MSE News: Bank charges result at 9.45am Wednesday

dmcallister1506

Quoted from the supreme court press summary.
"They were part of the price paid by the customer for the banking service provided".

1. In this case, why doesn't everyone pay these charges - or do the ones who are always in credit not receive a service from the bank?
2. What service is the bank providing by constantly refusing to pay direct debits?
3. How much have the banks paid to the House of Lords in backhanders?

iolanthe07

well ive reported you for abuse so it will be a pleasure for me to shut the door behind you on the way out

The Hallowed Way is entitled to his/her opinion; just because you don't agree with it is no reason to get his/her posts deleted. I think the charges are unjustified and very high, but we do need to remember that they are for unauthorised overdrafts. In some places (most US states and, afaik France) going overdrawn is illegal. You just need to keep a float in your account (£100 would be enough) to cover small miscalculations.

a11waysindebt

dmcallister1506 wrote: »

3. How much have the banks paid to the House of Lords in backhanders?

If it had gone the other way would it be fair to say the OFT paid a backhander :rolleyes:

The battle has been lost, get on with it.

jamespir

Insomniac666 wrote: »

I couldn't agree more... at the time when I needed most help, when I was losing my house (which I eventually did) Halifax were no help to me, I was lucky enough to get some charges abck but over last 2 years.. well....

I know I've been charged over £300 in last 4 months alone.

I will persue my claim of amounts charged not proportionate..

good luck to those in same position..

abbey took out 365 quid in one day for me going over drawn by 20p cause they said they cna "charge what they like" im sure its gonna go this way from now on

phillh79

Crabman wrote: »

I'm sure someone will be along to say that's a dangerous comment but I'm sure many others have had that thought cross their mind if only briefly.

How when the High Court & the Court of Appeal were so clear could the Supreme Court go the other way with a similar level of clarity?

What the Supreme Court are effectively saying is that the High Court and Court of Appeal were wrong... how's that going to go down?

I hope for the sake of the many reclaimers (including those who are yet to reclaim) and those in real need out there that the various consumer groups and MSE find a way around this and treat it as just another stepping stone in the process of helping the vulnerable in our society.

There will be all sorts of conspiracy theories going around now. I thought the days of underground societies with their secret handshakes were over.

As someone else has just pointed out, the poor will get poorer and the rich will get richer.

garry1977

I have read alot of this thread and there are some people on here suggesting that banks should be punishing people for going overdrawn!!

the fact of the matter is going over drawn for whatever reason is never a good thing and i recognise just the same as everybody else that to sort out these returned items someone has to deal with it.

the main problem is, is thet person who deals with it pushes a couple of buttons and a letter comes out for a charge of around £5 to the bank so why on earth does the consumer end up paying up to £39?

I know banks are a business that need to make money but charging somebody £34 more than they need to is UNFAIR!!!!!! regardless what the supreme court of masons think about it

pippitypip_2

iolanthe07 wrote: »

You just need to keep a float in your account (£100 would be enough) to cover small miscalculations.

I understand your point, but unfortunately those worst off simply can't afford a £100 float in their account.

I agree with another poster, charges on top of charges tax the poor and it is most certainly "unfair". I do agree we should be charged for going overdrawn - but the banks should not be allowed to profit from that and THAT's the issue here. It's not charging that's unfair but OVERcharging that's unfair.

I do think that the door is not closed on this issue, and that there are other avenues for the OFT to explore against the banks, however unfortunately it is another stalling tactic and means prolonging the agony for most..

And sorry, I do have to shout - how can they keep getting away with this, the B*STARDS!

Ok, sorry, I'll calm down now! and looking forward to Martin's response to this latest and unexpected set back.

pippitypip

Insomniac666

atlastcommonsense wrote: »

I must agree, simple maths come into play if you have £100 in your account then you should not spend £101.
If you do spend £101 and you signed an agreement saying an 'UNAUTHORISED' overdraft will cost you £35 then you have to pay the £35

People make mistakes and I have forgotten to pay my credit card once and got a £12 charge, as it was the first time I called them up and they refunded and I think most banks would do the same.

If the banks would have lost then it would have meant the end of free banking, free cash withdrawls and the like which means the majority of us would have suffered for the few who can not deal with money.

As for Martin Lewis, his smug grin annoys me at the best of times - It has been wiped off for now but hes made a fortune out of this and coming acorss as the 'consumer king' when in reality hes a jumped up t###er who took on the big boys and got a beating.:money:

Thank god for common sense by the courts for once, and as for the comments the court was 'bribed' come on, try and get out more (without spending money obviously as you dont want that overdraft to increase).

A good day for the MAJORITY of people out there who are FED UP of supporting idiots and others who get themselves in the s##t and want bailing out :T:T:T:T:T

TROLL!! :mad:

jamespir

atlastcommonsense wrote: »

I must agree, simple maths come into play if you have £100 in your account then you should not spend £101.
If you do spend £101 and you signed an agreement saying an 'UNAUTHORISED' overdraft will cost you £35 then you have to pay the £35

People make mistakes and I have forgotten to pay my credit card once and got a £12 charge, as it was the first time I called them up and they refunded and I think most banks would do the same.

If the banks would have lost then it would have meant the end of free banking, free cash withdrawls and the like which means the majority of us would have suffered for the few who can not deal with money.

As for Martin Lewis, his smug grin annoys me at the best of times - It has been wiped off for now but hes made a fortune out of this and coming acorss as the 'consumer king' when in reality hes a jumped up t###er who took on the big boys and got a beating.:money:

Thank god for common sense by the courts for once, and as for the comments the court was 'bribed' come on, try and get out more (without spending money obviously as you dont want that overdraft to increase).

A good day for the MAJORITY of people out there who are FED UP of supporting idiots and others who get themselves in the s##t and want bailing out :T:T:T:T:T

so why have you joined his site you muppet

Sideways

jamespir wrote: »

abbey took out 365 quid in one day for me going over drawn by 20p cause they said they cna "charge what they like" im sure its gonna go this way from now on

Quite frankly, I find that very hard to believe.