MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

chuckl1es

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.

All businesses are there to make a profit for their shareholders, there is nothing wrong with that until it becomes unethical. The reason it has become unethical with banks is that they have a monopoly over the market plcae and as such can exploit their situation. Its no good saying people have a choice, in reality they dont as there are only a handful of banks and they all work pretty much to the same criteria. If there were hundreds of banks, just as there are retail outlets, there would be much more competition and they would have to play more fairly and evenly.

Because they had control, they got greedy and exploited people. so i stand by my guns that they are greedy and are allowed to be, so yes they are doing something wrong as they have no principles.

On another note, after they have exploited their position (as well as lent irresponsibly), they have then acted as if they are above the law in terrorising people into submission and frightening people with 'bully boy' tactics and threats no different to how a loan shark would act.

And finally after all that, they have mismanaged their businesses the very businesss that they are supposed to be looking after for shareholders, and nearly lost clients money through near bankruptcy, other than for the fact that they were bailed out by the very people they had either bullied into submission or conversely, those who had credit accounts or shares in their business.

How ironic is all that?

chuckl1es

I find it funny, there have been a lot of people on here who have said that they are 'prudent' with their money, so why should they pay the price of those less 'prudent'. Do they think it is 'prudent' to put money into a bank that then lends it out irresponsibly, sells the loan (which is now a debt) for 90% less than its value to a debt collector, and invests in very bad investments worldwide, selling packages of sub-prime mortgages, makes BILLIONS of £'s of losses, nearly goes bankrupt (save for the taxpayer) and lets its share price plummet from several £'s to mere pennies.

Are they that 'prudent' putting their money with them?? and then if they did loose it all in a bank crash, would they themselves be in financial hardship and still regard others as irresponsible and themselves as 'prudent' ???

nickmack

PROLIANT wrote: »

On this forum, more so on this board and the DFW board, if you are not part of the hate campaign against a financial institution and you tell people the truth and point out possible errors in the way that they conduct them selves both morally and ethically, then you are strung up and find that even the board guides are so biased and corrupt they start tipping the balance by way of deleting threads/posts so that their utopia of "cuddle me I am a victim" type tosh is preserved.

If you have evidence of the 'biased and corrupt' actions of any Board Guides, please report this to [EMAIL="abuse@moneysavingexpert.com"]abuse@moneysavingexpert.com[/EMAIL] so they can look into this.

PROLIANT

nickmack wrote: »

If you have evidence of the 'biased and corrupt' actions of any Board Guides, please report this to [EMAIL="abuse@moneysavingexpert.com"]abuse@moneysavingexpert.com[/EMAIL] so they can look into this.

Already done old man.

never-in-doubt

PROLIANT wrote: »

Already done old man.

What's happening mate - have you found a secret 'old boy network' going on?

Think, the [STRIKE]Star[/STRIKE] MSE Chamber...?

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

mackers8923

euronorris wrote: »

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.

You have it spot on, case in point a friend in work was not paid correctly this month and his bank (Unnamed) hit him with 3 charges in as many days while our employer was sorting out a correction. They refused to cancel the DDs, they refused to increase his overdraft so in other words closed the door to offering any help.

MONEY STEALING MONSTERS WHO HAVE GOT AWAY WITH THIS FOR TOO LONG!!!

never-in-doubt

mackers8923 wrote: »

MONEY STEALING MONSTERS WHO HAVE GOT AWAY WITH THIS FOR TOO LONG!!!

Haha - love it :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

unkle

mackers8923 wrote: »

You have it spot on, case in point a friend in work was not paid correctly this month and his bank (Unnamed) hit him with 3 charges in as many days while our employer was sorting out a correction. They refused to cancel the DDs, they refused to increase his overdraft so in other words closed the door to offering any help.

MONEY STEALING MONSTERS WHO HAVE GOT AWAY WITH THIS FOR TOO LONG!!!

Sorry, was it the banks fault your friends employer paid him incorrectly then? :rolleyes:

never-in-doubt

unkle wrote: »

Sorry, was it the banks fault your friends employer paid him incorrectly then? :rolleyes:

Sorry, did it cost the bank that amount of money to simply reject a payment then? :rolleyes:

If you're gonna be a smart arsey then at least think before typing! :rotfl:

jdx

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Sorry, did it cost the bank that amount of money to simply reject a payment then? :rolleyes:

If you're gonna be a smart arsey then at least think before typing! :rotfl:

:rotfl: That would be asking for too much.