Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    this8384's Avatar
    this8384 Posts: 4,564, Reputation: 485
    Ultra Member
     
    #21

    Dec 2, 2008, 03:19 PM

    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.
    mustshop75's Avatar
    mustshop75 Posts: 23, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #22

    Dec 2, 2008, 03:24 PM

    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.
    JudyKayTee's Avatar
    JudyKayTee Posts: 46,503, Reputation: 4600
    Uber Member
     
    #23

    Dec 2, 2008, 03:40 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by mustshop75 View Post
    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.

    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.
    mustshop75's Avatar
    mustshop75 Posts: 23, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #24

    Dec 2, 2008, 03:48 PM

    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.
    ScottGem's Avatar
    ScottGem Posts: 64,966, Reputation: 6056
    Computer Expert and Renaissance Man
     
    #25

    Dec 2, 2008, 03:52 PM
    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.
    Alty's Avatar
    Alty Posts: 28,318, Reputation: 5972
    Pets Expert
     
    #26

    Dec 2, 2008, 04:05 PM

    People who are stating that this law doesn't exist are incorrect
    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?
    mustshop75's Avatar
    mustshop75 Posts: 23, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #27

    Dec 2, 2008, 04:12 PM

    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!
    Alty's Avatar
    Alty Posts: 28,318, Reputation: 5972
    Pets Expert
     
    #28

    Dec 2, 2008, 04:16 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by mustshop75 View Post
    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 unneccesary 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.

    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. ;)
    mustshop75's Avatar
    mustshop75 Posts: 23, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #29

    Dec 2, 2008, 04:20 PM

    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 :)
    Alty's Avatar
    Alty Posts: 28,318, Reputation: 5972
    Pets Expert
     
    #30

    Dec 2, 2008, 04:22 PM

    I posted at the same time as you did, sorry. :(

    I'm glad you found your answer.

    Good luck. :)
    this8384's Avatar
    this8384 Posts: 4,564, Reputation: 485
    Ultra Member
     
    #31

    Dec 2, 2008, 04:25 PM

    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.
    mustshop75's Avatar
    mustshop75 Posts: 23, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #32

    Dec 2, 2008, 04:36 PM

    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.
    JudyKayTee's Avatar
    JudyKayTee Posts: 46,503, Reputation: 4600
    Uber Member
     
    #33

    Dec 2, 2008, 04:49 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by mustshop75 View Post
    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.


    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.
    ScottGem's Avatar
    ScottGem Posts: 64,966, Reputation: 6056
    Computer Expert and Renaissance Man
     
    #34

    Dec 2, 2008, 04:53 PM

    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.
    mustshop75's Avatar
    mustshop75 Posts: 23, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #35

    Dec 2, 2008, 05:03 PM

    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.
    mustshop75's Avatar
    mustshop75 Posts: 23, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #36

    Dec 2, 2008, 05:28 PM

    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 :) :)
    JudyKayTee's Avatar
    JudyKayTee Posts: 46,503, Reputation: 4600
    Uber Member
     
    #37

    Dec 2, 2008, 05:35 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by mustshop75 View Post
    Scottgem, not sure if that's a good thing or bad thing really...interesting findings though.

    Thanks again for everyones 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 :) :)

    Are you going to post the information so that other people will be informed?
    mustshop75's Avatar
    mustshop75 Posts: 23, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #38

    Dec 2, 2008, 05:38 PM

    JudyKayTee, I posted the article I've found so far above. :)

    Am still investigating further
    mustshop75's Avatar
    mustshop75 Posts: 23, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #39

    Dec 2, 2008, 05:47 PM

    Did you find the link JudyKayTee? What did you think?
    mustshop75's Avatar
    mustshop75 Posts: 23, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #40

    Dec 2, 2008, 06:21 PM

    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

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search


Check out some similar questions!

Victim of Bank Fraud victimized by Bank [ 2 Answers ]

I live in Arizona. I received a summons & complaint from Hilco re a Wells FargoBank (WFB)debt. 2 weeks ago. March 27 2007 I am a victim of felony crimes that began when WFB designed and printed 'convenience checks' accessing my accounts, unbeknownst to me, and negotiated access to my accounts with...

My bank account got red flag I need my money who can I call for the bank to relase it [ 6 Answers ]

I have a over sea investment account that I have had for many years now. I am in some financial problem and need to liquidate that account. It a very large some of money. I got the account wire transfer to my bank account. I knew the bank would red flag it because of the large amount but now it...

One person, Two bank accounts, One bank. [ 2 Answers ]

I'm quite a young and unexperienced adult... I need a second bank account and my question is... Do banks allow you to have two bank accounts for one person in the same bank?

Need approx 97,000 to payoff bank note @ 145,00 bank will forgive the rest, any ideas [ 4 Answers ]

Who do we turn to? Anyone willing to invest in us?? Grants or loans we don't know??

Can a bank draft be cancelled by a bank if the purchaser is in default on a loan? [ 1 Answers ]

I had recently purchased a bank draft from a bank to which I owe a large sum of money. I'am overdue on the minimum payment and the bank has started to make noises about taking legal action. Due to some reason the recipient has not deposited the bank draft yet. Can the bank legally cancel the...


View more questions Search