Banks Threaten ATM Charges

scott_lithgows

oxenryd wrote: »

I really don't think banks care if you close your accounts anymore

They would if all their customers threatened to leave.

Extant

scott_lithgows wrote: »

They would if all their customers threatened to leave.

How exactly are all of their customers going to threaten that? The UK had, at the last general election, around 60% voter turn out (the exercise of democratic rights being a fairly serious thing).

More over, were ATM charges re-introduced, it would be by concurrence of the BBA and the BSA; no bank would go it alone on such an issue. Whilst this does, in turn, make it less likely to happen, it also means that customer threatening to leave would mean nothing - they'd have no where to go.

Reciprocity costs already exist. It costs your bank when you use another bank's ATM. That's a real easy argument to pass the cost of this back on to you.

never-in-doubt

EarthBoy wrote: »

I think that if there really was much merit in the new argument, then the OFT would have used it before now.

Well they will use it now and to be honest there is a lot of merit in it....

EarthBoy wrote: »

Even MSE isn't holding out much hope. They are only rating people's chances of getting their charges refunded under the new ruse as between 10-20%. Compare this to the situation before yesterday's judgement when Martin Lewis was all but guaranteeing everyone a refund. If he and other consumer "champions" hadn't been so cocksure of winning, and encouraged so many people to put in claims, there wouldn't be so many disappointed people now.

You answered this yourself - you say MSE isn't holding out hope but that they got their prediction wrong, i.e. that's why i'm not siding with them cos I don't agree with half of what they say! I do however think you'll be mistaken if you think Regs 5 & 8 don't hold much stance - this will not just go away :D

Inactive

ARTooD2 wrote: »

A barely related point but I thought I would bring it up as it really annoys me. Why (having an abbey account) am I charged for using santander ATMs abroad. It REALLY annoys me as its the same company essentially. GAH...anyways...rant over...

Use a Nationwide Flexaccount Card at Santander ( Spain ) Banks, no charges.

BTW, Santander ( Spain ) and all other Spanish Banks charge all customers for using their accounts, no " Free Banking " like here in the UK, and yes, they are just as bad as Abbey, if not worse.

dzug1

oxenryd wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:Can I have a poundland current account please?

but that wouldn't be an individually negotiated contract:cool:

dzug1

darich wrote: »

Banking is free?????
Ok - so it costs the bank around £30 per year for the facilties you listed.
But I'm paying them close to £6000 per year in interest because I have a mortgage and a loan.

My bank makes a handsome profit from me, simply because I am a customer.

And that's why I'm against ATM charges.

mm yes - but that £6000 isn't 'profit'. The mortgage and the loan have servicing costs. The profit may not be that handsome, and if you didn't have those extra products might be non-existent

But yes - I'm against ATM charges too.

EarthBoy

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Well they will use it now and to be honest there is a lot of merit in it....

You said that last time. You were convinced you would win, -and look what happened. :laugh::laugh:

never-in-doubt wrote: »

I do however think you'll be mistaken if you think Regs 5 & 8 don't hold much stance - this will not just go away :D

It won't go away if people like you keep pursuing it, but that doesn't mean you will be successful. You might be. Then again you might not.

If the new argument had much chance of success, then why has nobody ever thought of it before? Why have none of the lawyers engaged by the OFT ever latched on to it? They probably have, and dismissed it as a non starter. It seems very like clutching at straws to me.

If the Supreme Court kick it out, like they did the the last try, please don't come on here blowing a gasket.

never-in-doubt

EarthBoy wrote: »

You said that last time. You were convinced you would win, -and look what happened. :laugh::laugh:

Actually I said that about the test cases for credit cards - not banking charges, but now the law has been clarified i'm more than happy to sit it out and wait - I know (100%) that if we start to use Regs 5 & 8 we'll have em exactly where we want em!

EarthBoy wrote: »

It won't go away if people like you keep pursuing it, but that doesn't mean you will be successful. You might be. Then again you might not.

Oh we will this time, no confusion or grey area's - the verdict was actually a blessing in disguise

EarthBoy wrote: »

If the new argument had much chance of success, then why has nobody ever thought of it before? Why have none of the lawyers engaged by the OFT ever latched on to it? They probably have, and dismissed it as a non starter. It seems very like clutching at straws to me.

I think you'll find they had spotted it but it is a different claim to the one for Reg 6 (lost case). Therefore, as already mentioned, even after Regs 5 & 8 have been exhausted there are 2 more avenues to take - put it this way, you never throw the best hand of poker away do you

Watch this space

EarthBoy wrote: »

If the Supreme Court kick it out, like they did the the last try.

I very much doubt it - they never kicked it out either, they made a judgement on the case :rolleyes:

EarthBoy

never-in-doubt wrote: »

I know (100%) that if we start to use Regs 5 & 8 we'll have em exactly where we want em!

never-in-doubt wrote: »

.....even after Regs 5 & 8 have been exhausted there are 2 more avenues to take - put it this way, you never throw the best hand of poker away do you

If you are 100% sure, then why do you need two more avenues in reserve?

Are you really sure, or just cocksure?

never-in-doubt

EarthBoy wrote: »

If you are 100% sure, then why do you need two more avenues in reserve?

Are you really sure, or just cocksure?

Being honest I am cocksure based on the fact I do have a slight belief in our judicial system (doing the right thing)! However much the judgement hurt at the time, on reflection it wasn't that bad after all and I do think the scales of justice will swing in the consumers favour next time round.....