MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

Stephenbw

nellyboy wrote: »

im not saying the prog should "predict the amount in the account"....:rolleyes2

and TBH i think you are being pedantic.

what i mean is if the bank can set up a system where it texts me to say "phone this premium rate number as we wish to talk to you about you account", then surely it can set up an outlook type program that will inform them as to inform me that i have debits in the next couple of days (if in danger of going into "unauthorised overdraw" or that i have "insufficent fees" to pay if said DD or SO is not paid on time? its only 20p fopr a text innit? therefore that is well within the "price " of the "service/services" provided by my current account at the "free banking rate/model"?

I am not being pedantic at all, just practical.

You may well have sufficient funds in your account when the 'outlook type programme' checks it and so not receive a text, but what happens when cheques are presented or internet purchases claimed on the day of the DD leaving your account short?

Why not just take responsibility yourself and check your own account online every day. You obviously have access to the internet.

never-in-doubt

gordikin wrote: »

Martin Lewis got it so wrong and came across as a no hope whinger on TV.

Really? How so exactly? Regs 5&8 should sort this out...... he's hiring a top lawyer so i'd say he is holding up quite well myself...

nellyboy

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

I do not pay bank charges. Banks give me money to bank with them. Cashback credit cards earn me £100s every year. I still think bank charges are unfair.

Would I mind paying for my bank account? Not really, it would be normal.

However, if the case had gone the other way, that would have been the end of it. We have to accept court rulings as otherwise there would be no point having courts of law. Then we need to work within the law to bring about change.

I'd support a move to boycott a bank. Then another bank. Then another.

GG

yes we have to accpt the courts ruling...at the point of law that it was contested.....which now seems to be the wrong one at that time.

basically i think they went for sect 6 so they could revert to sect 5 if it didnt work.

sect 6 was very narrow, sect 5 is broader and open to more.

this isnt done yet, so dont give up yet..

keep looking and keep updating.....

the banks charge you interest on your overdraft. look at it as you still charging them 8% for them keeping yours.....and the longer it goes on.....because as long as you communicate with them and keep paying them back even just £1, if thats all you can afford, the courts wont touch you as you make repayments.

and that 8% keeps growing, the longer it drags on....

Viper_7

gordikin wrote: »

Martin Lewis got it so wrong and came across as a no hope whinger on TV.

Yes, totally lost touch. Yes it's "unfair" I agree the charges do seem overly high in some instances, but it is all laid out quite clearly, and it is easy to avoid excessive charges if you don't borrow money without asking permission first.

Those robbing bankers are charging me an interest on my mortage. I don't care what the contract says, I want my money back.

nellyboy

Stephenbw wrote: »

I am not being pedantic at all, just practical.

You may well have sufficient funds in your account when the 'outlook type programme' checks it and so not receive a text, but what happens when cheques are presented or internet purchases claimed on the day of the DD leaving your account short?

Why not just take responsibility yourself and check your own account online every day. You obviously have access to the internet.

exactly, thats why i dont "present cheques or do internet purchases" :rolleyes:

....if you look i was talking about DD and SO....sigh

Stephenbw

nellyboy wrote: »

touche...exactly what i said!!

Proving that A) you didn't understand my point and you don't understand how to use the word touche :rotfl::p

gordikin

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Really? How so exactly? Regs 5&8 should sort this out...... he's hiring a top lawyer so i'd say he is holding up quite well myself...

Yeh..and as he says complain to your MP...that'll get us where?!

crispy_chris

Viper_7 wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8378141.stm

...No money? Yet a rack of DVD's behind her? and IPOD docking station and a nice home.
Great advert for Benefits... my heart bleeds.

watched that video and couldnt help but laugh at her moaning about being on benefits and having a low income while sat with several hundred pounds worth of gear behind her. you'd have thought she'd have at least made an effort to hide it if she was going to be on TV saying how shes struggling to make ends meet due to the nasty banks.

nellyboy

Viper_7 wrote: »

Yes, totally lost touch. Yes it's "unfair" I agree the charges do seem overly high in some instances, but it is all laid out quite clearly, and it is easy to avoid excessive charges if you don't borrow money without asking permission first.

Those robbing bankers are charging me an interest on my mortage. I don't care what the contract says, I want my money back.

the bank make their own call on unauthorised overdrafts dont they? i have never been contacted to say "do you want to accept this fee or do you want us to defer the charge to your account".....:rolleyes:

nellyboy

Stephenbw wrote: »

Proving that A) you didn't understand my point and you don't understand how to use the word touche :rotfl::p

now you ARE being pedantic.....:rolleyes:

and if it so pleases you, i will remove the miss spelt word touche from my last post!!......