Banks get more time to claw together inevitable charges refunds

23 July 2009

Britain’s morally-bankrupt banks have been given even longer to desperately try to scrabble together the squillions of quids that they’ll inevitably need to pay out at some point in the future. That’s cash that will be heading back to customers who they have unfairly overcharged for going over their overdraft limits or having bounced cheques and returned direct debit payments.

They have been granted a further six month waiver against having to respond to claims from customers while the test case to establish the legality of the charges is debated in the House of Lords.

As we reported recently, the banks’ tactics have shifted away from arguing their legal position on the charges themselves to damage limitation in terms of the amount they may eventually have to pay back. The Consumer Action Group are suggesting it could be as much as £150 billion.

Meanwhile, in other idiot bank news, HSBC have been fined £3 million by the FSA for mislaying the personal details of as many as 180,000 of their insurance customers. An investigation showed that security procedures were pathetic at best and that HSBC staff would regularly send CD-ROMS crammed with customers’ private info through the post without paying for Special or Recorded Delivery.

To be honest, they might has well have handed them to the nearest tramp, explained vaguely what the address on the front of the envelope meant and told him there was a bottle of white cider in it for him if he delivered correctly within the next six months.

The raging cocks.

TOPICS:   Banking   Privacy   Economy


  • Dave S.
    Great, so all the tax payers money that was lent to them to get themselves out of the shit will be going to those who got themselves into shit and think they deserve a refund?
  • Big b.
    Yes they do deserve a refund. Can you not see that the banks have been ripping people off for years now. Yes the banks got bailed out with tax payers money but did you see the banks giving people their houses back after they were repossessed after they could'nt keep up mortgage payments after excessive bank charges.
  • Jeffrey A.
    Dave, you've retardedly glossed over the minor fact, that they should never have been 'charged' in the first place.
  • Jon J.
    If they are resigning themselves to 'damage limitation', how comes they are still charging (Natwest) £38 for going over £2 as I found out to my horror this week!

What do you think?

Connect with Facebook, Twitter, or just enter your email to sign in and comment.

Your comment