MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

berkshirelady

richc1981 wrote: »

Its already been paid back.

so what was the interest rate then (if any). Will we ever find out? and did they pay it back late? and if so, did they have to pay sh*tloads of penalty charges?

so many questions, so few answers...

richc1981

berkshirelady wrote: »

so what was the interest rate then (if any). Will we ever find out? and did they pay it back late? and if so, did they have to pay sh*tloads of penalty charges?

so many questions, so few answers...

What would you rather they did? Not lend the money and have the banking system collapse?

neverdespairgirl

Stephenbw wrote: »

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

That thought crossed my mind, but I felt bad for thinking it

But I will say those roses she was using aren't cheap either

And the DVDs, ipod station, nice furniture, altogether a well-furnished house.

Stiffedbysupremecourt

pandlsmith wrote: »

martin, and all the posters moaning about the decision - get over it. when you open an account you enter into a contract with bank, part of which is not giong overdrawn without arrangement or writing cheques without the coverng funds n your account.

The charges you will pay for breaching these terms of the contract are also set out. if a genuine mistake is made then by all means appeal - for deliberate acts (or frequent acts) just get over it. I am one of the 4 out of 5 people who manage my account properly and therefore dont pay overdraft charges etc. Why should i subsidise those who cant be bothered to manage their accounts properly.

There are what i consider libeloous posts in soe of the comments and frankly i think this sites credibility is undermined by the support given to those who try to spend more than they have available.

Sorry your appalling (mis)use of the English language has undermined your credibility before you even started. For those uneducated idiots out there writing a cheque you don't have funds to cover is not the only way that you can get into the "unauthorized overdraft" trap, it can be done with a variety of means which the banks are only too happy to facilitate because they know they can charge you whatever they like for it AFTER the event. You don't have to try to go overdrawn, I know from harsh experience that my bank will allow debit card transactions over the amount of my available balance (even if only by a few pence) and then charge me a disproportionate amount of money for it.
Also I have to say to "Gorgeous George", I have been employed my entire adult life until I was made redundant recently and now find it hard to get alternative employment. Is it unfair that having paid taxes throughout my career I am now receiving benefits? You seem to think it is as you have stated "Subsidising the unemployed is unfair". Get a grip please, I find your misguided opinions offensive.

never-in-doubt

Goodtimesahead wrote: »

How does the ruling affect hardship cases?

Page 1 - there is a faq link, click that for details

Viper_7

skintus_mcgintus wrote: »

This is truly sickening, one day after we learned that 62 billion pounds of our money was given to RBS and HBOS in secret without our permission.

They were voted in - so given permission. End of.
The aftermath of the decision is what counts

Viper_7

blind-as-a-bat wrote: »

Not by me they wern't

In fact i still have to vote, and im 42, never been a party worth voting for, they are all as bad as each other:rolleyes:

Then stand yourself if they are so inept and you can do so much better.
Show us your policies and you may get a vote or three...

never-in-doubt

blind-as-a-bat wrote: »

Not by me they wern't

In fact i still have to vote, and im 42, never been a party worth voting for, they are all as bad as each other:rolleyes:

BNP :D:D

* Niddy ducks and runs

richc1981

never-in-doubt wrote: »

BNP :D:D

* Niddy ducks and runs

Yeah great if you want to vote for a party which is constiutionally racist and has no policies other than to repatriate non white British citizens! Just what our country needs... :D:D ps. I hope your post was ironic!

berkshirelady

richc1981 wrote: »

What would you rather they did? Not lend the money and have the banking system collapse?

I was not questioning 'to lend or not to lend' in my comment. I was merely asking whether these banks were subject to the same terms and conditions( that have been the subject of much argument on this forum), as the rest of us. If the banks were offered an interest free, open ended loan for £62 billion with no payback date, no penalties for default and no interest, then this would be deeply ironic, considering today's judgement. Oh, but if it was 'pre-arranged' (which I doubt), that would make it OK, then...?

And if the banks are arguing that their terms and conditions are fair and open, as the British Bankers Association did today, then I see no harm in us asking (as taxpayers, and therefore the unwitting lenders of this huge amount of cash) what the terms and conditions were. As taxpayers, and therefore the creditors for this loan, I think we're entitled to know on what terms the money was lent to them?!!