Bank charges test case latest: bank given leave to appeal

natweststaffmember

rickytanner26 wrote: »

Can someone please explain how the banks have been given a waiver not to process charge reclaims until its legality is determined, yet they can still apply those same charges to accounts that are not known to be legal/fair? I love this country!

Would you like a repeat of the Lloyds case? The bank didn't turn up and the claimant lost. The charges until otherwise proven are currently fair. The current litigation is whether they can be assessed for fairness.

cockroach

if the banks can appeal why cant the hard working people who have been charged with bank charges appeal to the house of lords and appeal their ruling for the right of appeal . that its a waist of time for the banks to appeal and for the claiments not to be charged whilst the case is ongoing especialy because it is tax payers money any way .is it unlawful to remove money from a bank account with out permision fraudinfact

natweststaffmember

cockroach wrote: »

if the banks can appeal why cant the hard working people who have been charged with bank charges appeal to the house of lords and appeal their ruling for the right of appeal
what LEGAL grounds are there to deny their appeal? Case law quotes please.

. that its a waist of time for the banks to appeal and for the claiments not to be charged whilst the case is ongoing especialy because it is tax payers money any way .is it unlawful to remove money from a bank account with out permision fraudinfact

Utter nonsense. Educate yourself with what is going on. You can read the OFT test case transcript and you can read the FSA Waiver on Bank Charges and you can read the original litigation agreement. Furthermore, the government today are going to vote as a shareholder against the RBS Report. Do you know what that means? Diddly squat. Plus, RBS and Lloyds are the only one with HMT money directly so what about the rest?

marcharrison1979

As I see it the banks are a public service, after all we all need a bank account. Therefore I believe if banks wish to do business in this country, they should be nationalised and run by the government, with the British public as their only shareholders; ensuring that any of the banking decisions/costs/profits being made become public knowledge. Any profits which the bank makes can then go straight back to the government to be used on public spending. Perfect! all we can complain about then is the way the government spends it.

natweststaffmember

PMSL!! that is funny.

carlos1973

marcharrison1979 wrote: »

As I see it the banks are a public service, after all we all need a bank account. Therefore I believe if banks wish to do business in this country, they should be nationalised and run by the government, with the British public as their only shareholders; ensuring that any of the banking decisions/costs/profits being made become public knowledge. Any profits which the bank makes can then go straight back to the government to be used on public spending. Perfect! all we can complain about then is the way the government spends it.

What the hell! I agree with a few points but totally disagree with one fundamental point.
Yes we all need a bank account, it is impossible to exsist in these modern times without one. What is not essential is the provision of borrowing, convienience of bill paying (direct debits and standing orders) etc. This is why banks have different types of accounts.
It is entirely feasible to have your assets/wages held by a bank and for you to withdraw cash from them and go through life paying everything with cash.
Indeed if you have a basic account with a bank then this is how one could manage.
If you need to have extra services such as credit facilities, the convenience of paying with plastic, then you are asking a banks for a "service".
Why should the banks not be allowed to charge a reasonable and fair price for the provisions of theses services? Why should the banks not be allowed to compete in the provision of these services?
The whole issue with the test case is over the fairness, and subsequent legality, of the banks terms.

marcharrison1979

Has anybody out there ever had any success dealing with Clydesdale/Yorkshire bank?

they are extremely tough going, I've not heard of a single successful claim against them, it takes an average of 8-9 weeks to hear anything from them too, all of their correspondence has been really late so far. Seems like they're fighting dirty and really going all out to avoid this situation.

WelshDNA

Seeing as it's open season on appeals, whay can't we appeal against the FSA's suspension of claims.

Seems to me that this is a bit one sided

WelshDNA

As you can all tell this is really bothering me. :mad:

However, I', also getting tired of hearing about all the diversionary steps being taken by banks and yet how we simply can't do without them!

With this in mind, why can;t we set up a new 'simple' bank with as few rules as possible and is run for the people using it. Something like a PeoplesBank or something so all of us disgruntled and abused customers can just walk away from those we distrust.

Martin, maybe this is the next step in Moneysaving experts evolution - i;d certainly join

natweststaffmember

WelshDNA wrote: »

Seeing as it's open season on appeals, whay can't we appeal against the FSA's suspension of claims.
The Master of the Rolls at the High Court stated that a stay by the County Courts was a sensible approach. The FSA has not suspended court claims. There is a suspension of banks dealing with claims apart from hardship. Unfortunatly IMHO, the FSA Waiver on Bank Charges with the provision of an exemption is not working. The figure obtained by Legal Beagles makes a startling revelation. Increase in payout since the hardship waiver was in place was up JUST 3%. That is scary.
Seems to me that this is a bit one sided

It's not supposed to be one sided but I have to say that the facts seem to show that the FSA need to make the waiver more consumer friendly.