Massive victory for Bank Charge reclaiming News Article Discussion

marcharrison1979

jay3 wrote: »

Yes! I also think we should jail Tesco bosses, because I've heard that they also charge us customers MORE THAN IT COSTS THEM TO BUY THE FOOD in the first place. Shocking, what do they expect - to be able to make a profit or something? It's almost like they are running some sort of business....

LOL! what sort of business actually relies on it's customers making mistakes and miss-handling their finances in order to make a profit? sounds like a very shaky business plan myself, what would happen if the customers stopped making mistakes and having to pay fines? I feel sorry for their shareholders, if any of you are shareholders in a company like this please let me know. I'll lend you a tenner, interest free too you poor poor !!!!!!s.
I actually think you've just uncovered the major issue here, the banks need to keep fining people in order to get their nice big bonuses! hence the reason they make it so difficult and are completely useless when it comes to helping customers with their financial woes. They have grown fat on these fines and have got used to the lifestyle it brings, i hope it stings when it's all taken away from them. Power to the people!

chipbeck

jay3 wrote: »

It isn't nonsense. You seem to be missing the point regarding ALL businesses charging customers more than it actually costs to provide the goods/service - that's the whole point of commerce.

I'm not misssing the point Jay. If any establishment makes a profit then bonuses across the board would be acceptable. To simple people like myself we see the banks are in massive debt yet these people waltz away with what would amount to a fortune to you or I.

chipbeck

Sorry as well as some sort of commendation in most cases. Lord/Sir or whatever.

jay3_2

chipbeck wrote: »

I'm not misssing the point Jay. If any establishment makes a profit then bonuses across the board would be acceptable. To simple people like myself we see the banks are in massive debt yet these people waltz away with what would amount to a fortune to you or I.

The issue of bonuses is entirely separate from that of "unfair" bank charges.

If a publicly-listed company wishes to pay a bonus to board members, then its shareholders must authorise the payments. That has nothing whatsoever to do with customers of the organisation (though we may all have our views on the sizes of the bonuses - that I agree with!). Banks are no different in this respect from any other company.

My point is that companies routinely charge more for their goods & services than it costs to provide them. If they didn't we'd all be in trouble...

jay3_2

marcharrison1979 wrote: »

I actually think you've just uncovered the major issue here, the banks need to keep fining people in order to get their nice big bonuses!

Not any more, they'll start charging us for providing banking services now. Say goodbye to free banking...

Head-Out-Of-Sand

jay3 wrote: »

My point is that companies routinely charge more for their goods & services than it costs them to provide them. If they didn't we'd all be in trouble...

I suppose that's the basis of the whole argument really isn't it - whether the charges are a service rather than a penalty.

And I don't think I'd be too happy if Tesco tried to charge me £40 for spuds!! But I guess the point is, they can't force me to buy the spuds. (Although in reality I get them at Aldi anyway )

Head-Out-Of-Sand

jay3 wrote: »

Not any more, they'll start charging us for providing banking services now. Say goodbye to free banking...

Only if you believe that banking was free in the first place though! :rotfl:

I think there's an argument to say that banks will be reluctant to levy high charges on standard banking, because if all the banks charged, then one offered free accounts, imagine the stampede to that one?

Gavzee83

chipbeck wrote: »

Don't give them the £100. Put in a claim and then tell them the accounts in dispute.

If I did this though, wouldn't they keep charging me every month until I got my claim?

marcharrison1979

Gavzee83 wrote: »

If I did this though, wouldn't they keep charging me every month until I got my claim?

That's what happened to me buddy. I actually got fined the following month after being overdrawn, and the fine took me through my overdraft again. The bank did send me a letter out to warn me but not until a week after the charges started. I was therefore getting charged £8 a day until i paid it back, cost me a fortune, i was only overdrawn by £6 too but that's yorkshire bank for you. You better call your bank and explain the situation to them, good luck though because in my experience they will try and get as much out of you as possible. Vulchers.

Nathan_Spleen

arigney wrote: »

With regards to the post above, I do not trust that the house of Lords will act to protect the consumer, they are wealthy and do not understand what it is like in the real world of bills and bank charges, indeed many of the Lords may be connected to the banks and will not kick away the ladder they are standing on. ..

I simply despair at some of the misinformed and ill-researched posts on this thread. It was a tough call but I think this one just about takes the bacon.

The Court of the House of Lords is an entirely separate entity to the parliamentary House of Lords.

The three judges who's judgment was handed down today are ALL lords anyway so bang goes that theory.

This is all academic anyway as by the time any appeal is heard there won't be a House of Lords as it is being superceded by the new Supreme Court.

The banks have 1 month in which to seek leave to appeal and the HoLs have 8 weeks to grant or refuse it.

It is by no means a given that leave to appeal to the HoLs will be granted anyway as the main reason the Master of the Roles gave for refusing it this morning is that the House of Lords has already ruled on the disputed point of law in the First National Bank Case.