Suing banks for charging fees is a bit rich isn’t it?
I’m well aware that there are many things in life that I pay for where I’m not just simply covering costs.
I know that when I go to a restaurant I’m not paying stupid money in corkage fees to cover the ten seconds it takes some guy to open a bottle.
I know that when I pay a parking fee it’s not because the local council are claiming they lost an entire days revenue in the few minutes I was running late.
I know that when I forget to return a book to the library on time I’m slugged with a late fee, despite books being free to loan out.
And I certainly know that when I forget to pay the minimum balance on my credit card, that there’s no way known the bank has lost the amount their charging me for missing payment. If anything they’ve made some money due to interest and the fact that I’ll wind up paying the balance whenever.
Hundreds of thousands of Australians however seem to think that being charged for being lazy, ignorant or forgetful is a bad thing.
Over the past five years Australia’s banks have raked in an estimated five billion in exception fees, or roughly $224 per person living in Australia.
Thing is though, we’re talking aboutexception fees. This isn’t your mandatory account keeping fee, interest payments or credit card fees, exception fees are completely avoidable.
You are hit with exception fees when you overdraw your account, miss a credit card payment, default on a loan or exceed your available credit limit. There’s a whole host of reasons you can be hit with excess charges but one constant remains the same, you have to stuff up somehow in order to be charged.
Law firm Maurice Blackburn recently announced that they were going after Australia’s banks and their exception fees in a class action lawsuit. The class action lawsuit, bankrolled by IMF Australia, argues that the amounts charged by banks in exception fees is illegal because they are ‘out of all proportion to the actual cost incurred by the banks‘.
Maurice Blackburn chairman Bernard Murphy said that “under contract law in Australia, penalty fees charged must reflect the damages suffered by the bank.
Banks had levied punitive charges, not merely recovery charges. If the fees did not reflect the cost to banks of the breach, they were illegal.”
Sounds to me like an extremely grey area and more of a targeting of people who want to ‘get back’ at the banks then anything. With the GFC going bananas what better time to launch a class action against the banks?
This sentiment is reflected in the numbers of disgruntled bank customers who have registered interest in the suit so far, currently 22,000. With no cost to register interest in the case and IMF funding the class action suit on a ‘no win no fee’ basis it’s quite probably that Maurice Blackburn will get the 500,000 punters they are projecting to join the class action suit.
For those rubbing their hands with glee, IMF have predicted that
realistically if we got 300,000 to 400,000 people to sign up over the course of the next few weeks and months we’d have a sort of $600, $700, $800 million class action.
Now I’m not exactly sure how these things work but if IMF got $800 million dollars awarded to them with 400,000 people in the law suit, they take 25% ($200 million) which leaves 400,000 people sharing $600 million.
This is $150,000 each (what the hell?)
With absolutely no financial risk involved to people joining the action and a national attitude of ‘banks are fuckers’ it’s easy to see how these numbers could come about.
So confident are Maurice Blackburn with their lawsuit that they’ve publicly announced that their gameplan is simply to hope that the banks simply roll over and ‘enter into settlement negotiations‘ before anything is filed.
I for one won’t be joining the action, despite having paid my share of exception fees over the years (but well below the $224 yearly average). Exception fees largely exist to deter people from mismanaging their money. It’s a financial incentive for account holders to be somewhat financially responsible.
If we assume for a second that this law suit goes ahead and that Maurice Blackburn win, just what kind of precedent are we going to set?
Imagine how much worse the global financial crisis would be if the only incentive to not overdraw your credit card was the half a cent of power it took for a computer to realise. Or that for missing a mortgage repayment the banks only charged you the $10 in lost manpower it took for some guy to call you up to find out why.
It’s catch 22. Banks are getting money for nothing in exception fees but they also exist as a deterrent for people to watch their money.
How about Australians stop looking for someone else to blame and start managing their money responsibly?
Related posts that might interest you:


May 14th, 2010 at 9:05 am Daniel(Quote)
Two thoughts:
Was I the only one who read “IMF” and initially wondered why the International Monetary Fund would get involved in such a move?
We might hate the banks for being so profitable, but the fact that they are, and could easily ride out the GFC has undoubtedly helped the overall Australian economy bounce back faster than others.
May 14th, 2010 at 10:57 am cbp(Quote)
Couldn’t agree more – if people spent fifteen minutes a week responsibly tending to their personal finances, instead of whinging and complaining, they would
a) save themselves a lot of money
b) realise that this lawsuit isn’t going to payout for anyone (except IMF maybe) – at the end of the day the cost will come back to regular Australians in some other form.
May 14th, 2010 at 2:02 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
@Daniel
That one’s easy, they’ve probably had strong legal advice that this is going to be a slam dunk.
Australia has a strong sentiment that ‘the banks are ripping us orf’ and a high level of personal financial mismanagement. Nothing serious but enough to rack up 5 billion in exception fees. Recoverig less then a fifth of this via a publicly backed court case is a quick easy way for them to make a few hundred million dollars.
As a sidenote I was thinking about my maths in the article and I forgot to take out Maurice Blackburn’s fees from the $600 million left after the IMF have taken out their share. I imagine a high profile case like this would attract the lion’s share of the money in legal fees leaving dick for the general public. The legal costs of ascertaining the eligibility of 20,000 potential clients alone would be astronomical, let alone the actual court case.
Kind of what you’d expect from a no risk grand standing court case for the masses though.
May 15th, 2010 at 4:10 pm Pommie(Quote)
Your missing the point. Banks are entitled, as is any other company to recover the losses they suffer when you breach a contract. If it costs them $1 to process a bounced cheque then that is what it should charge.
Same principle if you hire a hall for a wedding reception then cancel an hour before. They are able to claim for costs they have paid out like labour, food, entertainment etc. but they cant add $1000 to the bill because you cancelled.
May 15th, 2010 at 9:31 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
Is it about recovering costs or penalising poor financial decisions?
Assuming banks aren’t paying their staff peanuts I imagine a bounced cheque incurs a cost of more then $1. Regardless of the cost I think it’s more then fair that the banks whack on an extra charge because you messed up.
If you don’t have the funds don’t write the cheque.
Take ADSL for example. You and I know it doesn’t cost Telstra the ridiculous amounts $50-$150 for some guy to punch in a few numbers on an exchange and port your number over. Yet this cost is almost always passed on to the end users by ISP’s, Telstra or otherwise.
No but you’ll find they’ll probably keep your deposit. This in itself is an exception style fee, you’re not paying for anything other then breaching a contract.
With the rates some venues charge your deposit might well be $1000 or easily more.
May 16th, 2010 at 6:46 am Pommie(Quote)
According to a report published by the Consumer Action Law Centre, banks are charging between 16 and 94 times the actual cost for exception fees.
Re the example,keeping the deposit is fine, adding a $1000 penalty to the bill on top is not.
The Telstra example is not a penalty fee. If you are willing to pay the Telsta rate, that is your choice. If you think its too high, you can use another company. Telstra are enttitled to charge whatever they like for their services. The fees in question are applied when you break your contract.
You personally might think its fair to “whack on a bit” but the law goes back to the 1800s and says it isnt.
As far as the legal fees for this class action, if they lose, it will be the banks who pay the legal costs.
May 17th, 2010 at 1:38 am ozsoapbox(Quote)
If I am with ISP B and break contract with them and move to ISP A, I have to pay Telstra a fee for some guy to push some buttons at the exchange and change my port over. This is unavoidable and there is no other choice. This is an unavoidable penalty fee for breaking contract on top of whatever fees my ISP throws at me.
Time to change the law then. They didn’t have computers that can detect people’s idiocy and poor decisions back in the 1800s in fractions of a second.
I hope the banks fight it and I’d love for the freeloaders to cop the costs for wasting everyone’s time. With the IMF bankrolling the case on no-win no-fee however this doesn’t look likely.
May 17th, 2010 at 9:01 am Pommie(Quote)
the law on penalties applies to everyday situations not just the banks. if its okay for the banks to charge 93 times what it costs them, then the local video shop could charge you $100 for returning your video a day late, or the library could “whack on” $200 for returning the book late.
“They didn’t have computers that can detect people’s idiocy and poor decisions back in the 1800s ” Thats the point! They do now so why dont the banks refuse to pay the direct debit if there is not enough in the account? Because they can make 6bn a year by paying the direct debit, charge a fee, then dishonor the direct debit and charge another fee.
May 17th, 2010 at 9:08 am Pommie(Quote)
Incidentally the “IMF” in question is not the International Monetary Fund. It is an Australian registered company which specialises in high value litigation funding. Just happens to have the same initials. They have also funded litigation for ABC Learning Centre and Oz Minerals amongst others.
May 17th, 2010 at 2:38 pm ozsoapbox(Quote)
Interesting about the IMF, I didn’t know that.
So long as the customer was made aware of these charges before signing up then I don’t see what the problem is? As you said, don’t like it well you’re free to take your business elsewhere.
Same deal with banks.
Because people’s stupidty has long since been a source of sustainable income. I’d argue why do people continue to make silly mistakes like transferring money they don’t have or actually looking at their balances before shifting money around?!
It’s not like banking is a new concept or anything. About time people got their heads around it, or pay up!