MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

richc1981

berkshirelady wrote: »

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?!!

Well as the loans apparently didnt cost the tax payer anything I presume some form of interest was charged.

never-in-doubt

richc1981 wrote: »

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!

For someone that joined today with 8 posts I hope your post was ironic??? :rolleyes:

jamespir

never-in-doubt wrote: »

BNP :D:D

* Niddy ducks and runs

yeah you might as well vote for all of alqueda to come and blow us to hell

at least wed keep our british pride intact

Stephenbw

berkshirelady wrote: »

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?!!

Of course the loan was pre-arranged; they arranged a meeting with the treasury and negotiated a loan which they repaid within 6 months. How else do you think they got it?

berkshirelady

Just a thought...the banks have been bailed out so much by the taxpayer, I'm starting to wonder if technically my bank owes more to me via the Treasury then I do to the bank.

I'm sure some economics bods have done the sums. Can someone point me in the right direction to find out how much Lloyds/HBOS owes each individual tax payer right now?

thx :-)

berkshirelady

Stephenbw wrote: »

Of course the loan was pre-arranged; they arranged a meeting with the treasury and negotiated a loan which they repaid within 6 months. How else do you think they got it?

You assume the loan would have been pre-arranged of course. 'pre-arranged' could mean anything, bearing in mind the chaos that reigned at the time. This is an additional £62 billion to what had already been lent to the banks. The government was in such a panic they'd have agreed to anything to prevent melt-down.So 'pre-arranged' could have been as little as a few hours notice, if that. And if it was pre-arranged, the meeting took place without the knowledge of the tax payer or the shareholders. Which is part of the point I was trying to make - lack of transparency.

My original point remains and you have not addressed it yet. If it's all been paid back and everything is tickety-boo, then why not tell us the terms and conditions of the loan?

castmana1

I've been reading the forums today with some interest, having myself incurred charges in the past. I've found the 'I'm alright Jack' smugness of some who claim never to have ventured into the red a little distasteful. I'm just reitterating what many have said before me, in that some people less fortunate than myself and many others have very little choice in the matter when it comes to overstretching themselves financially, and that individual cases aren't as black and white as some people are making out. I think it is important to remember that financial hardship can be intensely stressful experience, and that many cases of depression/suicide are often linked to it. To just dismiss anyone who has incurred charges as !!!!less spenders seems incredibly harsh. At least give those who have been pinning so much hope on the result of this court case a chance to lick their wounds before announcing how chuffed you are and how responsible you are with your bank account.

chocolady

euronorris wrote: »

I'm still in shock and really, really p'ssed off. I don't even have a claim in! It's just the principle of it!

Maybe we should all start demanding higher interest rates on our current accounts and savings. Or, if they do not transfer money instantly (which is possible by the way - I am able to transfer funds to other Dutch bank accounts instantly!), we should charge them a 35 GBP flat fee for the delay.

Absolute ffing b' stards!

Refreshing to read someone who isnt selfishly going on about how they wont be affected because they are in credit. Dont be too smug and dont think if the banks win this case they wont charge for banking if they want to. As euronorris says it takes them forever to clear cheques and as a previous poster says their australian bank stopped charging everywhere but britain because of people that are apologists for the status quo and have a im alright jack attitude. This will probably affect everyone at some point in their lives and no one is saying that there should not be a fee just a fair one not a greedy extortionate one like £35 which in no way reflects the cost to the bank of that transaction. This is bad for everyone the banks attitude will become We can do whatever we like and Our friends will protect us. As another poster said I will be very interested in Gordon Brown etc who sent letters to Martin with their support wade in on the side of the consumer now the chips are down. Well done Martin, incidentally, you are a real consumer champion and good luck in your search to find another solution! :beer:

richc1981

never-in-doubt wrote: »

For someone that joined today with 8 posts I hope your post was ironic??? :rolleyes:

What's my number of posts got to do with anything? Get a grip lad...

suebo_2

I believe I have the right to live a reasonable life without being forced into using a system that is unfair and corrupt.