Massive victory for Bank Charge reclaiming News Article Discussion

Darth_Marty

I think the current financial climate will make people realise no credit is good. If someone gets their cash back im sure a cashcard fscility would be the best option for them anyway.

Tozer

Darth_Marty wrote: »

I think the current financial climate will make people realise no credit is good. If someone gets their cash back im sure a cashcard fscility would be the best option for them anyway.

True but I think we all need credit to a greater or lesser extent.

marcharrison1979

Head-Out-Of-Sand wrote: »

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"?

I couldn't agree more, you're my hero!

Head-Out-Of-Sand

ha ha now you're making me blush!!

DotingDad

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

Back on topic, the OFT have updated their test case questions & answers and it's good resource for those who want a brief, simple explanaition of where the test case is at.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/personal-current-accounts/banksqa260209.pdf

Thanks for that Nathan.

You have a lot of good knowledge and resources to share and if my blundering around trying to understand this stuff encourages you to share them in exasperation then I'll willingly take the invective which accompanies it:rolleyes:

Some people like Tozer (and possibly yourself given your undoubted knowledge) are lawyers and thus in front of many of us who are just ordinary lay people.

My user name tells my story. My daughter was a student and inadvertently got caught up in a charges spiral like so many others. Back in 2007 I paid off her debts and discovered this site. I am simply trying to recover the EXCESS element my daughter was charged over the genuine cost plus reasonable profit margin charged by her bank.

You make an extremely valid point elsewhere that we should educate ourselves and understand what is going on more but with the greatest respect your sometimes condescending attiude to other posters is likely to achieve the opposite of what you intend.

We are after all (I think) on the same side in all this.

Just another of my unfounded theories and opinions;)

rag31

I still can't get over that i've spent 32 years not knowing there are two totally different house of lords.

BTW I would really love an account with an electron style card that could bbe accepted as readily as a visa debit card. It doesn't happen often now, but whenever I get charged it is invariably at that time of the month (not that time of the month which seems to be getting blamed for a lot of stuff on here ) when we are close to the line and I check our balance in the morning and we have 50 in and I spend 40 on a food shop and in the meantime a 15 debit from 2 days before has gone out I would like the security of only money I have being able to come from my account.

Now, calm down boys it's all testosteroney in here (if we are getting into gender-based slurs!)

Becky

natweststaffmember

DotingDad wrote: »

Thanks for that Nathan.

You have a lot of good knowledge and resources to share and if my blundering around trying to understand this stuff encourages you to share them in exasperation then I'll willingly take the invective which accompanies it:rolleyes:

Some people like Tozer (and possibly yourself given your undoubted knowledge) are lawyers and thus in front of many of us who are just ordinary lay people.

My user name tells my story. My daughter was a student and inadvertently got caught up in a charges spiral like so many others. Back in 2007 I paid off her debts and discovered this site. I am simply trying to recover the EXCESS element my daughter was charged over the genuine cost plus reasonable profit margin charged by her bank.

You make an extremely valid point elsewhere that we should educate ourselves and understand what is going on more but with the greatest respect your sometimes condescending attiude to other posters is likely to achieve the opposite of what you intend.

We are after all (I think) on the same side in all this.

Just another of my unfounded theories and opinions;)

Do you realise that if a term is assessable for fairness under the UTCCR 1999 as is deemed unfair that that term is null and void. That means they owe your daughter charges back(in full) plus CONTRACTUAL interest, not 8%, because they deprived her of it at contractual rate.

Tozer

rag31 wrote: »

I still can't get over that i've spent 32 years not knowing there are two totally different house of lords.

Its still the same place - athough the Law Lords don't have the Chamber of the HoL to hear the arguments. They have a room - often at the High Court in the Strand - to hear cases.

There will be 3 or 5 of the old chaps depending on the case.

And for anyone that thinks it is a bunch of old fools hearing the appeal, go to a judgment reading. They are SERIOUSLY sharp.

novelli

krisskross wrote: »

Great if people get charges back.

I feel the banks will say that people who reclaim can, in future,only have a basic account with just a cashcard facility. Would do away with the problem of people spending money they don't have. Wonder if everyone would be happy with that scenario.

I only have a basic bank account but still have charges, so u still go overdrawn with these accounts and get stung.

Tozer

novelli wrote: »

I only have a basic bank account but still have charges, so u still go overdrawn with these accounts and get stung.

OK but at what point do you have to take responsibility for your own actions?