MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

PROLIANT

chuckl1es wrote: »

But surely if you dont have enough money (for whatever reason), i.e. £49.50 to buy something for £50.00 then the transaction should just be declined, the same as if you were trying to pay with cash. Why should the bank either pay the extra £0.50p and charge you £39.00 for the privilege, or not pay it (if it was a DD/SO) and still charge you £39.00 ?

If you were paying by cash and didnt have enough, would the shopkeeper be able to charge you £39 when you got to the counter for attempting to buy a loaf of bread if you were 2p short? No, he would just not allow you to buy it.

You have hit the nail on the head!
This is why the banks need to take a re-active and for future protection a pro-active response this by taking away the "problematic customers" Visa Debit card and replacing it with either an Electron or full auth Visa Debit.
It would be too much to ask the bank to trust its clients with a tool like a fully fledged Visa Debit card now wouldn't it?

euronorris

euronorris wrote: »

No one want to respond to what, I feel, were some valid suggestions for improvement for all?

The digs at each other are not required, nor constructive.

Apparantly not.

I wish you all good day and good luck in that case. I'm sure I'll see you around the board at some point. :hello:

never-in-doubt

Quanz2 wrote: »

Thanks never-in-doubt. I have!

Ok, in a nutshell read this post: #1309

Basically if you have a pending court case for charges then get the court date put back for the time being until we have new templates using regs 5 & 8. Then simply amend the case to suit (i.e. do not go to court quoting reg 6 or it'll be thrown out)....

We still have this to lose, the banks realise they have not won anything yet - maybe they forget that there are a lot of smart cookies out there who are actually against the banks charging structure in their entirety!

Watch this space, will be a lot of updates in the following days with revised letters superseding the old regulation 6 format.

Additionally, regards to hardship cases - from Natty earlier:

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Ok, Financial hardship claims can still be looked at by the banks and refunds of charges can be made for the period of time where the hardship occurred. In BCOBS there is this part to it:

"GUIDANCE ONLY

Dealings with customers in financial difficulty

BCOBS 5.1.4 01/11/2009 Principle 6 requires a firm to pay due regard to the interests of its customers and to treat them fairly. In particular, a firm should deal fairly with a banking customer whom it has reason to believe is in financial difficulty.

Principle 6 - Customers' interests A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly."

To a degree the FSA Waiver made banks actually look at someone's circumstances rather then simply say that they did. This is early days after the test case so in the coming days things should become a lot clearer.

never-in-doubt

euronorris wrote: »

Apparantly not.

I wish you all good day and good luck in that case. I'm sure I'll see you around the board at some point. :hello:

Aaaaw mate, come off it - intelligent discussions went out the window on page 2! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Have yourself a wee smoke and have a laugh at some of the silly comments Its keeping me amused! How is Holland today, reeling from the news or laughing at us daft Brits?

lieutenant_dan

The banks could well have carte blanche to charge whatever fees they like in future as mentioned, but also to end free banking in any case. Do people not see that they might do this to try and make more profits instead of to try and recoup the potential losses of the payout had the case been ruled against them?

That would almost be worth it to then see the reaction of many of the smug "I manage my finances correctly and have never gone a penny overdrawn" when they no longer have free banking and a scapegoat of
those who "irresponsibly" go overdrawn.

Thumper7

Can I ask, was there any reason why the test case didn't include reg 5 and 8 to begin with alongside reg 6.

Surely it would have been common sense, to have included these regs in the first place if they really wanted a chance of winning.

T

chuckl1es

PROLIANT wrote: »

You have hit the nail on the head!
This is why the banks need to take a re-active and for future protection a pro-active response this by taking away the "problematic customers" Visa Debit card and replacing it with either an Electron or full auth Visa Debit.
It would be too much to ask the bank to trust its clients with a tool like a fully fledged Visa Debit card now wouldn't it?

I'm not sure I entirely agree, although it does have some merit. Whether its electron or a normal debit card though, the transaction can simply be declined. What work is involved with declining it? The assumption here is that people are irresponsible, some are I agree but many aren't, a simple mistake or miscalculation over 50p is hardly worthy of a £39 fine. The banks i think are more irresponsible by alowing the transaction to go through than the consumer is for mistakingly miscalculating that they were 50p short.

gordothegopher

mr.brightside87 wrote: »

Yup. Then I arranged at the bank to cancel the debit (which I had sorted with sky) and the nice polite woman on the phone said it would be sorted. Next month, another charge and 2 lots of subscription on top of the original charge.



Re arrange the words:

SOAPBOX OFF GET YOUR

If you stayed in the black, you would be able to afford it. Instead now, those in the red will STAY in the red with no hope of getting out.

It's a null argument that and, unfortunatley, the supreme court fell for it.

You're telling me you couldn't afford a small fee every month? Come off it!

Sorry, but that's a ridiculous argument. Yes, there are some smug people here saying "Well I'm glad I don't have to pay for other peoples mistakes" .... which is quite arrogant. However, your ridiculously socialist arguments here don't help anyone's case. Because people who don't go overdrawn CAN afford a few quid at the end of the month, that means they SHOULD pay so that others can avoid charges?

What if your bank deemed you soluble enough to take a tenner from your account at the end of each month to fill a gap caused by scrapped charges*? You'd be squealing something rotten then, I think!!!

*PS, I didn't say I wasn't in favour of the charges system being overhauled.

glasgow11

mramra wrote: »

Be more careful with your finances?

life is diffrent for everyone.....in the last 4 years Iv had 4 funerals to pay for including my mum at 53....my husband was out of work for 3 months at the end of last year oh yes and I have 3 kids under the age of 6.....and prior to last year we always have savings and a very confortable life....its not a sob story because I dont want pitty just want to state the facts and say please dont JUDGE you never know where you'll in the find yourself in the future...but I wish you the best

ffacoffipawb

CLAUDE_BALLS wrote: »

What a week:rolleyes:

Jedward getting chucked out.

Jordan leavin I'm a celeb.

What else could possibly go wrong???

What else could possibly go right???