MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

chuckl1es

Did the banks get penalised/fined when they screwed up?

jamespir

chuckl1es wrote: »

Did the banks get penalised/fined when they screwed up?

did they hell

chuckl1es

Can anyone tell me if there is a book out there entitled 'how to be perfect and never make a mistake in your life' ?

If you do, maybe when i've read it I can pass it on to my bank manager

'They have poorly managed their money, taken money they were not entitled to, and are now jumping on the bandwagon to see if they can make a quick buck'.

p.s. anyone taking part in the Lloyds rights issue??

chuckl1es

jamespir wrote: »

did they hell

Quire, so why do they think it fair to penalise others for making a mistake?

jamespir

chuckl1es wrote: »

Can anyone tell me if there is a book out there entitled 'how to be perfect and never make a mistake in your life' ?

If you do, maybe when i've read it I can pass it on to my bank manager

'They have poorly managed their money, taken money they were not entitled to, and are now jumping on the bandwagon to see if they can make a quick buck'.

p.s. anyone taking part in the Lloyds rights issue??

im sure they already have a copy of it

chuckl1es

jamespir wrote: »

im sure they already have a copy of it

true, i think they wrote it after reading orson wells animal farm 'all animals are equal but some are more equal than others' !

nsabournemouth

After looking at my banks website i read their update after the judgement.

They have said that the judgement said that bank charges are fair.

Reading the judgement i can see that the judgement said the OFT can't judge them unfair under the clause they wanted to. So are the banks right or should they be a little worried.

flyingscotno1

chuckl1es wrote: »

Quire, so why do they think it fair to penalise others for making a mistake?

The problem of course is that a mistake by the banks can sink a country ala Iceland, whereas a mistake by an individual account holder doesn't. I'd say the banks that did get into trouble could well be hit hard in any case with break-ups etc. That is by the by.

berkshirelady

Stephenbw wrote: »

The very fact that the banks asked for the loan before they got it by definition means that it was pre-arranged.

In the same way that if you phone your bank and ask for an overdraft or loan then that too is pre-arranged.

Do you really think it would have been sensible for the government to have announced that these banks need such a large a loan risking panic and possible collapse of the banks, or are you just being disingenuous?

As for your final question, I neither know nor care. A crisis was averted and the loan has been repaid which is good enough for me.

I'm not being disingenuous, just asking a straight question. and I think you can safely say you neither know or care because 'they paid it back'...this time (or so we're told). what about next time? Maybe the 'next time' is already happening under our noses and we don't know it?? Which was the thrust of my argument in the first place. Secrecy on the part of the big wigs while publicly hammering the 'little people' is not good!

berkshirelady

richc1981 wrote: »

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

you presume, but you don't know. That's what I was arguing for - transparency of terms and conditions for this huge loan!