MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

natweststaffmember

Chrysalis wrote: »

Yet the media never reffer to charged for bounced payments they simply reffer to it as a fee for overdrawing, the same with the judgement, please read it. It only reffers to specific overdrawing of account. I am talking about much more than the name. Yes if OFT chose the name then they are simply incompetant as it is quite misleading.

The judgement says "The Supreme Court had to decide not whether the
banks’ charges for unauthorised overdrafts were fair but whether the OFT could launch an investigation into whether they were fair."
http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/index.html

"1. In March 2007 the OFT announced a formal investigation into the fairness of unauthorised overdraft and returned item fees (referred to as 'unauthorised overdraft charges')"
http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2007/106-07

See the above which I have referred you to the relevant parts of the decision and their relevant terminology. If the media has misrepresented that then that is unfortunate that they didn't refer to the actual terminology and what it actually meant.

natweststaffmember

Chrysalis wrote: »

yes the fee could rise on extra features, similiar to what some banks have now.

I pay lloyds tsb £7.50 a month currently for my overdraft facility, part of select account. Of course this fee is higher then what it would be if every one of their customers paid a fee.

So business accounts which can expect many more transactions would have higher fees. But I hope you get the point of my idea, it would be a fee every account holder knows they have to pay, no unexpected charges, and no spending money they dont have. Very simple and very fair. Of course the people who currently are been subsidised probably hate my idea.

Just a word on that fee which you pay a year. Do you save more than £90 by using that account? They offer AA breakdown cover(which you can get for £29.00) travel insurance, etc, etc,. The only time I had a packaged account was as a member of staff for NatWest cos it was FREE to staff. It was the first thing that I changed when I no longer worked for them.

Chrysalis

natweststaffmember wrote: »

The judgement says "The Supreme Court had to decide not whether the
banks’ charges for unauthorised overdrafts were fair but whether the OFT could launch an investigation into whether they were fair."
http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/index.html

"1. In March 2007 the OFT announced a formal investigation into the fairness of unauthorised overdraft and returned item fees (referred to as 'unauthorised overdraft charges')"
http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2007/106-07

See the above which I have referred you to the relevant parts of the decision and their relevant terminology. If the media has misrepresented that then that is unfortunate that they didn't refer to the actual terminology and what it actually meant.

Ok fair enough that got mentioned there, but I dont hear the media mention mention returned items fees, they seem to just only mentioned unauthorised overdraft fees. Many people I speak to act completely shocked when I explain there is fees for bounced items.

Chrysalis

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Just a word on that fee which you pay a year. Do you save more than £90 by using that account? They offer AA breakdown cover(which you can get for £29.00) travel insurance, etc, etc,. The only time I had a packaged account was as a member of staff for NatWest cos it was FREE to staff. It was the first thing that I changed when I no longer worked for them.

I think I want to cancel it and lose the overdraft, but out of pure lazyness haven't done so yet. Don;t use the aa stuff. Just have a slight concern if I cancel they will revert the visa debit card to a standard cash card or visa electron since my income is low.

natweststaffmember

Chrysalis wrote: »

I think I want to cancel it and lose the overdraft, but out of pure lazyness haven't done so yet. Don;t use the aa stuff. Just have a slight concern if I cancel they will revert the visa debit card to a standard cash card or visa electron since my income is low.

They won't, you just lose the extras.....I think I need to give you a kick up the backside to do it(unfortunately there is no emoticon to do so as yet ).

Alpine_Star

unkle wrote: »

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......

You misunderstood. The context was ''If you do not have it, and the bank did not agree to it, then it is someone elses money.''

Clearly, the bank agrees to it.

unkle

Alpine_Star wrote: »

You misunderstood. The context was ''If you do not have it, and the bank did not agree to it, then it is someone elses money.''

Clearly, the bank agrees to it.

I agree entirely, except that the bank agreeing to it doesn't make it your money, loaned to you yes, your money no.

unkle

mackers8923 wrote: »

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

In your example then I would expect the employer to stump up the £456 not the bank as it is no fault of the banks is it. What if the employer just didn't pay, say £3k is the bank supposed to give a £3k overdraft? For all they know the moneys never coming then everyone would be quoting irresponsible lending.

And come on, it's for the banks to spot the employers mistake is it? What about the employer or employee? Or do you think the bank have staff checking every account gets credited with roughly the same as the month before?

I did read the first post but suggest you go back and read your reply to my first post, the insults in that post were where this started.

mackers8923

unkle wrote: »

In your example then I would expect the employer to stump up the £456 not the bank as it is no fault of the banks is it. What if the employer just didn't pay, say £3k is the bank supposed to give a £3k overdraft? For all they know the moneys never coming then everyone would be quoting irresponsible lending.

And come on, it's for the banks to spot the employers mistake is it? What about the employer or employee? Or do you think the bank have staff checking every account gets credited with roughly the same as the month before?

I did read the first post but suggest you go back and read your reply to my first post, the insults in that post were where this started.

I see you failed to comment on my last paragraph! My posts are fine thank you, and of course you are correct about the banks checking but can you comment on if they should be allowed to grab so much money when it clearly does not cost that much to deal with? and Of course it does not rely on a check of each and every account but are you naive enough not to think that a computer could highlight for an employee any accounts with pending problems? I doubt it.

No one during this struggle has ever came up to the mark and justified these fees and let me a little more clear. This is not only the banks who are doing this, they are all at it, our (Everyones) problem is that when banks do it and get away with it then the number of companies that do it increases and that makes life difficult for everyone.....

Did you really feel insulted at one of my posts sorry you read it that way but we obviously feel strongly about our views. Your problem is you cannot justify the case for the banks, my problem is I can't either! The banks won't do it, the courts have failed to do it and I doubt we will see the FSA or OFT doing it either....

unkle

mackers8923 wrote: »

I see you failed to comment on my last paragraph! My posts are fine thank you, and of course you are correct about the banks checking but can you comment on if they should be allowed to grab so much money when it clearly does not cost that much to deal with? and Of course it does not rely on a check of each and every account but are you naive enough not to think that a computer could highlight for an employee any accounts with pending problems? I doubt it.

No one during this struggle has ever came up to the mark and justified these fees and let me a little more clear. This is not only the banks who are doing this, they are all at it, our (Everyones) problem is that when banks do it and get away with it then the number of companies that do it increases and that makes life difficult for everyone.....

Did you really feel insulted at one of my posts sorry you read it that way but we obviously feel strongly about our views. Your problem is you cannot justify the case for the banks, my problem is I can't either! The banks won't do it, the courts have failed to do it and I doubt we will see the FSA or OFT doing it either....

I didn't comment on your last paragraph, not because I didn't feel empathy towards you but more that it had nothing to do with the issue or your posts about your friend on which we are debating!

Everytime I answer your points you change tack, first off it was they shouldn't have charged him, then it was the amount of the charge which you initially agreed was irrelevant, then they should have warned him, now its to justify the size of the charge. Just make up your mind.

Of course it does rely on a check of each and every account, otherwise how would they know which accounts aren't potentially right? It may be a computer program to highlight initially (at a cost) and then what, a staff member try and ring every account holder highlighted? Get real.

Not insulted as such, just the actual comment was laughable, i.e. think before you type. All I said was it wasn't the banks fault (which I think if you look back you actually agreed, at least at one point but suspect you've now changed your mind again).

In answer to your latest change;

Should they be allowed to 'grab' so much money when it doesn't cost that amount to deal with. My answer would be yes if thats what was agreed in the T&C's that both parties signed up to.

Lets face it every company who provides a service doesn't only charge the physical cost of that service, if they did their profits would be 0%, of course there is a profit margin. You may think it's too high but I think it unfair to expect any service provider other than a not for profit organisation to only charge at cost. Don't know what you do for a living but do you only harge at cost and not make any money?

We clearly will never agree so lets just see what happens over the coming weeks and months. My take (i'm sure yours will be different!);

1. Eventually banks will make a voluntary decision to reduce certain charges, in return all those cases currently at court/on hold will all be struck out.
2. Banks will become a lot more picky as to who they give overdrafts too (and accounts), so those currently in a tight spot will be in a tighter one.
3. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people have their accounts withdrawn, as whats the point in a bank giving you an account if there is nothing in it for them, they aren't a charity.
4. Those effected by 3. will only be able to obtain a basic cash card account.