Open Letter To David Cameron - 25 AUG REPONSE NOW IN

Tozer

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Thank you for your kind words but with regards to what MP's can and cannot do, the Government(OFT) are suing the banks over the issue so it is a legal case still to be completed.

Completely agree with this post. There is a distinction between the legislature, judiciary and executive - it is called the separation of powers.

When political parties start wading into what the judiciary has to decide on points of law we lose something called "democracy".

thejack1953

Pat_Sparrow wrote: »

Several people in this forum have expressed the attitude "People should be responsible - then they wouldn't get charges". Surely the real issue here is that the charges are hiked up to make it possible for the banks to offer 'free' banking. This of course means that the poorer sections of society with less of a financial safety net, who are likely to get 'caught' more often, are the ones supplementing the service for everyone else. The banks started doing this as a way of attracting new business, they all jumped on the bandwagon and we have and we now have gross injustice. The justification of these bank charges is that "it is in the contract", and the government and the FSA have let it happen. I am sure none of us mind paying a reasonable charge but penalty charges as they are surely cannot even remotely be justified! Why shouldn't we all pay for the service of banking - maybe if the 'responsible' section of society paid for their services 'they' would not have let the banks off so lightly.

Pat, I for one do not have a problem making a modest contribution to an improved Banking service. However the "poorer sections of our community" as you put it are unlikely to do so so are likely to be ommited from Banking services.....where then for them.? There is every chance thatthis would drive people closer to unscrupulous loan sharks and this would only worsen the situation

thejack1953

natweststaffmember wrote: »

How many one trick ponies are coming on this thread???
Not one single person opens a bank account with the aforethought to misuse their account. I have seen one single case in which a student deliberately abused their account(there was a BBC3 program on it). PPI can be useful if the bank pays out, however when the consumer has been told they have to have with a loan or is "fully protected" and yes I did work for the bank when that was the patter we went with. You asked how much they wanted to pay and quoted a fully protected loan figure to them. You didn't say it was optional whatsoever. There was no, these are the exclusions, it was sign here and here.
Martin Lewis had an article in March 2006 on Bank Charges so to say he is jumping on the bandwagon is slightly difficult to explain(unless you meant David Cameron is )

Just because someone has a different view than you and hasn't got the time to write a comment on every article doesn't make them a "one trick pony" (whatever that is). Surely a person is entitled to comment on an article which catches their eye and on what they feel strongly about? My point was there are excesses on both issues but people seem to be attacking all bank charges and all PPI sales. Surely the issue is the excesses of charges and misselling not the fact of charging and selling themselves? Protection for customers is to be applauded, misselling excessive, inappropriate or unafordable products is not. I assume you left the Bank on a matter of principle

Nathan_Spleen

thejack1953 wrote: »

My point was there are excesses on both issues but people seem to be attacking all bank charges and all PPI sales.

This is not the case. As posts on this thread clearly indicate the issues are with insufficient funds charges and nothing else. With PPI there may be some examples of where it has benefited individual consumers but as the Competition Commision noted, the overall amount of consumer detriment far exceeds it.

Tozer

Exactly what is David Cameron supposed to do anyway? There is a test case being heard at the very highest level.

Looks like due process to me.

thejack1953

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

This is not the case. As posts on this thread clearly indicate the issues are with insufficient funds charges and nothing else. With PPI there may be some examples of where it has benefited individual consumers but as the Competition Commision noted, the overall amount of consumer detriment far exceeds it.

Yes but my point is this seems to have developed into a thread for attacking Banks generally and seems to have gone beyond the specific issues in question therefore blurring the main points?

Nathan_Spleen

I'm not sure it has but if so is it really that surprising?

People have an unchallengeable right to criticize banks, as they see fit.

Tozer wrote: »

Exactly what is David Cameron supposed to do anyway? There is a test case being heard at the very highest level.

Looks like due process to me.

Precisely.

Eric_Pisch

MSE_Martin wrote: »

Thank you for your comment.

You'll be pleased to hear, on many previous occassions, I have berated Gordon Browns lack of involvement on this issues, both on this site, on TV, in my News of the World column, other newspapers, countless interviews. This is not a party polemic.

Yet wonderfully Mr. Cameron's party now says charges are unfair, and on that I applaud him. You may say they're not in power yet, but it doesn't stop a party from laying out its principles and what it would support if it were in power - what is being said now, could've been said three years ago.

Martin

The problem we have is Gordon is going to drag out his death rattle for as long as possible, maybe anouther year, then when Cameron gets in power he's got to address the scorched earth financial policy that is being run at the moment, even if he makes this a priority it will be 3 years before we see any changes....

Tozer

Eric_Pisch wrote: »

The problem we have is Gordon is going to drag out his death rattle for as long as possible, maybe anouther year, then when Cameron gets in power he's got to address the scorched earth financial policy that is being run at the moment, even if he makes this a priority it will be 3 years before we see any changes....

But what is he supposed to do? By then the HoL would have ruled so isn't it all a bit academic anyway?

MakeitgoRIGHT

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

It will cost considerably more than £3b-£5b. Going by official figures - OFT Market Study - insufficient funds charges for 2006 were £2.6b. Multiply this by the 8 year limitation period and it's more like in excess of £20b without interest.

I think this is a great way to force the banks into the game of getting more money into the system. The govenment has been doing it with our taxes, and the bank of England is also printing lots of extra notes that we will have to make good at some point, and after we have shelled out so much to these banks to stop them going bust I think they should repay what has been stolen, at least. Maybe with interest too, all of which would help get more cash into the economy.

A good letter to Cameron, too.