MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

unkle

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 the bank lent it then it isn't yours, it's still the banks! If I lend you my car it's still my car......

mackers8923

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.

Sorry no that is not correct in some cases, if the bank has refused to pay a DD for you then you have not taken any money at all, this is part and parcel of the case. How can they refuse to pay something, then charge you a whopping fee for the pleasure?

Referral fee's however do cover what your talking about here and I would be one to fully accept that banks should charge a fee for such services if and when they are provided.

mackers8923

unkle wrote: »

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!

Go back and read the first post, this was a friends case to which I only know limited information about.

You assume its in the T & C's and your probably correct but in some daft legal jargon that every day joe bloggs cannot understand!

So are you saying that you would condem such an action from the banks, imagine for one second you get paid on the 23rd of each month, you have all your direct debits set to be taken on or abouts the 25th, your employer makes a cockup due to illness and pays you 1/3 or less of your wages, average joe what 12 - 15 direct debits a month! The bank then nails you for 12 x £38 = £456 in a single month of charges when all the bank has done is said no to paying an item on your behalf!

Now I'm not saying they should not charge, what they should be doing is spotting mistakes like this and helping people not getting them that much in the red that it takes them 6 months to get out of it.

I'd didn't move any goal posts by the way, your obviously an individual who has yet to have their life crisis for me it was a brain hemmorrhage in 2005 which nearly cost me my life, house, family and all the rest. I hope and trust that what ever hits you is no where near as serious and that your bank is standing at the door waiting for you with open arms to hear your problems.

Good Luck

mackers8923

pmcg01 wrote: »

Doc_N wrote: »

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.

But when you read the case that the banks put forward it is people who have been charged who are already paying for your services. That was part of their case and something which you cannot argue.

I don't know your situation and or banks style but can you justify to me how others, ie those being charged should be paying for your banking services?

and

As for paying £10 a month, I would guess that in some form or way you are already paying in some form what your banking services. Be it reduced interest, cash charges, counter fees or what ever.

how bad is it now

Some banks will even charge you to change 2's and 1's what world do we live in!!

A robbing one!

mackers8923

Doc_N wrote: »

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.

Doc

There is no such thing as free banking is is quite simply a myth, in one way or another we all pay for our banking services be it charges, monthly fees and or reduced interest rates.......

pmcg01

natweststaffmember wrote: »

and the credit card charges was when?

I have only ever had around three in total, over 15 years, the last one was three months ago - it was my fault, as was the other two, and I have no intention of claiming them back, especially when I was in hardship (through my own fault) they were so accomodating.

The last bank one, I waas polite, and it was the first and only instance with that bank, so they agreed to waive, but pointed out it was out of goodwill and they did not need to.

I do not believe I was entilted to have it waived or redcued, but it was, and most banks will for a one off incident, for serial offenders they will not and should not.

pmcg01

mackers8923 wrote: »

Doc

There is no such thing as free banking is is quite simply a myth, in one way or another we all pay for our banking services be it charges, monthly fees and or reduced interest rates.......

That is true, it is like 'free health care' from the NHS, but I want it as close to free as possible and do not see why I should be hit with charges becasue others spend money, a lot of the time, on 'luxuries' and 'unncessaries', like it grows on trees.

Chrysalis

I think there is a very big problem here.

I dont know if martin is part of the blame or just the other media.

But EVERYTIME I read about these charges in the media they are reffered to as UNAUTHORISED OVERDRAFT charges.

The problem is these charges are applied to BOUNCED payments meaning as a result they are been charged to accounts that are NOT OVERDRAWN. The media seems to have completely missed this simple fact, there is also no mention of it in that judgement.

As a side note this result was of no surprise to me for the following reasons.

1 - The regulators suspended all claims when they started the test case, at this point I knew the test case would go in favour of the banks, obviously a deal was made and the suspensions were a preliminary action.
2 - The government proven they consider bank's profitability and well been above the general population when they spent 100s of billions bailing out the banks earlier this year and last year. Having now owning shares in multiple banks and seeing banks well been as essential they were hardly going to allow them to lose this case.
3 - There is no such thing as free banking, currently these charges amongst others cover the costs of 'everyones' accounts, if these charges were ruled out then ultimately they would have been replaced with something else, since governments and banks favour disproportionally charging the poor this would not have been a popular move.

basilseal

pmcg01 wrote: »

That is true, it is like 'free health care' from the NHS, but I want it as close to free as possible and do not see why I should be hit with charges becasue others spend money, a lot of the time, on 'luxuries' and 'unncessaries', like it grows on trees.

Banks are not imposing punative charges to provide you with free banking out of the kindness of their hearts, they are imposing punative charges to generate huge sums of money for themselves. which bit of this do you not understand?

Chrysalis

simonp wrote: »

I'm obviously in the minority here but I'm glad of this decision.

No-one will win - if the banks lost they would just end free banking and we'd ALL have to pay for it.

As someone who hasn't paid a bank charge since being at uni in the 90's, I'm more than happy with my bank

If you go overdrawn without permission, you pay the fine! Simple!

Sorry - don't shout at me! I'm a big Martin Lewis fan but have always been against this campaign.

free banking is an illusion, millions pay for banking, the term you looking for is subsidised baking meaning another customer is paying for your account facilities. Or another way of looking at it is you allow the bank to gamble with your money, profit of it and they keep the profits as the fee. This is why people with large balances and incomes get fees waived for things like lloyds tsb's select account.

Also you have been misled alongside millions of other people that these charges are not for overdrawn accounts only they are also for any bounced direct debit and standing orders. When I told someone else this he just went silent, he had no comment to make. Even when I pushed him (was defending the banks) he just refused to comment on that people were been charged big fees for bounced payments.

Then we get the media failing to challenge the banks when they make silly press releases claiming anyone can get a authorised overdraft with ease. Typically requests are turned down point blank or an offer of a expensive loan is made instead, sorry we think its too risky to give you a £50 overdraft but however we can allow you to borrow £1000 instead at 30% APR.