MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

euronorris

You know what, even if they just accepted a reasonable timescale for payment of these charges would be a vast improvement.

Unfortunately, when asked, they usually refuse! And for some, it's too higher cost to bear in one month and so the spiral begins.

mackers8923

unkle wrote: »

If the amount is not important then what is this post;

"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!"

Make your mind up.

Silly little games but keep going its fun firing them back at you!

Break it down then! Tell me how it cost the bank £150 in my friends case because the banks won't do it, they have refused to do it in public and they have refused to do it in court (when they went).

Can you do it?

mackers8923

euronorris wrote: »

You know what, even if they just accepted a reasonable timescale for payment of these charges would be a vast improvement.

Unfortunately, when asked, they usually refuse! And for some, it's too higher cost to bear in one month and so the spiral begins.

Yip the big slippy slope down, fact of the matter is there is really no one who helps to put the brakes on is there! Perhaps this is where the banks should stand up and be the gentle giants and help people not send a jcb and make the hole bigger.....

basilseal

mramra wrote: »

Nonsense. By setting up direct debits with your service suppliers you are agreeing to pay them. Thus you should ensure the funds are in your account to match the direct debit when it arises. If a mistake happens, then fine you go into your authorised overdraft for a day of two (assuming this is set up). But when people are living beyond their means at the end of their authorised overdraft they shouldn't be surpirised if, when that unusual situation arises, they go over and take unauthorised funds and then have to pay the standard charges.

If people live beyond their means then fair enough, bounce their direct debits and charge them a fee, but the fee ought to be relative to the costs incurred, charging £35 for a process that costs pence is taking the proverbial.

There is only one reason the banks do this, it is to generate massive profits for them, it has nothing to do with providing 'free' banking for the financially sound

Banks MAKE money on overdrafts - authorised or unauthorised. Discarding charges may eat into what are usually astronomical profits but make no mistake; the charges are there to inflate profits rather than subsidise free banking.

You are not benefiting from unfair charges simply because you are in the black. Your money is still working for the bank and the bank alone. People seem to think that should the charges be dropped; their money will be subsidising !!!!less people who can't keep themselves in the black, this simply isn't the case.

If the banks had lost their case, then it wouldn't have meant huges penalties for the 'sensible' customer such as yourself. what's far more likely is that they would have charged a nominal fee of say £2.50 per month to run a current account.

Now you might think this is unfair but it's a hell of a lot fairer than expecting those without means to stump up for excessive punative charges.

euronorris

Biskit wrote: »

Why ? Why should it be the banks responsibility to decide if I can get a new TV on credit ? It's my responsibility to make sure I can afford it, not the banks. Again your quote is just another example of people who simply don't want to take responsibility for their actions.

Why should they pay out to anyone if the funds aren't there though? If I was looking after somone's money, they had no funds left this month, and then someone asked for payment of a 50 quid bill, I'd refuse. It would then be up to that person to follow up with customer regarding payment.

Perhaps for those reckless spenders, having their gas or electric cut off until a payment is made, would be a bit more of a deterrent. And it would be easier for them to recover and move on from, having learnt their lesson.

mackers8923

Biskit wrote: »

Why ? Why should it be the banks responsibility to decide if I can get a new TV on credit ? It's my responsibility to make sure I can afford it, not the banks. Again your quote is just another example of people who simply don't want to take responsibility for their actions.

See now, yes lets talk actions and from the writing of your posts you have obviously had a good time with your bank so I hope the help is there on the day you find yourself in trouble.

Everything else in todays world is done by education when something is wrong they generally fix it with education. Where are the banks educating people when they are doing things wrong with their accounts and such like! I tell you they are laughing at the monthly figures they reep from charges and fees.

Don't you worry though, I suspect that people like me will be around for a long time paying for your free bank services through the charges we pay for being at the lower end of society!

mackers8923

euronorris wrote: »

Why should they pay out to anyone if the funds aren't there though? If I was looking after somone's money, they had no funds left this month, and then someone asked for payment of a 50 quid bill, I'd refuse. It would then be up to that person to follow up with customer regarding payment.

Perhaps for those reckless spenders, having their gas or electric cut off until a payment is made, would be a bit more of a deterrent. And it would be easier for them to recover and move on from, having learnt their lesson.

Fantastic point, why should they pay, the answer is they should not. But what they should not be allowed to do is not pay something then charge you for the pleasure when its been a computer likely to be deciding the point.

Ok so charge what it costs but not rip the !!! out of it....

simon_templar_2

Bnaks do try. Thing is you tell someone on a tight budget that actually you need to ditch:

SKY TV
Internet
Mobile Phone top ups
Bargain Booze
Fags

They look at you as though you were from Mars. They cannot afford these luxury items but you try and help them with it. They will not help themselves. I think it is in school where they should teach about finance, managing money etc.

nickro59

simon_templar wrote: »

Bnaks do try. Thing is you tell someone on a tight budget that actually you need to ditch:

SKY TV
Internet
Mobile Phone top ups
Bargain Booze
Fags

Typical blinkered, narrow minded, ill informed attitude.Dear dear me

simon_templar_2

The only blinkered view is the people who have champagne taste but beer money.