MSE News: Bank charges result at 9.45am Wednesday

orc_2

Please remember that disappointing as this Supreme Court judgement is, that there is the possibility of the OFT investigating the use of alternative powers. Indeed, reference was made to that in the judgement.

It is by no means over yet.

Time needs to be taken to assess the situation by all concerned.

Sideways

atlastcommonsense wrote: »

Yup, I go back to basics.

£100 in bank account
Spend £100 OK
Spend £101 .. NOT OK .. YOU WILL BE CHARGED AS PER AGREEMENT

Whats difficult to understand, are you sure you have a real degree ? - those ones you buy off the internet for £20 do not count

It wasn’t gained by studying Grammar, that’s for sure.

santiago7_2

atlastcommonsense wrote: »

The government did NOT give the banks anything, they invested in the banks which in the long run will make a profit.

Giving £500 to a **** who got into debt to go and spend it on crap will not help the economy in any way, they will waste the money go overdrawn again and reclaim again and all the responsible people who do not go overdrawn will have to bail them out.

Your comment above was crazy and obviously you do not understand the bigger picture.

BLAH BLAH BLAH - so what time you meeting with the judges for lunch????

jamespir

Sideways wrote: »

It wasn’t gained by studying Grammar, that’s for sure.

im dyslexic so what

Jeff_Says...

mikeandrach wrote: »

dont protest outside the bank, it wont make a difference, hit them by removing leaflets etc seriously they cost a fortune including the delivery. i occasionally get protesters outside our shop (high street retailer) when they dont get their own way, we actually do mor emoney when this happens so i guess banks may not be affetced also, im going to every local bank and helping myself topromo leafelts

Whilst not wishing to discourage your ideas for protest, I feel it necessary to point out the reason why I think your suggestion is a little ill thought out: If the banks have to get leaflets re-printed who do you think the cost will ultimately be passed on to? ....

jamespir

atlastcommonsense wrote: »

I think you are wrong .. it is very much GAME OVER

have you read the report it states that the supreme court will allow the oft to pursue this through alternative methods that doesent sound like game over to me

Sideways

jamespir wrote: »

a majority of five well done :beer:

jamespir

I think you need to accept that not everyone shares your view. There are a few cases where people have been genuinely unfairly charged by their banks. All power to them in fighting back.

Sadly, too many people get themselves in a mess because they can’t go without the latest gadget or designer shoes. I have no sympathy for these people. They are part of the problem with today’s society, not the solution.

a11waysindebt

Sideways wrote: »

jamespir

I think you need to accept that not everyone shares your view. There are a few cases where people have been genuinely unfairly charged by their banks. All power to them in fighting back.

Sadly, too many people get themselves in a mess because they can’t go without the latest gadget or designer shoes. I have no sympathy for these people. They are part of the problem with today’s society, not the solution.

I'm all for people with genuine cases. But some of these 7,8 or 9,000 claims seem to be over the top.

kiwigirluk

Many people here continually state that they are happy with the result because they didnt wish to pay for their banking service. Im sure the obvious has been pointed out previously but you already do.

For my NZ bank account, I pay a monthly fee of $3.50 (approx. £1.80); for that, I get 35 fee card transactions (so thats ATM & Chip'n'Pin), and unlimited internet or phone banking transactions. Anything above that is charged at 25c (so approx 16p). **HOWEVER** I also earn 3.2% interest on any amount in credit. Furthermore, if I have $1,000 (£575 approx) in my account averaged across the month, I dont pay any fees. Finally, my account balance is 100% up to date. I can go into the supermarket, do my weekly shop, and walk out the door, straight across the road to the ATM, and my account balance is correct to the last cent. And the best bit? If I go to spend money I don't have, the ATM, the Chip'n'Pin or the online payment service won't let the transaction go through. If I do write out a cheque and there's insufficient funds, then its returned unpaid - but yes I am charged a fee, of just $10 (so around £5.75).

So each month, I earn $32 (£17 approx) a month from my bank even though we dont have 'free banking'.

So in summary, I earn interest and my account is run correctly by the bank.
In the UK, its in the banks interests not to adopt technology as it would remove 30% of their revenue stream, and if the Supreme Court ruling had gone against the banks, it would have been an almighty big motivator for the UK Banks to update their technology.

Could one of the blessed who have never been charged a fee explain now how they would be worse off under that system?


I personally was hoping for a refund; when I arrived in the UK, my temping agency screwed up my wages credit for 9 weeks, sometimes paying me 2 or 3 days late, some weeks not paying me at all (as a temp, I was paid weekly). I ended up incurring £400 in penalties, and yes, I was certainly hoping to get those back.

Finally, if the credit card penalties could be judged as excessive and unfair, how can the bank charges not be?

SillySpender

"atlastcommonsense" (who possibly works for the bank) I have not signed a contract saying I will pay £39 a time (which kept jumping from £30 to £35 to £39 and back to £35 without any notice). The banks have already stated that us idiots who pay these charges are the only reason super-clever people like you have free banking in the first place. It's not free, us idiots are paying for it.

Haven't you ever thought that if the banks didn't use our money to fund those who are better off, they would use their fantastic technology to ensure people did not use Switch or a similar method of payment to pay for goods for which they had no money in their account to cover? There are many of us for whom this started out with 1 card payment coming off a week or so later than we had thought. Money is so tight that this then means some of our DDs are rejected. We are then charged up to £39 a time with a max of £90 a day. If we have DDs coming out our account at the end of the month and then again at the start of the next month and have no money to cover them, we have £180 in bank charges, another £28 charge at the end of the next month (£208 in total), most of us cannot afford this £208 and that means our DDs the next month bounce, the people they are due to add charges and we find it very difficult to get out of the horrible situation in which we find ourselves. My bank had the cheek to offer me a personal loan to cover the charges they were imposing.

"atlastcommonsense" should go and take a look at themselves and their behaviour. There are so many people on this forum who were clinging onto the bank charges result as it is their last hope of being able to make it through the financial mess in which they find themselves. There are many who have contemplated suicide because they have lost their job and their home has been taken from them. I couldn't even begin to imagine what they have went through. We aren't all using our current account as a credit card to support some luxury lifestyle. Comments like those from that person are totally uncalled for.