MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

euronorris

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

But they would not be getting direct debits bounced and charges added! If they can't remeber to pay their bills then why should the bank have to foot the bill?

My son has Asperger's Syndrome and because of this, for a long while he was totally unable to cope with direct debits and accrued himself some bank charges, because he always forgot to allow for the dd's going out when he checked his bank balance. He was much better when he cancelled the Direct Debits and just paid the bills when they came (after drawing out his budget at the start of the week - bills budgeted for over the month and money kept separately). He said it was because he could see at a glance how much money he had left after paying the bill.

Many people need to be able to actually SEE their money to be able to budget effectively.

They wouldn't be footing any bill - the DD bounces. It isn't paid. All they do is send out an automated letter and apply a charge to the account.

Whilst the way you described worked for your son, and would work for others also, it would not be the best route for others. Without the DD some could easily forget what bills need to be paid and therefore then start to lose their access to gas and electricity etc etc. Whilst incurring charges is not ideal, at least they would then be aware. I am by no means saying that this is the best approach. I'm just saying that it is the lesser of two evils for some.

Different methods work for different people. But the solution lies in education and the banks lending responsibly. If we had those two things in place then most people would be able to run their account without incurring charges (or, at least not as frequently as they currently are) or running up huge debts. Then, we would be left with those who are blatantly reckless with money and those who need a little extra help in understanding. And those two issues could then be focused on separately.

Let's not forget that banks are happy to lend to anyone, regardless of your mental capacity. And they have! I can not fathom why they would be shocked to find that such individuals are incapable of paying them back!

david_bedford_2

Disgrace just shows you how bad the court system is.

for those people who are happy with this i would like to ask, do you think it's ok for banks to charge you a daily rate of anywhere between £15 - £25 for 10 days for going 30 overdrawn? then getting charged interest on top which works out about £90 - £120 in your next wage slip why should we pay £90 or £120 when we didn't go overdrawn by that amount. It is easy going overdrawn even if you check online, i do agree that people who go over drawn should be charged interest of about £2.50 for a maximum of 10 days until there back in credit and the amount they owe for example you go over drawn by £30, you get charged £2.50 for 10x = £55 you owe. what i dont agree with is that the banks put you more overdrawn by charging you £90 then charging you for there charges of £90 then charge you daily rates of £25 for 10 days = £250 then charging you on that for going overdrawn by a small amount how can they justify that £120 equals to the amount you have gone overdrawn.

dannylove11

fullfacility wrote: »

The Supreme Court ruling is excellent news. The 80% of us who manage their accounts properly were dreading having to subsidise the 20% who can't/don't.
One of the bigest problems facing the country is the refusal of people to face up to the consequences of their own actions. It's always somedody else's fault.
If they didn't like the terms and conditions they shouldn't have voluntarily asigned up to them. Instead they complain and now try to jump on the compensation culture bandwaggon and extort money out of someone. These people shouldn't be given any encouragement.

Total nonsense

Quanz2

My bank send out your statement at the start of the month, and this details any future charges that will be applicable to your account and the date they will be applied, I think its the 23rd. As the vast majority of people get paid at the very end of the month, or the start of the month, it leaves those who are struggling having to find more money to have enough to stop these charges making you go overdrawn again and generating more charges 3/4's of the way through the following month.

KimYeovil

dannylove11 wrote: »

Total nonsense

Care to explain why?

LizzieS_2

david_bedford wrote: »

Disgrace just shows you how bad the court system is.

for those people who are happy with this i would like to ask, do you think it's ok for banks to charge you a daily rate of anywhere between £15 - £25 for 10 days for going 30 overdrawn? then getting charged interest on top which works out about £90 - £120 in your next wage slip why should we pay £90 or £120 when we didn't go overdrawn by that amount. It is easy going overdrawn even if you check online, i do agree that people who go over drawn should be charged interest of about £2.50 for a maximum of 10 days until there back in credit and the amount they owe for example you go over drawn by £30, you get charged £2.50 for 10x = £55 you owe. what i dont agree with is that the banks put you more overdrawn by charging you £90 then charging you for there charges of £90 then charge you daily rates of £25 for 10 days = £250 then charging you on that for going overdrawn by a small amount how can they justify that £120 equals to the amount you have gone overdrawn.

The charges are a penalty for not managing the account within the boundaries. Banks are there to make money, not give you things at cost.

There are always choices, even if you have genuinely had no alternative than to go overdrawn just to survive.

Personally if I was paying a bank between £90 and £120 every month, I would seriously look into 2 things:
1) Stop all DD, SO and wages going in. Have a savings account instead to manage future transactions (in cash). Pay so much in every month to clear the overdraft gradually.
2) Look at the loan options in the sub prime market (at worst) to see if I could save by paying less interest than charges.

On the bank bailout, it is a totally separate issue as it deals with an institution rather than a fraction of the population.

On the free banking, the outcome of the court case is irrelevant - banks will eventually charge for everything, it is just a matter of when.

natweststaffmember

dannylove11 wrote: »

Total nonsense

I'm gonna disagree with you with regards to his first point.

"The Supreme Court ruling is excellent news."

it was because they basically said that this avenue is what should have been argued on:

"Unfair Terms
5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

(3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract.

(4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was.

(5) Schedule 2 to these Regulations contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair."

The OFT argued on regulation 6 of UTCCR 1999.
For reference: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19992083.htm


Great result for all of us. Banks won the battle but the Lords knew that the war was not over quite yet....

louiser123

i dont think its a case of handle the account/finances right debate. i am not claiming charges back as i dont have any i think i got charged once maybe twice over the past 6 years for failed dd, which had actually been cancelled 10 days before! and once for going overdrawn.

i personnaly am happy to pay a charge, however i would expect the charge to be proportionate to the crime as it were!! and frankly they are not. and this is the bit which i feel is unfair, the high charges as others have said have a knock on effect and this ends in misery for people and its a lot easier than some would admit!!

its time the banks were reigned in in my opinion they have been the front line news for months and its just stinks when they seem to be able to do as they please and our govt just protect them whatever. there is need for big changes but as long as this country follows the systems it has and refuses to change it will always remain the same. after all its a case of govt/banks you scratch my back and ill scratch yours!! disgraceful really and immoral!!

KimYeovil

david_bedford wrote: »

It is easy going overdrawn even if you check online

No it is not.

pingchris

natweststaffmember wrote: »

I'm gonna disagree with you with regards to his first point.

"The Supreme Court ruling is excellent news."

it was because they basically said that this avenue is what should have been argued on:

"Unfair Terms
5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

(3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract.

(4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was.

(5) Schedule 2 to these Regulations contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair."

The OFT argued on regulation 6 of UTCCR 1999.
For reference: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19992083.htm


Great result for all of us. Banks won the battle but the Lords knew that the war was not over quite yet....

who sent us down the wrong argument road,why didnt we argue this in the first place,???????