MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

mackers8923

unkle wrote: »

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 I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people have their accounts withdrawn, as whats the point in a bank giving you an account if there is nothing in it for them, they aren't a charity.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.

I have never changed tact on this issue having been fighting for it for almost 3 years now I do know a fair bit about it. I have been explaining the different avenues which people are trying to put across but people like you obviously like barriers.

Good luck to you when (not if) you ever find yourself in a tight spot my friend, I wish you the very best.

As for your points about profit margins, it has already been dealt with, not sure if it was you but someone had already explained the difference between retail and cost pricing. Again I don't think the argument is about companies (not just banks) making or charging money here, it is about exploiting that to the point where they are putting people into a tighter spot and this is not just about individuals, what about all those who are running a business how are they supposed to get on?

By all means charge but in a measured and justified way not rip the !!! out of it and put people more and more into the red.

unkle

mackers8923 wrote: »

I have never changed tact on this issue having been fighting for it for almost 3 years now I do know a fair bit about it. I have been explaining the different avenues which people are trying to put across but people like you obviously like barriers.

Good luck to you when (not if) you ever find yourself in a tight spot my friend, I wish you the very best.

As for your points about profit margins, it has already been dealt with, not sure if it was you but someone had already explained the difference between retail and cost pricing. Again I don't think the argument is about companies (not just banks) making or charging money here, it is about exploiting that to the point where they are putting people into a tighter spot and this is not just about individuals, what about all those who are running a business how are they supposed to get on?

By all means charge but in a measured and justified way not rip the !!! out of it and put people more and more into the red.

Never changed tact! lol - Ok whatever.

As someone now in their 40's (i'm not telling you where in my 40's though!) i've unfortunately been in a tight spot or two and maybe thats why I'm as passionate about it as you (just in different ways).

At one point in the late 80's/early 90's due to circumstances I did a 9-5 job and a 7-11 job and even twice a week a 12-6 job all to keep my and my family's head above water and the baliffs from the door - never in that period did I get a bank charge. If I didn't have the money it didn't get bought, many a time I was that skint that I didn't even have the 30p for the bus to work so got up an hour and a half early and walked. Priority was a roof over our heads, food, clothes and heating (in that order) for my family, everything else was a bonus. The biggest bonus was when I had a car again for the first time in nearly 3 years, it may only have been a £200 escort 1.3gl but it was as if i'd won the lottery (no that we had it back then!).

I don't want sympathy, a pat on the back or anything else, and sure I still had my health so was not as serious as your problems, but I get fed up to the back teeth hearing people at work and elsewhere moan about their bank charges they are trying to reclaim, the size of their credit card balances and these 'nasty' banks, at the same time as pulling up in a nearly new car, decent clothes, £150 handbags, tails of blowing £200 in a weekend on booze and takeaways and so on.

It's the want want want on the never never never and the lack of self responsibility.

Now I know that isn't everyone and some people have had real hardship, but no one forced them to go overdrawn etc, the charges were known (or should have been known) and all but a few cases get little sympathy from me. Even your 'mate' - his employer c0cked up, yet it was the bank who were wrong according to you.

Good luck to all those still trying to claim money and well done to those who did. However the saying "careful what you wish for" springs to mind. I know of one bank who has already (12 months ago) decided what they will do if they lose this case and I'm sure others will have been running the same 'projects'. Remember a bank account, overdraft, DD facilities and so on aren't a god given right - if this pans out how you wish there will be many who find life alot more difficult than it is now. Sure they won't be getting charges anymore like they do now but then thats a bit difficult when you either don't have a bank account or only have one that you can pay in and draw out what you've paid in.

I like this site and I think the 'owner' has done a lot of good for consumers and individuals on education on financial matters, however on this one I think he got it wrong and has led 100,000's of people on a crusade that will ultimately have a negative effect on those exact same people. In a way I hope i'm wrong, but to be honest a lot needs to change in this country as we have a gneration who will be paying off debts for the rest of their lives.

mackers8923

unkle wrote: »

Never changed tact! lol - Ok whatever.

As someone now in their 40's (i'm not telling you where in my 40's though!) i've unfortunately been in a tight spot or two and maybe thats why I'm as passionate about it as you (just in different ways).

At one point in the late 80's/early 90's due to circumstances I did a 9-5 job and a 7-11 job and even twice a week a 12-6 job all to keep my and my family's head above water and the baliffs from the door - never in that period did I get a bank charge. If I didn't have the money it didn't get bought, many a time I was that skint that I didn't even have the 30p for the bus to work so got up an hour and a half early and walked. Priority was a roof over our heads, food, clothes and heating (in that order) for my family, everything else was a bonus. The biggest bonus was when I had a car again for the first time in nearly 3 years, it may only have been a £200 escort 1.3gl but it was as if i'd won the lottery (no that we had it back then!).

I don't want sympathy, a pat on the back or anything else, and sure I still had my health so was not as serious as your problems, but I get fed up to the back teeth hearing people at work and elsewhere moan about their bank charges they are trying to reclaim, the size of their credit card balances and these 'nasty' banks, at the same time as pulling up in a nearly new car, decent clothes, £150 handbags, tails of blowing £200 in a weekend on booze and takeaways and so on.

It's the want want want on the never never never and the lack of self responsibility.

Now I know that isn't everyone and some people have had real hardship, but no one forced them to go overdrawn etc, the charges were known (or should have been known) and all but a few cases get little sympathy from me. Even your 'mate' - his employer c0cked up, yet it was the bank who were wrong according to you.

Good luck to all those still trying to claim money and well done to those who did. However the saying "careful what you wish for" springs to mind. I know of one bank who has already (12 months ago) decided what they will do if they lose this case and I'm sure others will have been running the same 'projects'. Remember a bank account, overdraft, DD facilities and so on aren't a god given right - if this pans out how you wish there will be many who find life alot more difficult than it is now. Sure they won't be getting charges anymore like they do now but then thats a bit difficult when you either don't have a bank account or only have one that you can pay in and draw out what you've paid in.

I like this site and I think the 'owner' has done a lot of good for consumers and individuals on education on financial matters, however on this one I think he got it wrong and has led 100,000's of people on a crusade that will ultimately have a negative effect on those exact same people. In a way I hope i'm wrong, but to be honest a lot needs to change in this country as we have a gneration who will be paying off debts for the rest of their lives.

As someone who was only sperm in the 80's I have to give you your dues, I think its fair to say we are on a level playing field now.

:beer:

unkle

mackers8923 wrote: »

As someone who was only sperm in the 80's ............

:beer:

That did make me laugh! :T

If I'm truly honest I would agree that 'some' charges do seem high for what they are, however to me, yes of course champion and fight to get those reduced going forward but blimey, manage your money and your life so that on only extreme cases are you in a position to get these charges.

I'll give two as good as examples as I can -

1. One of the highest paid people in my company claimed back nearly £3,500 in bank charges. Now he wasn't getting them as he was lowly paid, fallen on hard times or due to an emplyers payroll error etc etc it was purely because he spent more than he earned (god knows how!) and didn't manage his money either properly or at all, no sympathy from me and as far as I'm concerned the bank can charge away.

2. My secretary (I hope she's not reading this!) not badly paid but not a huge salary (I really hope she isn't reading his!). She claimed back about £900, again nothing to do with being hard up, I rarely see her in the same outfit twice and she drives a newer/better car than my wife! She simply poorly managed and lived beyond her means.

So on those two as far as I'm concerned the banks did nothing wrong and shouldn't have been made to give anything back. They both have to take full personal responsibility.

To note, they both even now still get bank charges!!

mackers8923

unkle wrote: »

That did make me laugh! :T

If I'm truly honest I would agree that 'some' charges do seem high for what they are, however to me, yes of course champion and fight to get those reduced going forward but blimey, manage your money and your life so that on only extreme cases are you in a position to get these charges.

I'll give two as good as examples as I can -

1. One of the highest paid people in my company claimed back nearly £3,500 in bank charges. Now he wasn't getting them as he was lowly paid, fallen on hard times or due to an emplyers payroll error etc etc it was purely because he spent more than he earned (god knows how!) and didn't manage his money either properly or at all, no sympathy from me and as far as I'm concerned the bank can charge away.

2. My secretary (I hope she's not reading this!) not badly paid but not a huge salary (I really hope she isn't reading his!). She claimed back about £900, again nothing to do with being hard up, I rarely see her in the same outfit twice and she drives a newer/better car than my wife! She simply poorly managed and lived beyond her means.

So on those two as far as I'm concerned the banks did nothing wrong and shouldn't have been made to give anything back. They both have to take full personal responsibility.

To note, they both even now still get bank charges!!

Yeah I do have to agree with you that their are always two sides to the story. Those who try to live the honest life and get caught out and those who abuse everything they can with the intent of it with the who cares attitude.

My other half and I are always asking ourselves what are we doing wrong because we never seem to have any spare cash and this is despite 45% of our income going on bills. The rest is spent on the every day living costs and keeping our kids happy.

I accept now both sides of the argument regarding bank charges its just a shame that the powers that be don't. All they are doing is driving people round the bend making already stressful lives more stressful.

Hence why I have now cancelled all my DDs and going back to the old way, my only hope is that the bank does not cancel the Debit Card as without it I would be well and truly stuffed.......

natweststaffmember

unkle wrote: »

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.
Which could create an imbalance in the contract to render it unfair as per UTCCR 1999 reg5(1).
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.
Some have already done this already
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.
They should do this already
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.
Cross selling other products is why,
4. Those effected by 3. will only be able to obtain a basic cash card account.

That's all of us

simon_templar_2

Abbey are doing an account with no bank charges next year, i guess others may follow suit and/or reduce the cost of charges from the current prices.

Alpine_Star

alexjohnson wrote: »

So, let's please kill this "subsidy" idea - it doesn't survive the most superficial examination.

The ''subsidy'' idea was put forward by the banks themselves and in fact formed the very backbone of their defence during the test case.

Alpine_Star

alexjohnson wrote: »

During the test case? Are you sure?

Absolutely sure. The cross subsidy business model was originally identified in the OFT's PCA Market Study for 2006 and was used by the banks to justify the charges in defence of them from the very outset in all three test case hearings and used as a threat to the 'free-if-in-credit banking model..

mangle101

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.

With many banks now looking to reduce the charges they apply for individuals who do go overdrawn, if there were such a thing as 'Free Banking' does this now mean that it will become a thing of the past because the banks are going to be looking to find alternative ways of making up for this lost income so, which bankers are left to generate this lost income from? Let them have their charges returned!