Just a thought

malc161

pelirocco wrote: »

Peoples money should be safe in a bank , however you are talking about the banks money , ie when someone is overdrawn , therefore the bank is safeguarding its own finances , it isnt rocket science

Am i really being that dense , do people really not care ,or do we all see it as something everyone should be capable of dealling with - so tough if you can't.

malc161

Any wrote: »

I have ever been charged by bank ONCE (completely my fault) and never paid them penny since... So I have no idea where they are abusing my wages?? I just make sure I only spend the money I earned.

As for charges - you constantly keep repeating £38 and that you want fair charges, but the banks already had their charges capped (well, recommended) at £12 so what is your problem????? Change the banks if you don't like it.

This is exactly the kind of response that put him off posting- short sighted and bordering on rude.

malc161

jambosans wrote: »

I think you need to read up a little something commonly called the bank charges test case. Banks are not reducing charges because of a public uproar, they are lowering charges pre-emptive of a loss in the courts. At this point in time, the case is on appeal with the House of Lords. If they loose the appeal, the Office of Fair Trading will be able to assess charges for fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (unless the banks find another route of appeal). If the OFT deem historical and/ or current charges to be unfair, this would make all of said charges void. However, no doubt any decision the OFT make will result in another round of court hearings.

Banks have every right to contest the accusations that charges are assessable for fairness under UTCCR in a court of law, and therefore we must allow the legal process to run its course.

MSE has a section dedicated to this subject, which I suggest your read:-
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/oft-bank-charges

Below is a link to the OFT's Website, detailing the test case:-
http://www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_resources/resource_base/market-studies/current/personal/personal-test-case/

You suggest legislating to combat large bank charges, we won't have to if they are in breach of UTCCR. Suggesting the banks will "do a deal with the OFT" is sensationalist nonsense. Governments that go interfering with private business is a no-no in my opinion, regulatory bodies are there to keep them in check, which the OFT is in the process of doing.

Do you really believe that deals will not be done - the mathematics of this will tell you a deal will have to be struck , its not sensationalism its common sense - if you do not agree , do the maths, start with this - 6.5 people million x £1900 ( average claim ) then times that by 3 ( yet to claim ) add interest at 8% and then try and calculate how many people will not claim but will have to be paid back anyway because it would then be law- its a lot of money.

malc161

Any wrote: »

Malcolm, if his employer has paid him late and it was late even according to his contract of employment then the employer should have paid for the charges. You cannot blame the banks for misunderstanding betweeen employee and employer, sorry.

Also there are ways how to ensure that you will never run into this situation - I for example have agreed overdraft that I never need to use, but it's there for "just in case". Some banks have message service that sends you text when there is little money in your account, Internet banking etc...
Nowadays there is no excuse for not being aware of your financial situation.

I am not saying that banks didn't try to rip us off - but that is why they are at the courts and had to repay millions to customers.

Would you really go to your employer asking him to pay your bank charges, this person works for a modern day sweat shop and he just about hangs on to his job.

malc161

Does anyone out there know where i can buy a pair of those rose tinted spectacles that seem so popular .

withnell

malc161 wrote: »

Would you really go to your employer asking him to pay your bank charges, this person works for a modern day sweat shop and he just about hangs on to his job.

Yes - most employers will in fact offer to refund any charges up front

Extant

malc161 wrote: »

Do you really believe that deals will not be done - the mathematics of this will tell you a deal will have to be struck , its not sensationalism its common sense - if you do not agree , do the maths, start with this - 6.5 people million x £1900 ( average claim ) then times that by 3 ( yet to claim ) add interest at 8% and then try and calculate how many people will not claim but will have to be paid back anyway because it would then be law- its a lot of money.

Do you actually believe that 26 million people have claims of £1900?

Extant

malc161 wrote: »

Does anyone out there know where i can buy a pair of those rose tinted spectacles that seem so popular .

It's funny that you try to put everybody down for encouraging people to be responsible for their finances. Basically, they're advocating being an adult.

jambosans

malc161 wrote: »

Do you really believe that deals will not be done - the mathematics of this will tell you a deal will have to be struck , its not sensationalism its common sense - if you do not agree , do the maths, start with this - 6.5 people million x £1900 ( average claim ) then times that by 3 ( yet to claim ) add interest at 8% and then try and calculate how many people will not claim but will have to be paid back anyway because it would then be law- its a lot of money.

It is very easy to pick big large numbers given as an example of scale to justify your sensationalist argument. Aside from my general faith in the the justice system, there are a few reasons why I disagree with your logic.

Firstly, the issue of charges has garnered far too much media, political and most importantly, public attention, so any "deal" would not go unnoticed. Remember, The Office of Fair Trading took the banks to court, so I fail to see why (when fully aware of the ramifications of an outcome in their favour) they would "strike a deal" after the horse has bolted, so to speak. Also, if the O.F.T. decide charges are unfair under UTCCR, it will probably end up back in court with the banks contesting this decision. However, once the precedent has been set (even if the banks don't automatically refund), any court would rule in favour of the claimant. Claiming that this would cost a bagillion pounds in refunds from the banks, therefore some sort of agreement will be made out with court, is nonsense.

Secondly, if you do your research, you will find banks are already acting on the likely loss of the test case - HBOS and RBS being recent examples. So the idea we should legislate to force banks into a reduction of charges is ridiculous, as even before a final verdict has been reached (by the Law Lords or OFT), banks are already reacting by reducing charges.

Your moral crusade against banks is a little slow to start - I think some guy called Martin Lewis already started it a few years back. Why bother legislating against something which is being dealt with (correctly IMO) in the courts?

Any

malc161 wrote: »

Would you really go to your employer asking him to pay your bank charges, this person works for a modern day sweat shop and he just about hangs on to his job.

So you wouldn't go to the employer that caused you having charges in the first place, but you will go and blame the banks instead??