A frugal life is an easy life!

I believe that some bank charges are in breach of the fraud act 2006.

A real example:
You have £100 left in your account.
You make an authorised card payment for £60 (leaving a £40 balance on your account)
A direct debit, of £50 is due out of your account before the business calls for your authorised card payment.
The bank takes the funds to pay your direct debit of £50 from your authorised card payment funds, currently being held off your balance, in a "holding account."

The company calls for your authorised card payment funds, the bank pays them.
You are now over your balance and subjected to two bank charges.
Bank charge one - £35 for "an unauthorised card payment"
Bank charge two - £25 for "an unauthorised overdraft fee"
Total charges: £60

Take into account:
Who gave the bank permission to "reuse funds held in a holding account?"
Had the bank NOT reused the funds and returned the direct debit unpaid, the only charge applicable would have been £35, for non payment of a direct debit.
When you bought something for £60 on your card, the funds were in your account to pay for it - the bank also issued an authorisation number for the sale - how can you now be charged "an unauthorised card payment fee"?
The bank reused your funds to pay the direct debit, not you! Surely the bank cannot bill you for charges which was a result of THEIR actions?

Additional:
When you the customer contact the bank by telephone, complaining about "reusing funds" - you are told that the money remains in your bank account but just comes off your available balance for three days.
When you the customer contact the bank by telephone, complaining about "paying a direct debit with money for an authorised card payment" - you are told that the card payment money is moved to a holding account.
The response the bank gives changes, depending on your complaint. Reading from a menu the advisor maybe, but each menu contradicts the other.

Where the fraud act 2006 should apply:
Section two:
Fraud by false representation
(1)A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and

(b)intends, by making the representation—

(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

 

A - Changing excuse dependant on complaint, ie. holding account or not? To obtain higher charges against the customer.
B(i) "Another" - being the bank the advisor works for.
B (ii) "Another" - being you the customer.

(2)A representation is false if—

(a)it is untrue or misleading, and

(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading

Section three:
Fraud by failing to disclose information
A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a)dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, and

(b)intends, by failing to disclose the information—

(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

A - Is there a holding account or not? Why won't the banks tell their customers?
B(i) - This information changes to prevent the advisor from having to refund charges on behalf of the bank
B(ii) - This causes the customer to lose money.

Section four:
Fraud by abuse of position

 (1)A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a)occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person,

(b)dishonestly abuses that position, and

(c)intends, by means of the abuse of that position—

(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

1A - Is it not the case that the bank is supposed to act in the account holder's best interest?
If so, why manipulate customers accounts, like in the example given above, to extract £60 in charges instead of £35 had the bank acted honourably?
Is this not clearly "acting against the financial interests of another person (ie. their own customer)
1B - The bank abuses its position, by giving conflicting reasons for the operations of accounts and gaining financially from it, in the form of higher charges.
This is applicable also to subsection C(i) and C(ii).

How much longer must the humble customer be forced into parting with more of their money than they need to?

Let me know what you think...