MSE News: Bank charges result next week

natweststaffmember

marcharrison1979 wrote: »

The banks are just delaying the inevitable. Everyone know's they've not got a leg to stand on and ultimately they will lose. That's why the government should intervene and force them to stop being so pedantic and admit defeat. By arguing with the OFT and threatening court action again (which is well within their right to do) they are just causing more and more hatred towards them and people in the banking sector as a whole. I predict banker bashing to be very popular in 2010. You don't need to be mystic meg to see that.

The OFT would be the ones threatening further legal action and it is the banks' having to defend their position not the other way round. There was one delay in the OFT test case beginning which was not caused by the banks but the OFT themselves.
Can I ask WHAT the government can legally do?
When do you believe that they can act?

marcharrison1979

natweststaffmember wrote: »

The OFT would be the ones threatening further legal action and it is the banks' having to defend their position not the other way round. There was one delay in the OFT test case beginning which was not caused by the banks but the OFT themselves.
Can I ask WHAT the government can legally do?
When do you believe that they can act?

The banks shouldn't even bother defending their position, they're wasting time and money. In most cases tax-payers money.

The fact that the banks have appealed 2 decisions is the real cause of delay. Don't try and put this on the OFT!

natweststaffmember

marcharrison1979 wrote: »

The banks shouldn't even bother defending their position, they're wasting time and money. In most cases tax-payers money.

The fact that the banks have appealed 2 decisions is the real cause of delay. Don't try and put this on the OFT!

If you were sued and could afford to defend the action, are you saying that you would not do it?(money being no option)

I am also stating factual information with regards to the OFT test case as they had to amend their POC's in 2007.

natweststaffmember

I do repeat the question, what can the government LEGALLY do?
When do you believe they can act?

sarahc266

So for those of us with claims in, any idea how long til we get our money back? I'm with HSBC and i've been trying to claim finiancial hardship for a year and a half and they would not help me, now i;ve got a job i no longer qualify as hardship. They messed me about for over a year. Definenatly never banking with them again.

natweststaffmember

sarahc266 wrote: »

So for those of us with claims in, any idea how long til we get our money back? I'm with HSBC and i've been trying to claim finiancial hardship for a year and a half and they would not help me, now i;ve got a job i no longer qualify as hardship. They messed me about for over a year. Definenatly never banking with them again.

Next week is about whether the terms under which banks can make charges are assessable for fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulation 1999. That is the preliminary issue.
The next part of the case would deal with fairness of charges and redress(or repayment).
If the banks' win the case, it isn't the end of the matter in relation to the charging system of banks.

mattfletcher

Be good if the weekly email is delayed for a few hours to ensure the news is in it.

natweststaffmember

mattfletcher wrote: »

Be good if the weekly email is delayed for a few hours to ensure the news is in it.

I GUARANTEE you will hear about it from the news or the web

I'm on text alerts from some of the people who are going for the decision, lol. Unfortunately I can't make this judgement but no doubt there will be opportunities for future judgements, I hope

berkshirelady

Hi Natwest. You quoted a couple of banks who have cut charges. but that's not nearly all of them, is it? e.g Lloyds TSB (which regularly gets slated on the forums, and I have had personal experience of them too). Being cynical yet again, I believe that those banks who have slashed charges have done it to be competitive over their rivals; so that is not about fair charging, it's about market share, (as usual).

And if some banks have suddenly decided that this is a goer, they must have done their sums and realised that lower charges are affordable to them. So, if the charges are supposed to reflect the true admin costs to the banks (as they keep saying), how come one or two have suddenly decided they can afford to reduce them, when once upon a time they all said they had to charge so much? I suspect they could afford it anyway but it was a fast buck, wasn't it :-)

This is about basic human nature, if people are left unfettered and unregulated. Greed. Why charge an interest rate and make money out of an overdraft (sensible and fair), when you can sting people in droves for £35 a pop and god knows what else for going a quid over their limit? Pleases the shareholders, doesn't it. In this day and age, with zillions moving across the globe with the click of a button, there is no excuse any more. these charges have not been an 'admin fee'. it's profit, pure and simple. And the banks have appealed because it's many £££s for them. Bloated profits and happy shareholders, for not doing very much, really.

Sorry, but this IS political, no getting away from it. We've had years of PPI and endowment misselling, equitable life, huge bank charges and god knows what else. It's time to rein them in, and in the current climate I think that any political party who says 'we'll change the law to curb bank charges and make them fair' would be very popular indeed. This is why we need laws and regulation for the markets. If you let them get on with it they go nuts and get up to all sorts, it's almost like unleashing a toddler in front of a cookie jar!

berkshirelady

hey I just read the replies to Teaboy. Should I feel intimidated by my lack of technical knowledge?....Were we supposed to have passed some sort of legal/banking nerd exam before we could post on here?! UTCCR 1999??? I have no idea what that means, and nor, I suspect, do most people.

Please can we keep this in plain english so that people who aren't industry 'insiders' but who are consumers and therefore entitled to have a view/swap opinions/get advice, can understand what you're on about?

I say this because in my day job, talk like this would have cut out at least 70% of my callers from knowing their statutory rights unless it was explained to them with no techie jargon!