.