[mustshop75]

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.

[N0help4u]

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.

[excon]

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-

[ScottGem]

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.

[Fr_Chuck]

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

[N0help4u]

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!!

[J_9]

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.

[mustshop75]

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?

[Fr_Chuck]

Never heard of such a law, in fact their fees have been upheld in every case I have heard of.

[Curlyben]

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.

[JudyKayTee]

[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.

[ScottGem]

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.

[this8384]

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?

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.
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:

mustshop75 disagrees: Thks Scott. I know there is such a law in Oz that says banks aren't allowd to profit from these activities, only cover costs. A couple of people have sued the banks and had all their fees (ever) returned.

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.

[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

[this8384]

Yes, I can elaborate.

[this8384]

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

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?

[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.

[this8384]

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.

[mustshop75]

Not sure why you have resorted to personal insults when I am merely asking for clarification on a particular Australian law. Strange!

[mustshop75]

This website explains the law somewhat:

VCAT cracks down on unfair contract terms