MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

baby_frogmella

BRITAIN'S werewolves today won the right to tear your head off, rip open your chest and hungrily devour your still-beating heart.

In a surprise move the Supreme Court ruled that the werewolves' relentless, blood thirsty carnage was within the law and should not be investigated by the Office of Fair Trading.

Supreme Court president Lord Phillips said: "While public opinion may be divided on the fairness or otherwise of horrifically violent werewolf attacks, the law states that having one's innards feasted upon is part of the price of going for a walk on the moors.

"Under the terms and conditions, accepted by moor walkers, werewolves will sink their razor sharp teeth into your throat and then pause momentarily to howl with glee at the mouth-watering prospect of fresh meat."

But Lord Phillips said the ruling was not the end of the matter as the OFT could still scrutinise werewolf attacks under other parts of the Being Eaten Alive By a Lycanthrope Act (1976).

An OFT spokesman said: "We have never suggested that werewolf attacks are unfair in principal. We simply believe they should limit themselves to taking a chunk out of your thigh or having one of your feet in a sesame bap."

A spokesman for the British Werewolves Association welcomed the decision, adding: "We have always maintained that those who stray onto the moors, even accidentally at the end of the month, should be devoured in an unstoppable orgy of teeth and claws.

"Nevertheless, we will do everything we can to help vulnerable people stay off the moors by putting up lots of useful signs that say 'shortcut across the moors this way' and 'road ahead closed'.":rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

MoneyMiser

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet, but did anyone see the Prime Ministers questions today. After Nick Clegg there was a question about bank charges put to GB. Here is the dialogue (not word for word)

Q: Britians top bankers rewarded their financial greed with big bonuses, while imposing huge banking charges on those who because of need, NOT greed went into the red. Many members have been dismayed at todays supreme court judgement, what will this government be doing to ensure fairness for ordinary people in the banking system?

A: It is right that we can examine how there can be fairness to all people in the banking system. As far as the banks that we are responsible for, Northern Rock, HBOS and RBS, they have reviewed their charges so that they are fairer to the customer. As far as the financial services bill which is before the house, a damages fund will have to be set up by banks for use when customers complain of over-charging, there is a possibility of class actions to be taken to court, where a group of customers can take banks to court and power has been given to the FSA where they can impose settlements where banks have to repay, where they have over-charged. So the legislation that has come before the house will strengthen the rights of customers so they get a fairer deal in this country.

Sorry if I have missed quite a bit out. So what do you guys think?

I think today we have lost the battle, but the war is not lost. Martin Lewis still seems positive we can get our desired outcome, the OFT just need to appeal against clause 5 and not clause 6.

MM

Chris357

The decision of the Supreme Court on bank charges is brilliant news. Make no mistake, if this decision had not been made those who have been prudent and careful would have paid for it in bank charges to have an account. And that would have included the poor with a basic account which in this modern age, where a bank account is essential, would have been devastating. While I approve of many of Martin Lewis's views, on this one he is absolutely wrong. It is about time he was man and owned up to the reality that his massive ego has prevented him from admitting he is wrong.

2_litre

LATWTTB wrote: »

The trick is to stop the direct debit and pay in cash-asuming you have it-if you don't you do without-that's how I was brought up....

Such as gas and electricity ? There really is some thick people posting on this forum.

Stephenbw

MoneyMiser wrote: »

I think today we have lost the battle, but the war is not lost. Martin Lewis still seems positive we can get our desired outcome, the OFT just need to appeal against clause 5 and not clause 6.

MM

This doesn't sound that positive to me.

Q. How likely is it I will get my money back?

A. Much less likely than first thing this morning, but not impossible. Having read more info, things are looking slightly brighter than when we first heard the result this morning – but still the best thing to do is plan for getting nothing, but cross your fingers.

As I know many people would like a 'what's the chance' type answer, my instinctive guess (based on no stats as you can't) my view is there is a 10-20% chance only of most people now getting past charges back.

mr.brightside87

Chris357 wrote: »

The decision of the Supreme Court on bank charges is brilliant news. Make no mistake, if this decision had not been made those who have been prudent and careful would have paid for it in bank charges to have an account. And that would have included the poor with a basic account which in this modern age, where a bank account is essential, would have been devastating. While I approve of many of Martin Lewis's views, on this one he is absolutely wrong. It is about time he was man and owned up to the reality that his massive ego has prevented him from admitting he is wrong.

Yet those who stayed in the black would have been able to afford a small charge

That argument is null. I said that before and I will say it again until people like you open their eyes and see it!

How much do you expact the charge to be if the charge is:

EVERY SINGLE ACCOUNT HOLDER IN THE COUNTRY?

About £2... Which coincidentally is the cost it takes to bounce a cheque yet the banks charge £35 a month for people who go overdrawn...

So tell me now I have said it in plain terms... Is it fair that the vulnerable should pay to keep everyone on an even keel? Surely it should be the ones that can afford it which would be, if the charges were lowered, everyone.

Stephenbw

2_litre wrote: »

There really is some thick people posting on this forum.

You were saying...:D:D

jamespir

Premier wrote: »

Exactly, paid for by paying customers.:)

how ?i downloaded the voucher of thier website took it in and got it :rolleyes:

glider3560

jamespir wrote: »

how ?i downloaded the voucher of thier website took it in and got it :rolleyes:

Which was subsidised by everyone else who pays for something.

Same as with any other offer (or loophole as Mr Lewis likes to call them) - those who are aware of offers are subsidised by those who aren't. Same principle applies to cheaper gas/electricity tariffs - those who aren't aware pay for those who are.

Chris357

mr.brightside87 wrote: »

Yet those who stayed in the black would have been able to afford a small charge

That argument is null. I said that before and I will say it again until people like you open their eyes and see it!

How much do you expact the charge to be if the charge is:

EVERY SINGLE ACCOUNT HOLDER IN THE COUNTRY?

About £2... Which coincidentally is the cost it takes to bounce a cheque yet the banks charge £35 a month for people who go overdrawn...

So tell me now I have said it in plain terms... Is it fair that the vulnerable should pay to keep everyone on an even keel? Surely it should be the ones that can afford it which would be, if the charges were lowered, everyone.

You seem to make the assumption that the poor and vulnerable are always letting their bank accounts go into the red. Many of these people manage within their meagre means and NEVER have an overdraft, authorised or unauthorised. In a free market, it is OK ,in my view, for relatively wealthly, !!!!less idiots to pay these bank charges so that the sensible and careful continue to have free banking.