Claim Bank Charges Back - Helping you to reclaim Unfair Bank Charges!

Barclays is attempting to side-step the High Court case on 'unfair' overdraft charges with the new charging structure it introduced last week, according to banking lobbyists.

The bank announced it will reduce its unauthorised overdraft charges from £35 to £22 and bring in a 'personal reserve' buffer of £250 on average above customers' agreed overdraft limits.

The new 'personal reserve' offer aims to reduce costs incurred by going overdrawn without permission, but will allow customers to go even deeper into debt than their overdraft facility allows.

It costs £22 to go into the personal reserve and, once there, you can make as many transactions as you like over a five-day period. If you exceed the reserve limit, all payments will be bounced at a cost of £8 per transaction.

But because customers have to sign up to the reserve, campaigners against unfair overdraft charges believe the bank is trying to circumvent the overdraft case running in the High Court.

The personal reserve will come on top of existing overdraft levels and could be as large as £1,500.

Marc Gander, founder of the reclaim charges organisation Consumer Action Group (CAG), said: 'The High Court has already thrown out the banks' argument that these charges are a service, so clearly the banks would like to change things so that the penalties look more like a service.

'Barclays is doing this by giving consumers the chance to voluntary partake in this 'reserve', which most people will do if they are strapped for cash. But in some cases, the changes could work out more expensive.'

He points to the fact that, although the bank has lowered its initial overdraft charges, it has raised the rate on its agreed overdraft from 15.5% to 18%. This is well above the average rate on authorised overdrafts at 14.8%, according to price comparison website MoneyExpert.com.

CAG is about to submit a complaint about Barclays' charges overhaul to the Financial Services Authority. It believes the changes are 'misleading', will not leave customers better off, are an attempt to circumvent the High Court case with the OFT and contravene new Government regulations introduced last week.

These rules, the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, warn traders to be professionally diligent and not to 'materially distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer': the average consumer must not be convinced onto buying a product they would not otherwise have bought.

Mr Gander added: 'Not only do we believe Barclays is in violation of all of these things by promoting the change to its bank charges, but without a doubt these changes have been made so that it can pre-empt any unfavourable rulings from the High Court.

'Even though customers now have to consciously sign up to the 'reserve', we believe that charging someone unnecessary high rates still does not make it a 'service'.'

His comments mirror those of the OFT in November of last year when it attacked the banks' defence that their overdraft penalties were a charge in return for a service.

Banks generally do not tell the customer in advance whether they will honour a payment that pushes the customer over their agreed overdraft limit; the OFT argued that merely deciding to offer someone a loan and then charging them regardless of the outcome was not a service.

However Barclays seems to have side-stepped this criticism by guaranteeing a personal reserve to all customers who are charged the £22 fee. So customers are being charged for an actual overdraft extension – arguably a service – and not merely for the bank's time while it considers whether to offer one.

Barclays' move may make them 'legally unchallengable', according to CAG's legal adviser, Doreen Saunders, a law lecturer at Farnborough College of Technology.

However charging £22 for five days is still 'morally wrong' when its peers charge over a monthly period, she said.

A post on CAG's website states Barclays' move is a 'blatant attempt to evade the possibility of the charges being found unlawful in a court of law' and shows readers how to make an individual complaint to the FSA.

Read Full Article...