From: Peter Saxton 
Newsgroups: uk.finance
Subject: Re: Unauthorised Overdraft Charges
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 21:25:53 +0100

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:07:28 +0100, "Matti Lamprhey"
 wrote:

>"Peter Saxton"  wrote...
>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:01:15 +0100, John Boyle
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>In message , Peter Saxton
>>> writes
>>>>>What I meant was that 6.4 shows that the charges are part of the
>>>>>contract, not a penalty for breaking the contract.
>>>>
>>>>How could any "penalty charge"(my view)/"valid charge"(your view) be
>>>>enforced if it is declared?
>>>>
>>>Not sure what you mean but my point was that if the charges are 
>>>declared
>>>at the outset for the provision of services provided by that contract,
>>>and they are accepted by the client, then they are enforceable.
>>
>> If it was the case that the charges were declared at the outset and
>> therefore any such charges were part of the contract it would not be
>> possible to have penalty charges because they could not be enforced -
>> " I know we didn't say what our charges were but because you didn't
>> stay in credit we will be charging you £1,000"!
>>
>> To me this is evidence that because a charge is declared beforehand it
>> doen't mean it is not a penalty.
>
>What you've written seems a bit contradictory, so perhaps you could 
>simplify it a bit.
>
Where is the contradiction?

>Predeclaring a charge for a breach of contract doesn't affect whether 
>the court would judge it to be a penalty and hence unlawful in a 
>particular case.
>
John seems to be saying that because there is a charge predeclared for
some event happening then it is part of the contract and can't be a
penalty for breach of contract.

-- 
Peter Saxton from London
peter@petersaxton.co.uk