Massive victory for Bank Charge reclaiming News Article Discussion

Tozer

W_s_n wrote: »

Hi Tozer,

That's what i'm saying.

Regards
W_s_n

Sorry - not aimed at you. Just some of the sentiments on here are a little disturbing to say the least....

stapeley

Fact , the government now own large chuck of banks . Will they let banks pay back money , and in affect have to pour in more of tax payers money ? Have we bought the downfall of the banking system on ourselves ?

Nathan_Spleen

Tozer wrote: »

Just for the record, Martin, I would like to say that the veracity of judges is a non-issue. Its not a "very small" or a "side issue" - it is not an issue at all - as perhaps today has demonstrated. Unless you have evidence to say that the integrity of judges in this matter can be called into question, it would be good if you could stick to the bank charges dispute as you suggest.

I agree and really this is where informed and responsible moderation should be applied so that this kind of thing isn't given too much air to breathe.

satelliteone

I think the underlying problem was the banks were taking what they deemed fit as a charge for a failed DD/overdraft etc..

This is the issue why we are all here today. On the basis of "UNFAIR" charges. Thats the fight the consumer has with the banks and why the OFT did what they did.

United we stand, divided we fall

Tozer what right did the banks have in taking any money? with out asking? with a basic bank account that they said "you can not go overdrawn" with.

if say the account was at 0.00p , i can still get a overdrawn charge " known as a "un-arranged borrowing fee"

or even a 10.00p DD and you have 9.99p in the account. A £38 charge !

Who moves the goal posts, me or the bank?

Its a criminal act, taking money with out permission.

Its not the point on how lax-a-daxy we all are with our accounts.

Perhaps if that banks asked us for a small fee in the first place to cover their overdrawn costs , then it would be a very dfifferent story today. Is that fair?

Any how its good news to us all, in the first place to get any where with this. The banks are too greedy IMO.

PS... RBS any one..!! another day another topic..

DotingDad

jopwo_87 wrote: »

Can anyone explain in Laymans terms what this all means. Im very confused.

I've tried to do so in post 36 on this thread and Tozer, a lawyer, has confirmed in post 37 that I've more or less got it right.

smitchy73

It's been a good day for MSE and Which etc etc, however, a long way to go.
I don't believe the HoL will grant the banks' appeal and will find in favour for the OFT as some posters have said the Lords at the Court of Appeal are in the HoL I hardly think they'll have any other way to go than to refuse the appeal.
I have had loads of charges over the past few years, touch wood I am not in a position where I get more charges, however, if I do go over in the future I am happy to pay some recompense to the banks for costs that are incurred by them, now this is where it gets juicy! I've never had a phone call when my account goes overdrawn, I don't get a letter either, nothing to charge me for, eh? Take it further, I get charged when my account goes overdrawn, then at the end of the month along with any interest charged I get a seperate charge, so in theory if I go one pence overdrawn I get a £25 fine at the time, then at the end of the month another £25, IS THIS FAIR? The problem is the penalty isn't in comparison to the 'crime'(of going overdrawn), at the end of the day a penalty can only be issued by a Court or law enforcement, that is why the banks call this a 'service' even though no-one actually signs up for this service, they just change the rules when they want, you don't have a choice.
As for bonuses, a bank teller only really gets about £13k a year and have to sell lots of things to make up bonuses, if they manage to meet their targets they should get a bonus, but Mr whats his name who is refusing to give up his £650k a year pension does deserve to be dealt with severely he's the top man who has made a complete ar*e of the bank and doesn't deserve it in the slightest!
Roll on the next stage.
Peace out
xx
(lol)

Head-Out-Of-Sand

smitchy73 wrote: »

As for bonuses, a bank teller only really gets about £13k a year and have to sell lots of things to make up bonuses, if they manage to meet their targets they should get a bonus.

I think it depends on the criteria for the bonus; if it's not written down that they get the money by selling a certain number of whatever product, should they be getting bonuses in such financial climates?

My friend used to work for Network Rail. She did everything right but that year Network Rail stuffed things up big time and got fined loads - as a result of this, she didn't get her bonus.

It sucked for her, but unfortunately, if you work for a commercial institution and that institution failed/made a loss, is it right that bonuses should be paid out?

The issue of people being paid low wages is another one, and they have my sympathy (It was me for a long time) but your salary is what you are guaranteed, a bonus is not guaranteed.

I work in the public sector and bonuses are hard to come by if you don't kiss the right behinds or go for drinks with the right people. (Needless to say, with my big mouth and inherent inability to let BS go undectected, I do not expect to get a bonus any time soon...) But quite frankly I don't think I SHOULD get a bonus for doing my job...that's kinda what my salary is there for! I would much rather they stopped paying bonuses (which are inevitably handed out in a way which favours the higher grades, and those brown of nose) and instead use that pool of money to improve the wages of the lowest grades in the civil service so that they actually meet the level at which the Government itself says one can expect a reasonable standard of living. Whoops, sorry, let me step down off my soapbox there!

Sorry to go off topic but I have been debating this one amongst friends recently. Especially in the case of banks like RBS, those bonuses are essentially being funded by the bailout they were handed. That surely can't be justified. If they need taxpayers money, they therefore do not have bonus money to be throwing around. How can they say "We messed up, made massive losses, had to go cap in hand to the government, but we're still going to hand out loads of money over and above your salaries"?

Morglin

The banks are going to appeal, which will hold up things for months more.

To be honest, with the state the banks are in now, and the amount we are all propping them up, I can't see charges being refunded at any great amount anyway.

Not too many taxpayers are going to be happy if their money is used for this.

Lin

Nathan_Spleen

DotingDad wrote: »

To get back to the specific topic please.

My understanding of the situation is that the decision today is effectively permission for the OFT to consider the POSSIBILITY that the charges in dispute are unfair as there are legal grounds to suggest that they could be.

If the banks exercise their right of appeal to the House of Lords (despite the opinion expressed by the Court of Appeal that they should not) then again it will be the POSSIBILITY that the charges are unfair. One assumes that if the House of Lords come out against the banks then the banks could take it to the European Court of Justice which can overrule all England's courts as English Law is subservient to EU Law.

As I understand it if the courts referred to above agree the decision then, and only then, can the OFT rule on whether the charges are ACTUALLY unfair and by HOW MUCH.

It would thus be theoretically possible for the OFT, as a Government funded body, despite the protracted court hearings, to decide that the charges are NOT in fact unfair if politically and economically expedient so to do.

Have I understood where we are correctly or not?

No. As usual you ignore the facts and continue to perpetuate your now demonstrably discredited 'theories'.

Not sure what you've got lined up for lunch today but there's plenty to choose from:

''Given the collapse of the banks through their own greed and incompetence and the fact that Gordon Brown's government is effectively now financing a substantial part of the banking sector does anybody seriously think the Court of Appeal will support the consumer in this case?''

''Legal precedent is being created here and there will be political pressures to make the "right" decision.It is naive to think otherwise in my opinion.''

''In the present economic circumstances that is politically sensitive and I therefore surmise that subtle pressure will be brought to bear on the Court of Appeal to find in favour of the banks given the changed circumstances.''

Enjoy!

Tigerchaser

At best I can see the banks being asked to repay maybe 50% 60% of peoples bank charges, not the whole lot. Which is why is still trying to get my case with the Nationwide seen under the financial hardship rule (to no avail).