 |
Can I sue a bank for, what I consider to be, an unreasonable fee? My bank recently merged with another and I was charged a $40 dishonour fee when there where inadequate funds to pay a personal loan I have with the same bank. This fee did not exist with my original bank.
I really doubt it. You can dispute it at the bank and tell them that you do not think it is fair and why it was not fair. Sometimes they will agree, to a one time, return the fee if you prove it wasn't fair. If they advertised or had brochures and literature available with the new rates then it may be more difficult to recover anything. But I really doubt you can sue them (and win)
Also it really wouldn't be worth the time and trouble to sue. It can cost $50. Or more to sue and you can lose.
Hello must:
Sure you can sue a bank. Find out who the agent is for the corporation in your city, and serve him with your small claims case.
excon-
Definitely you can sue. But will you win? In my opinion not a chance! When you signed for the account you agreed to any fees that they would charge and, that those fees would be subject to change.
To make the matter even harder this is not a proactive fee, but a punitive fee. If you had not bounced a check you wouldn't have incurred any fee.
Fees can be changed at any time and you would have gotten some notice of the chance most likely in a monthly statement on a page with lots of small print.
You can sue, but you will lose.
This is very easy, just don't write any checks when there is no money in the account then there will be no check charges
I gave up on banks years ago and I only use money orders.
I use to dispute the bounce fees that caused a no win snowball effect. They usually gave me back some of my bounced fees but it got ridiculous.
They would claim they alerted me that they took out the fee
But I never got the alert until I deposited more money to cover another check which bounced only because I didn't know they took out a fee.
< Money orders the best way to go!!
You can sue anyone you want to sue, but will you win? Remember lawyers cost money, who has MORE money? You or the bank? My vote is the bank.
Thanks for all the input so far. Jut to clarify, I didn't write a cheque - the bank tried to take a personal loan payment when there were no funds in the account. I know there is a law which states that banks are not allowed to charge more in fees than there actual costs. I therefore assume that to charge $40 for an internal transfer is unreasonable. Can anyone elaborate on this?
Never heard of such a law, in fact their fees have been upheld in every case I have heard of.
This sounds very much like the campaign that is currently running in the UK with excessive bank charges.
Now it really depends on where you are located as laws vary a lot between countries.
In the UK we are using the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCR) as well as penalties under common law.
The bakns ARE allowed to cover their costs, but it is considered a penalty under common law for them to profit from this activity.
[QUOTE=Comments on this post
mustshop75 agrees: As soon as I can pinpointthe law I will defopost it. It's probably different in the US to Oz and it's little known which is why everyone not doing it but those who have, have won! QUOTE]
I just searched again in several categories and can't even find a case on this so I am curious to see what you have found and where it applies.
As you say, if this is correct, the public should know about it.
Doesn't matter whether it was a written check or an electronic transfer. You authorized the debit to your account. You failed to manage that account to make sure there were sufficient funds to cover the debit. Therefore, they were within their rights to charge a fee.
Unless you can find some law that states that they can only charge for the cost of the services performed (a law I highly doubt exists), then you don't have a case.
That's why I have overdraft protection on my account. That's also why I generally look at my balances every day. Just in case a mistake was made.
With modern electronic banking there really is little excuse for bouncing a check. There is a Chase commercial showing a girl climbing a rock face and getting a text message on her cell that her balances were low. Then showing her calling and transferring balances while hanging from the rock face. A bit far fetched since I doubt if her cell had coverage, but the idea is there.
No, it's not unreasonable. If you have a loan at a bank as well as an account there, the bank is allowed to go into that account to get that payment. It happens to my sister all the time. And just because your original bank didn't charge you $40 doesn't mean a hill of beans because they're not your original bank anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by mustshop75
I have no idea what you're talking about when you refer to the banks not being allowed to charge more than their actual costs; are you actually trying to imply that your loan payment was less than $40?
And finally:
If you've already got the answers, then don't go looking for them and certainly don't give people bad reputation. You're abusing the site policy just because you don't like what you're hearing.Quote:
Originally Posted by mustshop75
Im not saying that the loan was less than $40, Im saying it did not cost the bank $40 to try and transfer funds from one account to another, therefore they have profited by charging me $40
Yes, I can elaborate.
The bank isn't charging you $40 to complete the transfer; they're charging you for insufficient funds. That is the fee they're allowed to charge and I'm quite sure you were notified of this. Good lord, how do people like you operate in the real world?Quote:
Originally Posted by mustshop75
What are you talking about! The charge I was notified about was $15 - the bank was merged, I got charged $40 - no notification. I am merely asking for clarification on the law in Oz that states banks fees must merely cover their admin costs - they are not allowed to profit from the fees. See the previous answer, someone has quoted the similar law in the UK. The laws are clearly different in the US to those in the UK and Australia.
Probably not. Quite frankly, I can't believe you keep dragging out this post because the filing fee is going to cost you more than the $40. You're a joke.
Not sure why you have resorted to personal insults when I am merely asking for clarification on a particular Australian law. Strange!
This website explains the law somewhat:
VCAT cracks down on unfair contract terms
Because you're not asking for clarification; you keep giving negative ratings to people who are trying to give you advice and in doing so, are violating the very policies of this site.
People who are stating that this law doesn't exist are incorrect - they should not comment on something they have no knowledge on. You insulting me is the most negative thing on this thread so take your own advice. I have posted an exampleof this law, most people are interested to know my findings. Oh and it would not cost me more to file the claim as, if successful, I would receive all fees ever paid. (as stated previously) Please read the whole thread before offering insults.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mustshop75
Have you actually read the rules of the site? Ask Me Help Desk - FAQ: Terms of Service, FAQ and How To Use This Site
So far I've been on your side - if there are sides to this.
You are giving "incorrect" marks to people (my friends and colleagues, I might add) who have given you absolutely correct legal advice because you don't like that advice. People answer questions based on education, experience, knowledge or "I think" and they usually add that qualification to their answer. We all answer serious problems and petty problems and don't tell people to go away because we don't like the question or think it's petty. You, as the person posting, are expected to show that same respect to the people attempting to help you.
You have managed - in some 6 posts - to collectively insult people who have posted some 36,000 times.
So go ahead with your lawsuit and let us know what the Judge decides. In the meantime I think it's all been said.
I haven't read the 'Terms of Service' only found this site a couple of days ago. It was never my intention to give negative feedback.
I did not expect to be called a 'joke' or asked 'how do people like you operate in the world' - as far as I was concerned I was merely looking for clarification on a law.
To be personally insulted was completely unnecessary and somewhat childish. I apologise if I have inadvertanly given negative feedback - that certainly was never my intention. I genuinely appreciate those who have taken interest and offered opinions or indeed advice. It is my mistake, I should have read the rules of the site to understand what I was doing when flagging that the advice was incorrect.
I do not believe I have personally insulted anyone, even refrained when called 'a joke' - which is a personal insult.
First off, while this site is international it is primarily US based. Since you gave no indication of your location, we answered based on US laws. Yet, you criticize us for not knowing that you are from Australia. Had that been mentioned up fron or had you indicated your general location in your profile, we would have answered differently.
Second, I read the article you linked to and see nothing to support what you have described. A fee of $40 for bouncing a check is not unreasonable in the US, so I would doubt that its unreasonable down under.
When the banks merged you were probably sent notice of changes in fees, etc. You had the opportunity at that time to choose to move your accounts. You didn't, which constituted a tacit acceptance of the terms.
And, as I indicated earlier, this fee was punitive. It occurred because YOU mismanaged your account. I can't see any court in the world finding in your favor.
Finally, as has been pointed out, your are using the Comments feature in violation of the rules of the site. All sites like this have such guidelines and it is a good idea to familiarize yourself with them before using the site.
I agree that some of the responses were a bit harsh. But try looking at what you were asking. You wanted to sue your bank because you let the balance get too low to cover payments that were scheduled. And you felt the fee for this was too high. I have to agree that you were not being realisitic.
If you already know the law then why are you asking? It seems like you already have the answer to your question, or is there something more that you are looking for?Quote:
People who are stating that this law doesn't exist are incorrect
Thanks Scott. You're right I should have mentioned I was from Oz I genuinely only just found this site and didn't realise it was predominatly US based. I did however mention several times that I didn't bounce a cheque - the bank tried to take funds for a loan I have with them when there were no funds in the account. This section of the wesbite I referenced shows a gym doing a similar thing and the judge deemed it unfair:
Judge Harbison held that almost all of the challenged provisions in the standard form membership contract were void based on 'unfair term's provisions. Some of the terms that the Judge held to be unfair included that:
... the gym could automatically debit funds from members' bank accounts if they failed to make payments by due dates;
The site also goes on to specifcally mention banks:
For example, the Office of Fair Trading in the United Kingdom is currently investigating whether various bank overdraft charges are unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UK) (which are similar to the 'unfair terms' provisions in the FTA).
Again, I apologise that I have inadvertently given negative feedback - it definitely was never my intention. I have just read the link you provided - thanks. I should have read this section previously - my mistake. I now understand the functions of this site and if you could undo my previous errors I would appreciate that.
Again, I am grateful to all those who have taken an interest in my question and who have offered advice and opinions. My misunderstaning of the functions of the site does not warrant personal insults and name calling. - Surely, unlike my misunderstanding due to be new to this site, name calling is an intentional breach of the sites rules!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mustshop75
By rating someone's answer with a disagree (a reddie) you have given negative feedback.
As for the terms of service, you were required to read it and agree to follow it when you joined this site. If you chose not to read it how is that our fault?
We are all human beings, none of us likes to be told that we are wrong, especially when we volunteer here to try and help people.
No, we aren't all experts in the law, but when we are just giving an opinion, not stating fact, we usually say so. It's up to you to weed out the good advice from the bad.
But, Scott and Judy are two very respected members of this site, and they know a lot about the law. If it were me I'd listen to their advice, they wouldn't steer you in the wrong direction.
Just remember, this is a free site, sometimes you get what you pay for. ;)
Altenweg, I have now apologised twice for my mistake in not fully reading the terms.
CURLYBEN thank you for your reference to the UK case - I have now found the answer I was looking for :)
I posted at the same time as you did, sorry. :(
I'm glad you found your answer.
Good luck. :)
I'm sorry if you were insulted; personally, I find it insulting when you come here looking for advice and then tell everyone that you already have the answer.
Was I harsh? Yes, and I apologize. I was harsh because you don't seem to understand the situation you're in. It was your responsibility to make sure there were sufficient funds in your account, not the bank's. They tried to automatically withdraw a payment from an account that was your responsibility. You agreed to pay a fee for insufficient funds, and now you're trying to argue that there's a law in Australia which keeps the bank from collecting that fee. There might be, but nobody on this site has ever heard of it and you have yet to provide documentation.
So for my earlier words, I apologize again. It's one of those days and I took it out online; I was upset with you for abusing the rating system and for not accepting what people were telling you as accurate.
this8384, I didn't already have the answer. This site -in fact CURLY BEN, gave me the answer I was looking for.
The bank tried to take a payment without notifying me, therefore I had no chance of putting sufficient funds in. I agreed to pay $15, they took $40. My point was never that I should not pay a fee I was merely asking if they are allowed to charge what they like.
Curlyben has helped me track down that answer. In Australia, as in the UK, they can only cover their costs not profit from fees.
Thank you for your apology. I did provide a link which states a judges findings for a gym - it's the same thing with banks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mustshop75
I can't find Curlyben's post - would you please post the info for the benefit of anyone else who is curious about the law.
I don't see that gyms and banks are in the same category but I have to read the law to be sure.
First, let me ask whether the loan payment was an automatic payment or whether you were late on the payment?
Second, from that article it appears that Australia doesn't believe in caveat emptor (let the buyer beware). It looks like it seeks to protect people from being their own worse enemy.
Scott, I was 4 days late on a payment due to being rushed into hospital for surgery... banks don't care for the reason though :/
JudyKayTee, CurlyBen said:
In the UK we are using the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCR) as well as penalties under common law.
The bakns ARE allowed to cover their costs, but it is considered a penalty under common law for them to profit from this activity.
That prompted me to find this article:
VCAT cracks down on unfair contract terms
The article gives a case where a gyms policy was deemed to be unfair by a judge but also states that banks policies where being investigated under the same law. I remember watching a morning news programme a while ago, they stated that banks high charges were illegal as they are only allowed to cover costs and not profit from fees.
It's a shame more people don't know of these UK and Australian laws as banks are getting away with illegal fee charges.
Scottgem, not sure if that's a good thing or bad thing really... interesting findings though.
Thanks again for everyone's interest, advice and opinions. Hope to be more active on this site - now that I understand how it all works :)
Great idea for a website :) :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mustshop75
Are you going to post the information so that other people will be informed?
JudyKayTee, I posted the article I've found so far above. :)
Am still investigating further
Did you find the link JudyKayTee? What did you think?
Curlyben said: In the Uk we are using the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCR) as well as penalties under common law.
The bakns ARE allowed to cover their costs, but it is considered a penalty under common law for them to profit from this activity.
That prompted me to find this article:
VCAT cracks down on unfair contract terms
The article gives a case where a gyms policy was deemed to be unfair by a judge but also states that banks policies where being investigated under the same law. I remember watching a morning news programme a while ago, they stated that banks high charges were illegal as they are only allowed to cover costs and not profit from fees.
VCAT cracks down on unfair contract terms
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:05 PM. |