MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

onlypaddy

iceland_viking wrote: »

Credit card charges?

Will this affect my claiming charges on credit cards?
Thanks

no, you can still claim for anything over £12 a time

RuthnJasper

This is a massive disappointment and a real slap in the face. I did manage to reclaim my charges from my bank, plus some compensation, as I was able to prove conclusively that their actions had brought me actual harm. However, today's news is disgusting.

I wonder how many of those appeal judges sit on on Governors' Boards of major banks? If not they themselves, then I'd hazard a guess that close friends and family of theirs are VERY MUCH involved in the upper echelons of banking society... Just an Old Boys' Club, isn't it, with no justice for us little people of inferior status? As it always was and always will be. :-(

I wonder if the judges have ever been in a position where they have so little money that they cannot afford a proper meal? I doubt it. Very, very sad.

ohyeahitssorcy

No surprise really do you really think they were going to put the banks who are already in financial dissaray into more dire straights by potentially having to repay billions out when the government has just bailed them out with billions read between the lines it would be like a massive tax rebate and the government is not going to have that are they

Further i think that all these lords and ladies need to have their financial affairs scrutinised before being allowed to sit on these kind of judgements wouldnt surprise me to find that they are invested in some of these banks or in companies that have vested interest in what happens to the banks but one thing we are all forgetting is that all these snobs and toffs that run the government and the banks all mix in the same circles definately a bit of the old boy network isnt it.

This was never going to go in reclaimers favour, ever, you can bet your bottom dollar that gordon brown et al whilst supporting this to some extent in the media did not want this to create another bank crash this is as much about politics as it is about finances and to think its us idiots that vote these conmen in to run our country.

This country needs a change of government but im afraid its the same old choices with lib/lab/con what we need is a political party made up of normal everyday working class people instead of all these toffee nosed t*ats that are more concerned about the rich and making more money.

benjy50

"I'm obviously in the minority here but I'm glad of this decision.
No-one will win - if the banks lost they would just end free banking and we'd ALL have to pay for it.
As someone who hasn't paid a bank charge since being at uni in the 90's, I'm more than happy with my bank
If you go overdrawn without permission, you pay the fine! Simple!
Sorry - don't shout at me! I'm a big Martin Lewis fan but have always been against this campaign."

Be afraid - be very afraid. Don't be smug. Do not think for a minute that you are exempt. They will suck you dry with charges on credit cards, ppi and any other credit agreement you just happe to have.
The banks can and will do anything to screw everyone - even you!

miss-ripped-off

Funny how they ask us tax payers to bail them out and we do. But when we ask for our money back, we cant have it!

Im just so angry with it all. Next time they want bailing out i think that our government should take a long hard look at what the majority of the country wants, not the money hungry big wigs!!!!

centurystar

the banks win again!!!! had a feeling the banks had won as tsb called me twice this morning even though they sent me a letter 2 weeks ago saying they would not call me regarding re paying my bank charges till after test case as long as i keep up repayments. thanks a lot supreme court my life is to become a misery again (upto 10 calls a day from TSB demanding money even though they know i am in hardship) and i was just starting to get somewhere with then. So banks will now be able to charge what they like with no rules, great news in a recession!

kebabylon

To be expected.

The Supreme Court has twelve justices that make the decisions, all of them aligned to various parts of the judicial system and public sector previously. They are charged with making a decision that in the current financial mess means the government would be the people paying out here. So the government found in favour of the government.

Then we can look at the two non-executive Directors. One was the Chief Executive, International Banking at Barclays until recently, the other worked at the FSA, where he has held a number of director roles in Finance, Communications, Banking Supervision, Authorisation and latterly Financial Crime and Intelligence. So one is ex-banking and the other is ex-FSA (the body that didn't bother enforcing their own loose regulations that lead to the current mess).

This result is of no suprise whatsoever, it is nepotism operating in it's truest form.

Disgusting is the word I can think that fits best.

mystic_trev

grasid wrote: »

The Barclay's solicitor said to me, in court, don't worry you will get something back.

Probably their Legal fees bill! :eek:

Orchid62

This is disgusting!

Isnt it obvious that the Government have had a major say in this, and told the Judge he wasnt to upturn the ruling because it would put the banks in even more trouble!!

Do they think we are stupid and cant see that this is what has happened!!

Cant Martin chain himself to the railings outside Westminster like Emily Pankhurst. It worked for her!

Come on Martin:money:

LizEstelle

Ahem...

Quote:

"Lord Phillips also noted that in the absence of the charges the banks would not be able
profitably to provide current account services without a fee (Para 88). He stated that it might
be open to question whether it is fair to subsidise some customers whose accounts always
remain in credit by levies on others who experienced events they did not foresee when they
opened their accounts (Para 80)".

Lord LizEstelle now amends this last part to read:

'who, far from experiencing events they did not expect, were actually f eckless, brinkmanship budgeters who could not manage a bank account to save their lives and knowingly opened their accounts on that basis.'