MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

Morglin

turpin wrote: »

I'm afraid this is largely true. I've never come across a more unfriendly forum. A lot of bitterness. I have to say though, that although the bile is occasionally two way, most of the worst posts have come from the dissapointed side of the debate. Some more of them should have been removed as they are seriously nasty, verging on unbalanced. The sort of stuff that used to be constructed out of cut out words from newspapers, or written in green ink signed annon. There seems to be a lot of real nastiness against Proliant for example; yet Proliant made very valid observations earlier on in this thread - that happened to clash with the popularist view of this issue, popularist on this site, that is - and has effectively been flamed, then flamed some more, when he or she has retaliated. Take a look through, most of the really nasty, obnoxious, disturbing stuff on here is comming from one side in this. And I'm not all that surprised. In reality, this is almost a non issue to the population as a whole, because most people do not habitually run up bank charges. It is a non issue to me. Look on the BBC site, very few comments on this story. I get the feeling that people on here have had their expectations raised to an unrealistically high degree, largely by each other within the enclosed comunity of this forum and then seen them dashed, giving rise to some of the most irrational, pathetic and in some cases disturbing postings it is possible to imagine. The behaviour of a worryingly high proportion of you on this forum, is far more of an issue than anything regarding bank charges. And most of you would not say boo to a goose face to face.

I think you're right - this is a bit of a non-story on anywhere but sites which have got involved with this reclaim.:rolleyes:

The vast majority don't pay charges anyway.

I don't believe any legal source has ever said that lenders have to be 'fair and reasonably priced' - just that they have to make clear what their charges are.

Everyone has a choice - if you don't like the terms, then don't take the finance/overdraft.

If it was a 'fair' financial world, then sub-prime lenders would not have been given a license to lend money to people.

Lin

euronorris

Honest_Banker wrote: »

I am an adviser, on the frontline of a high street bank, who has been bombarded for weeks and weeks by some rude, insulting members of the public 'demanding' their charges back immediately.

I for one am glad that the banks have won the case. I can not believe that people who go over their overdraft limit do not expect to be charged. I completely agree with the ruling that the terms and conditions of accounts are clearly stated when customers sign for a bank account.

I appreciate that there are some customer who fall into genuine hardship at some point, but I see so many people who claim to be in financial difficulty and were 'demanding' their charges back. On further examination of their accounts during this so called hardship, so many customers still have their sky subscriptions, mobile phone contracts, evenings out at restaurants etc etc.

I am also fed up of people saying 'you were bailed out by OUR money' I defy anyone to pop down to HM Treasury and ask them for THEIR money, I'm sure they will be happy to give you whatever amount you want!!!!!

Only today I had a meeting with a customer who said quote: "I was gutted when I heard the ruling, I was planning a holiday with that money!!!" At that point I lost all sympathy for the customer who was in the branch looking at ways to get out of his overdraft. Just shows the mentality of some people.

At the end of the day, banks are not charities, they are a business like every other. Banks get bad press for for reckless lending, which in reality is what is occuring when people go over their agreed overdraft, but then also get bad press for not lending - so we cant win. If I came to anyone on this board and said - "Can I borrow £1,000 off you, dont know when I'll pay it back, if at all, cause I cant afford to pay it back. Oh, and then I might need a bit extra on top" Would you give me the money? Er NO.

Ok, Rant over, but in reality, banks are not the greedy ones, the customers trying to claim charges back because they cant manage THEIR finances are the real greedy ones!!!.

This is quite a one sided view.

Whilst you raise some valid points, you fail to see the picure as a whole.

Not everyone struggling financially still has sky, mobile phones, holidays etc.

The problem with the contract is that it is heavily weighted in favour of the bank, and if you know of another UK bank that doesn't, please do let us know. We have, so far, been unable to negotiate such terms with the banks and therefore the legality of them can be questioned. Plus, I don't know about you, but when I signed up, the charges were minimal (around 5 GBP I believe) and this cost has crept up ever since. I, however, am unable to reciprocate by demanding higher interest rates or penalties from them if they mess up with MY money!

Also, we don't want charges removed entirely, just to be more realistic. And, I for one, would actually prefer that the banks took real action when a customer starts to default. Call them in, talk to them offer them realistic solutions (not a loan that they will then be declined for) and to work with them to resolve the situation. Unfortunately, this hasn't happened.

I disagree on your last point. Banks are greedy and I am baffled by your claim that they aren't. But we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

But, you have a fair point. No one should have been relying on this money being refunded, and there a lot of people who still need to have a long hard look at their finances.

But, I would like to say that I think the banks should show more compassion in certain situations. For instance, a grace period after the death of a family member, or diagnosis of a very serious illness (resulting in not working). Because, honestly, who thinks clearly during these times? And it also takes time to sort things out. If they needed a death certificate or doctor's certificate as proof, then so be it, but a little understanding would go a very, very, very long way.

chuckl1es

euronorris wrote: »

This is quite a one sided view.

Whilst you raise some valid points, you fail to see the picure as a whole.

Not everyone struggling financially still has sky, mobile phones, holidays etc.

The problem with the contract is that it is heavily weighted in favour of the bank, and if you know of another UK bank that doesn't, please do let us know. We have, so far, been unable to negotiate such terms with the banks and therefore the legality of them can be questioned. Plus, I don't know about you, but when I signed up, the charges were minimal (around 5 GBP I believe) and this cost has crept up ever since. I, however, am unable to reciprocate by demanding higher interest rates or penalties from them if they mess up with MY money!

Also, we don't want charges removed entirely, just to be more realistic. And, I for one, would actually prefer that the banks took real action when a customer starts to default. Call them in, talk to them offer them realistic solutions (not a loan that they will then be declined for) and to work with them to resolve the situation. Unfortunately, this hasn't happened.

I disagree on your last point. Banks are greedy and I am baffled by your claim that they aren't. But we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

But, you have a fair point. No one should have been relying on this money being refunded, and there a lot of people who still need to have a long hard look at their finances.

But, I would like to say that I think the banks should show more compassion in certain situations. For instance, a grace period after the death of a family member, or diagnosis of a very serious illness (resulting in not working). Because, honestly, who thinks clearly during these times? And it also takes time to sort things out. If they needed a death certificate or doctor's certificate as proof, then so be it, but a little understanding would go a very, very, very long way.

absolutely spot on. people who are moralistic in their attitute towards people who are in debt are extremely niaive. to 'label' everyone in debt as irresponsible and assume they are all on benefits or have luxuries they cant afford is narrow minded. sure there are always those types in life but not everyone is. banks are definately greedy and no more responsible than 'those types' of people. they are in a similar boat as they are disorganised. they charge extortionate fees but cant seem to manage their own affairs and thus needed the state to help them out.....how clever are they? But they didnt get penalised or fined for making mistakes, like they think is so right to do to others !

pie81

nsabournemouth wrote: »

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.

The judgment did NOT say that charges are fair.

It said that they cannot be judged unfair, on grounds that the price is too high.

In other words the OFT etc can still argue they are unfair BUT not on the grounds that the charges are too high. they would have to say they are unfair for a different reason.

Widelats

So now, what can we all do about this issue? Can't give up, we should appeal and insist that there is a normal jury there from people of our background, not them court judges who have deemed this fair.

ILW

chuckl1es wrote: »

absolutely spot on. people who are moralistic in their attitute towards people who are in debt are extremely niaive. to 'label' everyone in debt as irresponsible and assume they are all on benefits or have luxuries they cant afford is narrow minded. sure there are always those types in life but not everyone is. banks are definately greedy and no more responsible than 'those types' of people. they are in a similar boat as they are disorganised. they charge extortionate fees but cant seem to manage their own affairs and thus needed the state to help them out.....how clever are they? But they didnt get penalised or fined for making mistakes, like they think is so right to do to others !

The problem with saying that banks are greedy, is that the prime objective of any company (by law) is to produce the best return possible for its shareholders. If this is a definition of greed then I have to say they are doing nothing wrong in principal.

Maybe the answer is for charities to set up banks with no profit element.

Widelats

ILW wrote: »

The problem with saying that banks are greedy, is that the prime objective of any company (by law) is to produce the best return possible for its shareholders. If this is a definition of greed then I have to say they are doing nothing wrong in principal.

Maybe the answer is for charities to set up banks with no profit element.

Them Muslim banks do not go for profit, all risks are shared by the entire customer base.

Charges are the main source of cash for banks, they got greedy and thoughtless in them and no 2 ways about it, if everything was fair there wouldn't be people complaining.

ILW

Widelats wrote: »

Them Muslim banks do not go for profit, all risks are shared by the entire customer base.

Charges are the main source of cash for banks, they got greedy and thoughtless in them and no 2 ways about it, if everything was fair there wouldn't be people complaining.

I think they would.

Tozer

Widelats wrote: »

So now, what can we all do about this issue? Can't give up, we should appeal and insist that there is a normal jury there from people of our background, not them court judges who have deemed this fair.

Which bit of the fact that the appeal process being exhausted do you not understand?

And juries don't sit in civil claims.

euronorris

The reason I believe banks are greedy and mis-managed is this:

A customer has a DD rejected. The bank charges them for this. OK fine (I'll refrain from commenting on the amount at the moment). This charge then takes them into an authorised overdraft.

Because of this, they are fined again. Said customer cannot afford to pay all outgoings plus this charge the following month and so the process repeats and repeats and repeats. The bank shows no interest in reasonably trying to resolve the situation and at one point, the customer is no longer even able to get out of the red, even on payday.

All the while, the banks have been using this expected revenue as if it were cashflow. Spending funds that they, in fact, did not yet have. It is not the only reason they hit problems, but I'm sure it was a very big factor.

Meanwhile, the customer, fed up with trying to negotiate a realistic repayment plan with the bank just walks away from the account and debt entirely.

Thus leaving the bank with a deficit, for which it had ample opportunity to resolve far more easily and the individual involved becomes completely lost and disillusioned with paying anything back. They tried and the bank rejected all reasonable requests because it was after the biggest profit it could make, regardless of how realistic this was or not.

The banks, essentially, shot themselves in the foot. I don't think any of that is in the best interest of shareholders.