MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

jizzler

postman that is !

steve3_2

Massive thanks to Martin for all his work. Champion of the people - am sure this is only the beginning and await further news with anticipation.

amc01

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.

I agree - absolutely. Martin was totally wrong on this one... in particular he was wrong to hype offenders (those who were spending money that they had no right to - ie those using unathorised overdrafts) into a frenzy, telling them not to accept partial refunds but to hold out for FULL refunds. If he truly believed the charges were too high he should have been campaigning for FAIRER charges and encouraging people to accept refunds that represented fairer charges. Even that was more than they were ENTITLED to - after all, those charged for unauthorised overdrafts were USING OTHER PEOPLE'S [EMAIL="MONE@Y"]MONEY[/EMAIL] WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT and they knew what the consequences (ie the charges) would be for doing so.

G_M

Absolutely the right decision today. What is this assumption by so many people that there is a 'right' to an overdraft?

It's not your money you're spending, it's someone else's. If they lend it to you it's a priviledge not a right. And if there are conditions attached, like interest charges, fees, penalties etc, well, check them out before you borrow it. There all there in the T&Cs if you look. Still want the overdraft? OK, but accept the cost.

It's because of too much dependance on borrowing and living outside one's means that the credit crunch happened.

Hooray! If the banks had lost, they'd have started charging fees just for running a current account, hitting innnocent consumers who look after their budgets.

2_litre

krisskross wrote: »

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.

Would you feel the same way if it was an oap who had had a dd taken out before the due date and was now going to have to pay higher charges for their gas and electric through no fault of there own ?

2_litre

G_M wrote: »

Absolutely the right decision today. What is this assumption by so many people that there is a 'right' to an overdraft?

It's not your money you're spending, it's someone else's. If they lend it to you it's a priviledge not a right. And if there are conditions attached, like interest charges, fees, penalties etc, well, check them out before you borrow it. There all there in the T&Cs if you look. Still want the overdraft? OK, but accept the cost.

It's because of too much dependance on borrowing and living outside one's means that the credit crunch happened.

Hooray! If the banks had lost, they'd have started charging fees just for running a current account, hitting innnocent consumers who look after their budgets.

So its ok to be charged £35 to lend someone 1p ? what sort of interest rate is that ?

2_litre

amc01 wrote: »

I agree - absolutely. Martin was totally wrong on this one... in particular he was wrong to hype offenders (those who were spending money that they had no right to - ie those using unathorised overdrafts) into a frenzy, telling them not to accept partial refunds but to hold out for FULL refunds. If he truly believed the charges were too high he should have been campaigning for FAIRER charges and encouraging people to accept refunds that represented fairer charges. Even that was more than they were ENTITLED to - after all, those charged for unauthorised overdrafts were USING OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT and they knew what the consequences (ie the charges) would be for doing so.

Which bank do you work for ? and its the charge amount and NOT just overdraft charges.

Paul_J

Tom1234 wrote: »

Yet you expect those others to subsidise you?

I couldn't give a monkeys hoot what others do. I just got no time for those fools who break their agreements with their banks then bleat about it. Why? Because they threaten my chances of banking without charge. My obligations are to my family, not those shallow whingers who go overdrawn without permission just to buy the latest iphone/plasma tv/rampant rabbit.
And yes, I have an o/draft. I sail close to the limit, but I'll be damned if I'm giving those suckers (the bank) who provide it an excuse to charge me extortionate amounts for breaching my agreement with them. I can't stand the greedy so and so's either, but while they're not charging me for the benefit, I'm happy. Jog on.

2_litre

Paul_J wrote: »

I couldn't give a monkeys hoot what others do. I just got no time for those fools who break their agreements with their banks then bleat about it. Why? Because they threaten my chances of banking without charge. My obligations are to my family, not those shallow whingers who go overdrawn without permission just to buy the latest iphone/plasma tv/rampant rabbit.
And yes, I have an o/draft. I sail close to the limit, but I'll be damned if I'm giving those suckers (the bank) who provide it an excuse to charge me extortionate amounts for breaching my agreement with them. I can't stand the greedy so and so's either, but while they're not charging me for the benefit, I'm happy. Jog on.

Did you vote for Thatcher ?

Pendle_Gazza

steve3 wrote: »

Massive thanks to Martin for all his work. Champion of the people - am sure this is only the beginning and await further news with anticipation.

Is that the same Martin who went ridiculously quiet for weeks when plenty of people were panicking after the collapse of the Icelandic banks? He does a fair job, but I think some of you hold a somewhat inflated view of him TBH.