MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

mackers8923

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

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.

Exactly Simon but this is where is goes into the bigger circle of things and you point out education is where it should be starting.

Perhaps stronger credit control would be the answer for luxury items....

But then one mans luxury is anothers requirement.....

euronorris

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

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.

I agree that some people need to drastically re-assess their situation and make cut backs in the areas you listed and elsewhere. Some people's monthly food budget is shocking.

But there are those who are genuinely living on the bare minimum, make a mistake but still, simply cannot afford to pay back such a charge in one month.

Agree with you whole heartedly about education though. If they had bothered when I was at school then I wouldn't have been so naive, trusting or blaze about banks and debts. Thankfully, I've learnt my lesson and have made the required changes to resolve it.

But I am lucky enough to earn a decent wage. Some would say that they can further there education to get a better job, but we would still need bin collectors, cleaners etc. Someone has to do those jobs and they rarely pay well.

mackers8923

nickro59 wrote: »

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

I think Simon's post is quite fair actually its just not a one shoe fits all here really is it?

euronorris

mackers8923 wrote: »

But then one mans luxury is anothers requirement.....

Can we have an example please?

I understand that some need to pay more for petrol, salesman for example, but can't think of much else.

mackers8923

euronorris wrote: »

Can we have an example please?

I understand that some need to pay more for petrol, salesman for example, but can't think of much else.

That really depends on your point on view.

Lets use the Sky TV example as I have it.

I like Sky TV, not because I get to watch it all that much but for the sanity I get from allowing my boys to watch it. They will stay in their watching their programs and what ever on discovery so in my view its me getting some free time to relax and its my children gaining some education from the tv (When its not cartoons).

So in my view I see the Sky TV box as a justified requirement for me but this may not be the case for general joe bloggs.

Some may see Sky as a luxury and say that I should be using Freeview to save money etc but when you weight up signal quality / channels and all the other rubbish

I hope you see what I mean....

nickro59

simon_templar wrote: »

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

Really? What about the people who are poorly paid and survive week to week and don't have a champagne taste, yet are still prudent with their money? Suddenly they have an extra unexpected bill which takes them over their limit.They are hit with the charges and the spiral begins.

never-in-doubt

simon_templar wrote: »

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

Hardly! I think between the 3 threads on this topic we've proven beyond all reasonable doubt that innocent mistakes (or job losses) can have a devastating effect and it is not all to do with people mis-managing finances.

Oh how great it'd be to be perfect like you eh? God forbid you lose your job or have a life changing accident..... you may get a charge for something that was out of your control, whilst you were on life support or whatever! Oh, funnily enough there's another example for you :rotfl: :rotfl:

nsabournemouth

Alpine_Star wrote: »

During the test case hearings the banks pleaded that the charge was made for the 'consideration' of whether to pay a DD or not and that this amounted to a service.

If that is the case is that what they tell people when they open an account?

On websites and paper work it doesn't say that......does it?

euronorris

mackers8923 wrote: »

That really depends on your point on view.

Lets use the Sky TV example as I have it.

I like Sky TV, not because I get to watch it all that much but for the sanity I get from allowing my boys to watch it. They will stay in their watching their programs and what ever on discovery so in my view its me getting some free time to relax and its my children gaining some education from the tv (When its not cartoons).

So in my view I see the Sky TV box as a justified requirement for me but this may not be the case for general joe bloggs.

Some may see Sky as a luxury and say that I should be using Freeview to save money etc but when you weight up signal quality / channels and all the other rubbish

I hope you see what I mean....

I do see what you mean, but I think it depends on your circumstances.

If you are able to afford it, without the subscription having a negative effect on your finances (by causing charges for example), or stopping you from overpaying a cc (for example - we all know the dangers of minimum payments), then fair enough. Unfortunately, Simon is right in that some people cannot afford it at all and still feel like they have a 'right' to it. Not all though.

As an aside, I saw a couple on the TV on Friday who were $110,000 in debt because of their kids. They had been paying their rent, their ulitilies, car bills (I mean, they even bought the car in the first place!), mobile phone bill. And they came on the show to ask 'when is it enough'!!! Er...love, you should've stopped paying as soon as they were old enough to work! By all means, some assistance should be given if needed, but don't pay for everything and get into debt for it.

The kids were so ungrateful, neither of them worked and both were like 'well, if they didn't pay for my car or mobile, I wouldn't have one'. Yes, we know, and your point is? It had even become a competition between the siblings. Who could get the most out of the bank of mum and dad.

Unfortunately, you could still see in Mum's eyes that she wasn't about to start saying no to them. Silly.

Alpine_Star

nsabournemouth wrote: »

If that is the case is that what they tell people when they open an account?

On websites and paper work it doesn't say that......does it?

I don't think that the banks are required to say exactly what the charges are for - only what they relate to.