40,000 sign up to sue banks over fees

40,000 sign up to sue banks over fees

ALMOST 40,000 bank customers have registered for the nation's biggest class action, with litigation funder IMF Australia expecting to sign up 250,000 to 500,000 claimants seeking reimbursement of "exorbitant" exception fees.
A day after IMF foreshadowed up to 12 class actions against several banks over $5bn of fees levied in six years, the number of registrations yesterday evening was 38,378.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
[url=http://www.theage.com.au/national/customers-queue-to-join-bank-class-action-20100513-v1rp.html?autostart=1]www.theage.com.au
www.smh.com.au

[edit on 13/5/10 by Smiggle]

[edit on 13/5/10 by Smiggle]

Edit to attempt a link fix.

[edit on Sat, 15 May 2010 01:49:13 -0500 by MemoryShock]

1,000 people (in Australia) an hour are signing up to get on board with this ...
The Banks have been getting away with charging ridiculous amounts of money of unscupulous fees - 1.5 billion every 3 months.
Bank customers are on the march - they are showing their dissatisfaction with this class action.

I will be very interested to see what comes of this lawsuit.
Maybe this will set a precedent to tackle other issues with banks, and maybe we might see something like this happen overseas as well.

Smigs

www.abovetopsecret.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I'm very happy to hear this, good on ya Aussies!

What I have been hoping for is a class action law suit in the US against the credit score companies. It is a total scam to force people to get credit they don't need based on protected algorithms that have no known validity yet ends up impacting multiple aspects of our lives. For gods sake, I don't have credit cards because I only buy what I can afford which by their accounting makes me a poor credit risk. WTH???

A good step in the right direction. Let's hope we see more of these civil actions around the world. Thanks for sharing!

It's awesome to hear about this. Go Aussies!!!

I can't wait for something like this to happen in the US, but we've been a bit preoccupied with auditing the FED. Hopefully this will take root now that the FED issue is taken care of.

Even if the lawyers get most of the money from the suit, at least banks won't be able to charge stupid fees anymore.

There needs to be two class action suits though: one for bank customers & one for business bank customers. It's ridiculous that the businesses get charged for credit card transactions & have to pay a monthly fee to have the credit card machines in the first place.

reply to post by Smiggle



Is this to do with PPI? (payment protection insurance.)

Sounds similar.

Mods: My first news post, and I think I stuffed up the header link - fix if possible, or U2U me.
back to the story ...

Australia, for whatever reason, are in a growth period. Our economic climate doesn't look as critical presently as other countries - we are classified 'low risk' along with China, our employment rate is dropping and the job market for employment is rising. So I think this has given Australians a feeling of 'strength' to at least 'have a go' and get something done about the fees banks are charging - it sends out a message to the banks that Australians are angry over these fees and collectively they are going to 'face-out' with them. I dont know one person who has not been slapped with some ridiculous 'fee' which favours the banks.

Funnily enough though, (sarcasm) September 2009 saw banks suddenly start looking at their fees and reajusting them or removing them completely. Then the next month, some banks reduced or eliminated fee's. It all sounded 'nice' but maybe there was news on the wind of the lawsuit or some form of challenge to the fees banks were charging way back last year.


On the 24th February this year an online article led with the heading:
Banks quick to drop charges.
Fee-free transaction accounts now available.
www.smh.com.au...

A month later, the bank took the surprising step of announcing it would abolish monthly account fees on a number of transaction accounts, taking effect from January 22.

'Suprising' is an understatement. Banks taking away fees?
This class action law suit would answer alot of those 'suprising' decisions made by banks if they (the banks) thought a (the) lawsuit might just have a case against them in the future. But it would also explain how the banks 'market' their so called generousity to customers and businesses - it would be just another scam to hoodwink people into thinking that they were doing everyone a favour.

I hope someone covers this aspect in the bigger media and finance news.

If your countrys banks start to drop fees or exclude them, or become overwhelmingly 'generous' in some way, I'd say look outside the box, or for the class action law suit in about 6 months time

Smigs

reply to post by Esrom Escutcheon Esquire


No, this has more to do with the added charges the bank slaps onto your accounts, which in many cases are the banks doing to 'assist' you to default. Anything from a savings account, a credit card account, business overdraft, etc, the fees are huge and they are not 'set' - the banks (can/do/have) adjusted the fees at random.

One example: The banks aren't charging 'fees' they are charging 'penaltys' for overdrawing your account. But, the bank has allowed you to overdraw ... lets say you go to the wall teller and you get a balance on your account - it says $20, but in real time you only have $19.95 in the account so you take out $20, you've overdrawn by 5cents, but because the banks system doesn't update your balance automatically, it gives you $20 and you take your $20. you have now overdrawn your account and ... you're slugged an overdraw fee - anything from $30 upwards depending on the bank and the account. Pretty niffty way to get $30+ ... its a penalty, not a fee.


There's a better explaination I found here in this article which explains things a lot simpler than I can -
www.abc.net.au...

"So the situation we have here is that a person overdraws the account in breach of the contract with the bank and the bank's entitled to charge a genuine pre-estimate of the actual cost of that.
"Now that genuine pre-estimate would be, in some cases in relation to credit cards overdrawn, several cents. In relation to cheques, maybe $2.
"They've [banks] been charging $25 to $60.

There are many instances, and many types of bank accounts which this applies to - so I can understand the rush of people onboard to sign up for this class action suit.

Hope that helps

reply to post by Smiggle


Oh right, I got you and have had a very similar experience myself since its the same in the UK.

With me I was £3.50 over drawn, and theres a basic £20 charge straight away and then £8 for everyday your over drawn.

Mad thing was though, I went over drawn because I was paying my account charge to the bank.

Luckly though, I threatend to cancel my account because of my banks stupidity, and as a 'good will' gesture they waved the charge.

Have no idea how bad it is in Oz though..

we already had this in England

it was ruled that the banks where just fine and dandy in their actions

nothing will come of it.


even if they loose they will threaten the same thing they did here.

the end of free banking

and annual subscriptions to what where once free current accounts.

they will get their money

be it in overdraft charges.... or annual subscriptions

reply to post by jericanman


Do you have Muslim banks over in UK ?

Think they have some now in Oz

Might be worth investigating their charges

Anything that kicks big-Banking in the goolies is a GOOD thing

maybe i shud start a privet bank here in the uk

id have a few simple policy's

* we don't charge interest

* we don't credit interest.

* we don't lend


but your money would allways be their. when needed

because we would not be investing it in risky ventures or pretending we have larger amounts to lend out more to customers who cant pay.

so ultimately we would never collapse.



just think of it as a safe house from your pay check to your pocket.

*p.s we dont pay our employees (lolz)

it would never work but i think a lot of people who have been screwed by their banks would want to use it as a current account.

no erroneous charges.

no empty accounts during a bank run.

sounds good to me

reply to post by jericanman


Banks are entitled to payment for their labour and costs, sure

but most banks are inordinately greedy. And they're running a monopolistic dictatorship

You'd have a very hard time setting up a bank, as you'd be aware

but Muslims have opened a number of banks in the West, apparently, and although they've gotten around the 'no usury' issue by loading what would normally be termed 'interest' into the payment block, it would still count as a kick at the Big Banks if people were to patronise Muslim banks

any kick at the Big Banks is a good kick and bound to have effect if there were enough people prepared to deliver the kicks

otherwise, tin hidden up the chimney or in the garden is as good as anything. It's what people did after 1929 and many have continued that policy



.

[edit on 13-5-2010 by Dock9]

Whether good or bad depends on the reason for the fee's. If fee's for services are out of line they should nail them. If it's people who write overdrafts, it's ludicrous to complain about being charged a fee for kiting checks. Writing a check knowingly for more money than is in the account is a criminal act.

I wonder how they sort the whining criminals from the people with honest complaints?

[edit on 5/13/2010 by Blaine91555]

reply to post by Dock9


If I understand it right, they buy what you want for you and then sell it to you for so many payments of so many dollars per month. In the end you pay the same. It's just verbal trickery. Even Muslims need money and they don't work for free.

The banks will buy the judge, problem solved.

It's amazing the problems you can solve, or create, when you can print all the money you want.

The National Australia Bank (NAB) has been forced to refunding customers overcharged late fees.

NAB put a notice on its website explaining that an increased "exception fee" on business accounts in 2002 and 2003 was incorrectly charged to some customers at $50 instead of $30.

The lawsuit is looking strong as the action by the bank to refund before the lawsuit gets underway is a sign the banks are nervous. They just don't GIVE refunds ... are now they are? How interesting

If it works anything like here in the US, those 40,000 will receive a $5 discount on the next account they open.

Talking about overdrafts, my bank advised me today that if I didn't opt in on overdraft that I would no longer be protected. This basically means they would deny my transactions or ATM withdrawals once I got close to going over.

Imagine having a hundred bucks in your account and not being able to use it because the bank fears you will go over the amount you have in your account.

I heard they were talking about capping ATM fees at 50 cents here in the US. That sounds really good to me. One shouldn't have to spend $6 to pull out a $20 bill. As for the interest banks are charging, those rates need to go down as well. I saw someone buying a car for $10,000 with $5,000 in interest, so $15,000 total. That's 50% interest. That's insane.

One time, a credit union cleared the same check twice for $50. This left me an overdraft of exactly $50. I thought this account was in good standing. I had enough money in it to cover every check. I get a letter saying the account is closed, and I owe $50 to the bank. I showed them that they cashed the same check twice. They said because it had been past 30 days there was nothing they could do. I actually paid the $50 so they couldn't keep me from getting another account elsewhere. Now I keep a closer eye on my checking account. I check it every single day. It's no wonder one time I was at the ATM at that credit union and a guy came storming out saying the bank had ripped him off. In the end, they ripped me off too.

[edit on 15-5-2010 by Nemesis0123]

My bank, Bank of America, likes to hold on to transactions for sometimes up to 4 days, and then when they post them to the account, they like to try to post them high to low, with the largest transactions being placed first on the ledger ignoring when the transactions actually occurred, to create an illusion that the account was over drawn, by then crediting the deposits way down the list.

They claim that the signed deposit agreement allows them to do this, but it’s blatant manipulation to create erroneous red ink, by basically creating a false time line for the transactions.

I never let them get away with this. It often takes me five or six hours on the phone, to patiently explain to them, that I won’t accept it, and eventually I am going to cost the bank more money in the wages it has to pay the employees who have to keep dealing with me in my refusal to accept that fraudulent practice on their behalf.

After about 4 or 5 hours of me calling, they begin to believe I am telling them the truth.

Once they realize that I will keep calling, and keep pointing out the fraudulent practices to every employee of the bank I talk to, and do everything I can to get them to consider the legitimacy and honesty of the banks policies, and it’s not worth the money they are trying to steal and extort, they then agree to waive the fees.

But…the bank has its policies I have mine, and while they imagine their offer to waive fees that did not legitimately occur through negligence of my own, but through malfeasance and fraud on their part, now I have a fee that has to be paid. So what ever penalty they wanted to charge me, I now insist they pay me that same amount, since in fact, I didn’t do anything to warrant the aggravation or the fees.

So then I keep terrorizing them until they agree to pay my penalty.

I put it to them very simple, if they were going to charge me 70.00 dollars in erroneous fees, you can pay me 70.00 now, or I will spend 7 straight hours crapping out and demoralizing your 10.00 an hour employees on the phone.

Either way you will pay.

The truth is the Banks get away with what they do, because people will roll over for them.

Don't roll over for them!

Thanks for everyones great comments and stories added to the thread - I'll star them after this post.

The National Bank (NAB) has replied to claims that they are not refunding their customers becasue of the impending lawsuit ...

They insist that the process started in Mid April of last year.

www.abc.net.au...

A spokesman for consumer group Choice, Christopher Zinn, says while NAB refunded customers' money after a technical glitch, it underlines the shaky ground that these penalty fees have been built on.
"The fact that people were charged - often they didn't know it - often they were charged for things that they shouldn't have been charged for, and this particular instance seems to have been going on for some years," he said.

I suspect that the National Australia Bank did have information that there was the possibility of a lawsuit in the works directed at banks and their wrongful fee's. They were not, and are not, the only bank that has changed their response to fee charges over the past year ... and it has been a rapid and unexpected turnabout from the banks - which has caused suspicion from its customers.

The NAB seem to be or are in damage control mode. They presist in questionable response behaviour and are in need of some serious public relations guidance - it sounds so political, and lacks of credibility and responsibility.

Smigs