Bank Charges, Decision?????

DotingDad

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

Well thanks for being honest in at least admitting it's just a theory, which is based on the notion that the court will conspire with the government to ignore the legal merits of the case and swing it in favour of the banks.

In the absence of any factual evidence whatsover in support the theory becomes vacuous, giving us a no-nonsense, grade A, all singing & dancing vacuous conspiricy theory.

I think our differences can be summarised by how much faith (or not) we each have in the genuine independence of the Judiciary in an age of increasing government intervention into all aspects of life.

If the OFT wins then the government will have potentially millions or even billions to pay on claims already in the system let alone those to follow.

The legal merits of the case are as yet undetermined as there is no precedent. The High Court has given a view but the Court of Appeal could just as easily reverse it. That is factual and not vacuuous theory by the way;)

If so will an organisation financed by the Government, namely the OFT, take matters further when the Government, the paymaster of the OFT don't forget, will incur a massive potential liability as effective guarantor to a large part of the banking sector?

DotingDad

anniehanlon wrote: »

quote - If the OFT win the case it will not be "fat cat bankers" refunding charges in many cases but effectively the taxpayer. quote

Which is exactly what i said in post 15#

You did and I agree with you:D

Nathan_Spleen

DotingDad wrote: »

If the OFT wins then the government will have potentially millions or even billions to pay on claims already in the system let alone those to follow.

But this is nonsense. The money that would be repaid is no more the governments' than any other shareholder in the banks. Shareholders are not liable for anything.

Also you seem to forget that of the dozen or so banks that would be liable for refunds only 2 of them have any government shareholding

Frank_T_Boris

For my mind, the question has never been around if the banks can afford the refund but around the fact that it simply doesnt cost £35 to return a direct debit or to allow customers to go overdrawn without permission, so irrespective of the current financial climate the decision on fairness needs to be made from an impartial standpoint.

The remedy the courts & OFT propose however will probably differ now to that of two years ago. The fact of the matter remains that while this case has been going on the banks have earnt a substantial sum from continuing this practice and if they are not stopped will continue to do so.

After-all, If I took millions of pounds from customers under a dubious legal pretence then I would expect to be penalised when I got caught

DotingDad

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

But this is nonsense. The money that would be repaid is no more the governments' than any other shareholder in the banks. Shareholders are not liable for anything.

Also you seem to forget that of the dozen or so banks that would be liable for refunds only 2 of them have any government shareholding

In normal circumstances the comment in red is absolutely correct and presumably those owed charges would be unsecured creditors and thus entitled to nothing if there was not enough in the pot.

However my understanding is that the Government has expressly promised that no bank will be allowed to go bust, thus by implication guaranteeing the liabilities of stricken banks.

Whilst it is true that not all banks are under government control there have been rumblings in the financial press that many are struggling and therefore soon could be.

In case there is any doubt I should state that I desperately want the OFT to win the test case and my personal view is that the charges in question are unfair on the grounds of excessiveness relative to actual cost.

However I fear that the decision could go the other way for the reasons I have given above and elsewhere in the thread.

Nathan_Spleen

DotingDad wrote: »

Whilst it is true that not all banks are under government control there have been rumblings in the financial press that many are struggling and therefore soon could be.

There are no banks that are under any form of government control.

DotingDad

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

There are no banks that are under any form of government control.

According to this RBS own Nat West and in their turn are "70% owned by the taxpayer."


http://www.claimbankchargesback.co.uk/natwest-staff-encourage-bank-charge-refunds

Nathan_Spleen

Groan

Having a shareholding is entirely different to having control. Not a single government representitive sits on the board of RBS and it is the board of any bank that has total control.. If the the government had any control why is it unable to convince the banks to lend to business?

DotingDad

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

Groan

Having a shareholding is entirely different to having control. Not a single government representitive sits on the board of RBS and it is the board of any bank that has total control.. If the the government had any control why is it unable to convince the banks to lend to business?

Good question.

I assume that the answer is because the Government does not want to expose itself to any more risk than it has to.

Not strictly like for like I accept but the Government controls Northern Rock yet is not issuing new mortgages. On the contrary it is keeping Northern Rock interest rates higher than private sector competitors in order to "encourage" borrowers to mortgage elsewhere at a lower rate and repay the Northern Rock mortgages.

Perhaps they are running the banks they control (as shareholders) with a similar mindset?

Nathan_Spleen

DotingDad wrote: »

On the contrary it is keeping Northern Rock interest rates higher than private sector competitors in order to "encourage" borrowers to mortgage elsewhere at a lower rate and repay the Northern Rock mortgages.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7904748.stm

Keep up!