MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

pink_phantom

ILW wrote: »

On that basis, is it OK to go into a shop and take goods without paying and expect no comeback if caught. I cannot see the difference between taking something from M & S or Natwest bank without permission. Someone will no doubt correct me though.

I think you are missing the point. No one is saying that they shouldn't be penalised. What theyare saying is that it's the ammount they are penalised that is unfair. It's all very well saying "you signed up to the terms and conditions" but really, what choice do you have in this day and age with standing orders, direct debits and wages. If I choose not to have a bank account how the hell am I supposed to get my wages, they wouldn't give me cash!

alfieg40

Here's an idea. Rather than trying to pay our debts, lets all go bankrupt. If the millions all over the country did this, think of the pain that it would cause the banking industry. Firstly the initial loss of the debt, but then the ongoing damage of no mortgages, so no many earnt in interest. Then, we can all lean on the government for social housing as we cannot apply for a mortgage for six years, so in turn it costs them money to meet the demand. Yes, i can see that this might be cutting your nose off etc, but it would certainly damage the incomes of the banks for many years. And before you yell taxes to pay for the social housing, lets all hit the benefit trail. Seems to me that most are better off in that situation too. All in all, we as consumers have the power to make or break this country and it's political and banking system.

Stiffedbysupremecourt

glider3560 wrote: »

What I think is disgusting, is that people think they can steal the bank's money without their permission. As an analogy, I would compare going into an unauthorised overdraft as walking into a shop, removing something from the shelf and walking out without paying. You wouldn't get away with "I don't have much money" in the shop, so why should the bank be the same? Most people on these boards are on low incomes but learn to live within their means and not steal the bank's money.

People seem to have got into their heads that it is alright to steal the bank's money without any consequences. It is not and should certainly be made illegal.

If you didn't agree with the charges, then why did you open the bank account?

Before someone says that the banks have stolen taxpayers money, they haven't. In case anyone doesn't realise, the government didn't just hand over money to the banks, but instead bought shares in the banks. This means that when the banks become more profitable again, the government will receive income in the form of dividends from the bank.

Today's decision is an excellent one and I hope that the "free banking" model will continue.

Idiot. Nobody is trying to "steal" money from the bank, none of us have stated that we should be allowed free money. The issue is over the fact that if my bank authorises a payment from my account that takes me into unauthorised overdraft (surely a contradiction in itself) then they will charge me a disproportionate amount of money to do it. It's like a taxi driver charging £200 to drive you 2 miles.

As someone who has not individually negotiated the terms of my "contract" with the bank since the charges changed I will persue the reg 5 avenue and see what happens.

Stephenbw

glider3560 wrote: »

What I think is disgusting, is that people think they can steal the bank's money without their permission. As an analogy, I would compare going into an unauthorised overdraft as walking into a shop, removing something from the shelf and walking out without paying. You wouldn't get away with "I don't have much money" in the shop, so why should the bank be the same? Most people on these boards are on low incomes but learn to live within their means and not steal the bank's money.

People seem to have got into their heads that it is alright to steal the bank's money without any consequences. It is not and should certainly be made illegal.

If you didn't agree with the charges, then why did you open the bank account?

Before someone says that the banks have stolen taxpayers money, they haven't. In case anyone doesn't realise, the government didn't just hand over money to the banks, but instead bought shares in the banks. This means that when the banks become more profitable again, the government will receive income in the form of dividends from the bank.

Today's decision is an excellent one and I hope that the "free banking" model will continue.

I completely agree and although we may be a minority in this thread we are the vast majority of the general public who do not issue rubber cheques or overdraw at the bank and welcome this decision.

There is a lot of rubbish being posted on this thread, much of it by people who have joined today :rolleyes:

If they think the banking system is unfair in the UK maybe they would prefer the French system and lose the right to have a bank account?

Penalties for a bounced cheque or unauthorised overdrafts can be damaging to your aims of buying property or doing anything else financial in France. Cheques will no longer be honoured and high charges will be made to your account, which can make the problem even worse. If you do not resolve the problem to the bank's satisfaction or get into trouble again, then you are in danger of becoming an Interdit Bancaire, which means you will not be allowed to carry a cheque book and your name is put on a banking blacklist for three to five years. You will not be able to solve this problem just by changing banks, as all the banks have access to this blacklist.

glider3560

pink_phantom wrote: »

If I choose not to have a bank account how the hell am I supposed to get my wages, they wouldn't give me cash!

That is a problem between yourself and your employer - why should that be the bank's responsibility?

In any case, why not withdraw the money as soon as it has been paid (only using the bank as a method of receiving your wages) then you are effectively back to being paid in cash?

ollski

glider3560 wrote: »

What I think is disgusting, is that people think they can steal the bank's money without their permission. As an analogy, I would compare going into an unauthorised overdraft as walking into a shop, removing something from the shelf and walking out without paying. You wouldn't get away with "I don't have much money" in the shop, so why should the bank be the same? Most people on these boards are on low incomes but learn to live within their means and not steal the bank's money.

[/SIZE][/COLOR]

How can you do that?, the only way to go into unauthorized overdraft is by a guaranteed cheque which virtually nobody accepts any more or the standard way of being charged ridiculous amounts by your bank.
What really gets me is these odious individuals who runs these sharking practices are the same people who are shocked when I tell them my hourly fee for hard graft is 30.00.

zeushelmet

Even this site has contained/suppressed the passion of the english language, eh Thank -uck im CORNISH.

gilligansyle

Whilst regretting the decision I can see why it was made. Banks are already in trouble and to have to pay this out would cost them.

For the 'holier than thou' brigade who say 'why should I pay for your lack of budgeting' may I point out that when I was first working ALL banks charged fees, whether you were overdrawn or not. I can remember the rush for people to open accounts at Nationwide as they were the first to offer free banking. People forget this, banking has not always been free. The point is that if it cost £2.50 to send a letter saying someone was overdrawn then fine. But it can't cost them £35 to send a letter - can it?

For myself, my bank charges were mainly caused by the snowball effect of one cheque that was paid into my account, cleared and then cancelled a month later. I wasn't expecting to get it back and do not pay banks a penny now, so they will never get a penny off me again. If they start to charge per transaction I suspect people will go back to keeping money under the mattress.

PadiP

pr00se wrote: »

I am sure others will have noticed the following from the Supreme Court Press release:

"Lord Phillips also noted that in the absence of the charges the banks would not be able
profitably to provide current account services without a fee."

My heart bleeds for the banks and the bankers' bonuses!

I'm not convinced that the banks actually need to charge for services as they have for years made money on our money by collecting the interest that accrues overnight on the international markets - and of course Britain's antediluvian banking system that requires at least three days for a cheque to clear, (six with the Halifax) which dates from the 18th Century when transfers between banks required the use of runners. Banks don't actually have to make a profit, just cover their costs and inflation so that they don't lose out, which is prudent. Sadly like the railways, that 'we' once owned, it's a case of privatised profits but publicly funded losses so that it is 'they' who benefit, but 'we' who lose.

berkshirelady

Eggyplop wrote: »

Hey

What i did was get a new account with a different bank and get my wages paid into the new account. I then wrote to Lloyds telling them i will pay back the over draft but in my own time.
Seemed to work for me Good luck!

Hi Eggy, well, that's what I've tried to do, first via C.A.B and then via CCCS DMP. It's not been working!!! I've got a separate bank account for my wages too, have done for 15 months. I'm glad it worked for you, what did you say to Lloyds that I haven't (I would like to know your secret) :-)