From: Peter Saxton 
Newsgroups: uk.finance
Subject: Re: Unauthorised Overdraft Charges
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 10:25:51 +0100

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 08:51:12 GMT, ŽiŠardo  wrote:

>Peter Saxton wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 20:45:17 GMT, ŽiŠardo  wrote:
>> 
>>> daveetwo wrote:
>>>> .
>>>>> Basically, he was taking money which wasn't his in that his account was 
>>>>> empty. I wonder how the Law Society would have viewed his actions if, 
>>>>> instead of taking money that belonged to the bank, without permission to 
>>>>> do so, he chose to "borrow" from his clients' funds account instead?
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Moving things in still pictures!
>>>> No one can dispute the fact the bank can make charges. The dispute it 
>>>> because they are not allowed to profit from penatly charges.
>>>> Given thatmany experts onf the field cannot come up with a rea cost of more 
>>>> than a fiver then they are clearly profiting from the penatlies.
>>>> If the banks were right they would have gone to court ages ago.
>>>> Thats why this guy is really trying to force the bank into court to justify 
>>>> thier charges.
>>>> If it happens it will be a first.
>>>> I hope he wins if only to show them up be have been conning customers for 
>>>> years.
>>>> Im surprised more courts havent had a go at the banks for wasting court time 
>>>> by allowing papers to initially take up court time only for them to be 
>>>> settled in every single case.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> But what gives this chap the right to take money that doesn't belong to 
>>> him, without even asking if he can?  You don't go into your local 
>>> newsagents, collect a paper and just help yourself to Ł50 out of the 
>>> till, do you, just because you've run out of money?
>>>
>> He is asking. He writes out cheques or makes transfers and the bank
>> can accept or reject them.
>> 
>> I don't see how taking money from a newsagents without asking is
>> comparable.
>> 
>>> ...and why shouldn't any business profit from its commercial activities, 
>>> especially when the agreement between customer and provider has been 
>>> broken by the customer - many times, it would appear in this case.
>> 
>> Businesses have to comply with the law. Should drug dealers and street
>> prostitutes be allowed free reign?
>> 
>And what has the business in question done against the law? I believe 
>part of the gripe is that the banks have taken money from these peoples' 
>accounts without getting permission to do so, but this is exactly what 
>those people have done in the first instance. In any event, the banks do 
>give notification and a breakdown of their charges before applying them.
>
The banks have imposed penalty charges which are illegal.

The customers don't take money from the bank without getting
permission. The bank is free to refuse to let the money go to the
customer. Don't you understand that?

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