MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

pmcg01

I have to say and I may be in the minority here, the decision in favour of the banks is correct in my opinion.

I have gone overdrawn once or twice, because that is all, when I have asked for a refund, I have got it. I have not got on my high horse because I received a charge letter, which is usually automated - I have just made a calm call to the bank.

If you regularly do it, you should be charged. You are spending money you do not have, i.e. other people’s money; you could say this is theft so you should be charged for it.

People quite simply now need to learn to only spend what they have. I was in great debt, so know what it is like, but I dealt with it properly and professionally and spoke to the bank and credit card companies, and ultimately I paid my debt off and managed to avoid charges except for the couple of times I mentioned.

I know the argument is banks should only charge the cost to them and that consumer champions are disappointed about the ruling, but I think long term they would be more disappointed of it went the other way.

Using the 'cost to the bank; argument, the banks could turn it round and charge us a monthly fee for administering the account. Charge us for every direct debit and standing order. They could also charge us for every transfer we make or cheque we write, or debit card payment we make. They could further charge us for every over the counter transaction. All these things have a cost to the bank and if you are using the cost argument, you have to use it both ways. This would make most folk worse off, and why should all these people bail out the consistently irresponsible. The banks would get that income back.

On these pages and others there is plenty advice if you are in genuine difficulty, such as the CCCS and Citizens Advice, so if you use them and only spend what you have you would most probably avoid these charges, and possibly interest too, so to me, there is no excuses for constantly breaking the terms and conditions, which are clear at outset.

This is why the country is a mess, and Mr Brown has to also take responsibility for this, being someone else who has spent, spent and spent, just to give the perception he was a 'great' chancellor.

Yes, the banks are not innocent and we bailed them out, but that does not give us reason to allow people to spend other people's money without any repercussions.

natweststaffmember

pmcg01 wrote: »

I have to say and I may be in the minority here, the decision in favour of the banks is correct in my opinion.
The ruling was not 100% in favour of the banks but was on a narrow piece of law. The Law Lords themselves stated that Regulation 5 of the UTCCR 1999 is perhaps one area the OFT might want to look at.
I have gone overdrawn once or twice, because that is all, when I have asked for a refund, I have got it. I have not got on my high horse because I received a charge letter, which is usually automated - I have just made a calm call to the bank.
Many people who did get on their high horse was because the charge was not one but 3 meaning that they lost £114.00 in charges and when they asked for a refund was told "its in the terms and conditions".
If you regularly do it, you should be charged. You are spending money you do not have, i.e. other people’s money; you could say this is theft so you should be charged for it.
I agree with your first point, the banks have the right to charge for exceeding the overdraft but I am not sure that it should subsidise their neighbour's account with the amount, it should be merely subsidising their own account.
People quite simply now need to learn to only spend what they have. I was in great debt, so know what it is like, but I dealt with it properly and professionally and spoke to the bank and credit card companies, and ultimately I paid my debt off and managed to avoid charges except for the couple of times I mentioned.
Did you reclaim your credit card charges?(they are still reclaimable)
I know the argument is banks should only charge the cost to them and that consumer champions are disappointed about the ruling, but I think long term they would be more disappointed of it went the other way.
I think consumer champions WERE initially disappointed in the judgement but on further inspection are quite hopeful now.
Using the 'cost to the bank; argument, the banks could turn it round and charge us a monthly fee for administering the account. Charge us for every direct debit and standing order. They could also charge us for every transfer we make or cheque we write, or debit card payment we make. They could further charge us for every over the counter transaction. All these things have a cost to the bank and if you are using the cost argument, you have to use it both ways. This would make most folk worse off, and why should all these people bail out the consistently irresponsible. The banks would get that income back.
I don't see there being any reason not to do as you assumed but I don't buy the argument that it is because they NEED to make huge revenues from Retail Banking rather than in other areas of the business.
On these pages and others there is plenty advice if you are in genuine difficulty, such as the CCCS and Citizens Advice, so if you use them and only spend what you have you would most probably avoid these charges, and possibly interest too, so to me, there is no excuses for constantly breaking the terms and conditions, which are clear at outset.
Who explained them clearly to the individual when they were varied and charges increased? A statement insert is not good enough.
This is why the country is a mess, and Mr Brown has to also take responsibility for this, being someone else who has spent, spent and spent, just to give the perception he was a 'great' chancellor.
Off topic now so I can't comment.
Yes, the banks are not innocent and we bailed them out, but that does not give us reason to allow people to spend other people's money without any repercussions.

We aren't spending other people's money since many cases have lead to charges that have far outweighed the amount of money already going out.

pmcg01

natweststaffmember wrote: »

We aren't spending other people's money since many cases have lead to charges that have far outweighed the amount of money already going out.

You have, the charges start because you have spent money that is not yours - if it is not yours, it must be someone elses.

I have not reclaimed any charges, bank or credit cards. The last time I went over my overdraft was two years ago, and it was my fault. I politely telphoned the bank acknowledged the oversight and explained the spend - they waived the charge but politely pointed out it was goodwill and that it is in the T&C (which it was, and I knew it was).

Doc_N

pmcg01 wrote: »

I have to say and I may be in the minority here, the decision in favour of the banks is correct in my opinion.

It is a minority, yes, but it's a pretty sizeable one, and the Court's decision was greeted with relief by many of us who value free banking and don't want to see monthly charges brought in.

There was a time, not so long ago, when only those who kept a large minimum balance had free banking, and everyone else had to pay so much per transaction.

That's almost certainly the situation which we'd be in again if the banks had lost this case.

pmcg01

Doc_N wrote: »

pmcg01 wrote: »

I have to say and I may be in the minority here, the decision in favour of the banks is correct in my opinion./QUOTE]

It is a minority, yes, but it's a pretty sizeable one, and the Court's decision was greeted with relief by many of us who value free banking and don't want to see monthly charges brought in.

There was a time, not so long ago, when only those who kept a large minimum balance had free banking, and everyone else had to pay so much per transaction.

That's almost certainly the situation which we'd be in again if the banks had lost this case.

You are right, that is one reason why I am glad of the decision.

I do not faancy paying £10.00 (probably more for the 'extras') a month just because other continue to breach the terms and conditions - also if that did happen, the same folk will start complaining about the banks charging them for not being in overdraft.

Alpine_Star

pmcg01 wrote: »

You have, the charges start because you have spent money that is not yours - if it is not yours, it must be someone elses.

You have not spent money that is 'not yours' because the banks lend it to you and you cannot go into 'unauthorised' overdraft without your bank expressly authorising it.

pmcg01

Alpine_Star wrote: »

You have not spent money that is 'not yours' because the banks lend it to you and you cannot go into 'unauthorised' overdraft without your bank expressly authorising it.

If you do not have it, and the bank did not agree to it, then it is someone elses money.

The bank does not 'expressly' authorise it. I agree they should block it, but then the usual suspects would complain about their SKY or mobile being cut off becasue the bank had not paid the direct debit. possibly leading to a charge from them, or the emarresment of putting all yuor goodies back after you have tried to pay for them at the checkout.

Alpine_Star

pmcg01 wrote: »

If you do not have it, and the bank did not agree to it, then it is someone elses money.

So you're telling me that you can borrow money from a bank without them agreeing to it.

Think about it.

It wouldn't be much of a bank if you could would it?

natweststaffmember

pmcg01 wrote: »

You have, the charges start because you have spent money that is not yours - if it is not yours, it must be someone elses.

I have not reclaimed any charges, bank or credit cards. The last time I went over my overdraft was two years ago, and it was my fault. I politely telphoned the bank acknowledged the oversight and explained the spend - they waived the charge but politely pointed out it was goodwill and that it is in the T&C (which it was, and I knew it was).

and the credit card charges was when?

unkle

mackers8923 wrote: »

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?

It was you that said/agreed it was nothing to do with costs not me! Keep on moving the goalposts if you like I don't mind, but at least keep up with what you have already posted.

I assume the £150 is broken down in their terms and conditions, if not go get them, if it is then they've charged what your friend signed up to. Banks can't be held responsible for everything including your employers inability to pay the correct salary/amount.

Next you'll be saying they bribed tony blair to invade Iraq!