MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

mr.brightside87

glider3560 wrote: »

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.

If people were paying something for someone else... Prices would go up. Not remain the same. A shop like greggs can't afford to loss lead as all they sell is what they always have in stock. It's unlike a supermarket who can loss lead depending on profit margins.

It all stems down from extra production due to the offers. The companies losses are minute and can be recouped bys selling the item at normal price for those paying. Then the stock that is not used by the offer can be bought by those willing to pay.

Not others paying for it. Then the people who used the offer may well be tempted to go back in an pay for the item at a later date.

Simple business

mr.brightside87

Chris357 wrote: »

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.

I never said they always do...

What I meant is that they are more likely too. One mistake and they are in the cycle.

Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

But like I said, if these charges weren't so high to put people in debt, then the charge at the end of the month would be affordable by all.

It's a null argument and one which I can't understand.

Postyman

sweato wrote: »

It is strange that on the day this news comes through i get new terms and conditions for my bank lowering all there chages . Lets keep our fingers cross for the future

Lets hope there is now an end to all this nonsense. Why should those of us who keep our accounts in credit be forced to pay for unscrupulous people who take money from the Banks without prior agreement?

LilMissM

Does this apply to claiming on hardship grounds? i.e. people on benefits etc x

mr.brightside87

blind-as-a-bat wrote: »

You forgot the more profitable 'add ons'

A company can do a loss leader if the 'add on's' profit covers the loss and then some, granted in this example it did not, but how many got the free pastie, but paid for a highly profitable drink and cream cake?

Simple business? no such thing.

Lost track what the hell this has to do with bank charges though:o:p:rotfl:

That's a good point. I never thought of the add on's. I'll give you that. You would have thought with being an ex barman, I would have remembered the "always offer add-on's" mantra when specials were on!

I agree... I don't know what has to do with the charges though

teddyco

Ahhhhh........now we see why the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom was such a BAD idea! The Supreme Court is the result of the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005 which sought to 'reform' the House of Lords.

Everyone kept blathering on about wanting a Supreme Court just like our American cousins, and now we have it. Happy?

I see more trouble ahead from crazy rulings..........how about you?

It recalls that old saying, 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'.

krisskross

2_litre wrote: »

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

Yes you will have to manage without gas and electricity if you haven't allowed enough of your income to pay for what you use. Or do you suggest we allow everyone to use as much energy as they want without concerning themselves about paying for it?

It is not that long ago that the supply was cut off if you didn't pay your bill. At least that doesn't happen now, a prepayment meter is installed.

The people I feel sorry for in this reclaiming fiasco are the folks that were convinced that this was their money and that they would get it back plus interest. This firmly held conviction has been encouraged by sites like this. The very odd poster who suggested that the banks might win the case has been at best ignored and sometimes abused.

Stephenbw

teddyco wrote: »

Ahhhhh........now we see why the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom was such a BAD idea! The Supreme Court is a result of the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005 which sought to 'reform' the House of Lords.

Everyone kept blathering on about wanting a Supreme Court just like our American cousins, and now we have it. Happy?

I see more trouble ahead from crazy rulings..........how about you?

It recalls that old saying, 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'.

Err yes, the majority of people in the country are perfectly happy with this ruling; they are completely unaffected by it.

wallbash

mr.brightside87

Is it fair that the vulnerable should pay to keep everyone on an even keel? l

Thats put your view in nice easy to understand way ..

I hope my view is as easy to understand

Is it fair that the prudent should pay to to help those that overstepped their credit .?
You infer that we are not understanding ... believe me .. we are.

krisskross

LilMissM wrote: »

Does this apply to claiming on hardship grounds? i.e. people on benefits etc x

It will apply to everyone and I would think the payouts on hardship grounds will cease.

It would be discriminatory if some people were exempt.