MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

bigshaund

So what does this mean in laymans terms exactly?
Absolutely no chance of claiming back the charges??

Ive currently got a claim on hold with HSBC. Just about to pay my overdraft off completely and close my account and move to an account with no credit facility whatsoever! Ive learnt my lesson but it wouldve been nice to get a few grand back from the bankstards!!

dirtydavey

pink_phantom wrote: »

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!

Yes! thats the point see. No one is taking other peoples money! How dare you compare us to some one that walks into MNS and steals from the shop.

We are just trying to get by, and are being charged for you lot to get free banking. Thats not fair!

rambi-bambo

The banks where told they couldn't appeal to the house of lords/supreme court,, and they did. The supreme court said we cannot take it to the european court,,, WE SHOULD!!! ?

MASS PROTEST TIME !

superdood

dirtydavey wrote: »

Dont be silly, NO one has ever said that you should pay for me to go over dwarn. The argument is that I should not pay for you to have free banking.

If it costs the bank £2.50 every time I go over drawn I will be happy to pay that. But it does not.

The problem here is that I am paying for you to have free banking! And thats what this is all about! I think you have massivly missed the point. We dont what a free ride, and we also dont want to give a free ride to you. We want whats fair, we will pay what it costs the bank for us to go over. (even though must of us have begged our banks not to make payment if there is no money in the account)

:Tcouldn't have said it better myself

[Deleted User]

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.

ILW, are you being facetious?

When you go into an unauthorised overdraft you are not taking money without permission. The banks are giving you permission to do so: otherwise, they wouldn't let you do this.

Some accounts can't go overdrawn. If a bank honours your transaction and puts you into an unauthorised overdraft, then it clearly feels it is acceptable and gives you permission to do so. If it didn't, then it wouldn't let it happen.

The key issue - which dismays me the most - is that the law lords felt that charges made up such a high proportion of a retail bank's income that it couldn't be considered as an 'ancillary charge' and therefore forms part of the core fees for services provided. I think this is a misguided conclusion to draw: just because fees represent a high proportion of income does not mean that they are a core product. The test should surely be based on the proportion of people using them.

Very disappointed.

eurows

You could never be surprised by this decision. The government was never going to allow the supreme court to let this happen. It would of bought the banks to their knees.

And for those that think this decision had nothing to do with the government are nieve.

The consumer has been stitched up again and the banks are laughing at us.:rotfl::rotfl:

Absolutely laughing

dm1983

Not good news at all.

I have had two claims in with the FOS for quite a while now as hardship appeals.

Guess I wont be getting that back now then.

Is it a coincidence this has occurred after the banks became govt owned?

Janeyc_2

Please explain to me how the Supreme Court, to which I believe (well did) holds members which we assume are of the highest calibre and intelligence, can take 2 years to come to this decision? During which time, consumers cases were put on-hold, however, banks could continue to charge? Where exactly is the fairness in that and why 2 years?

I am astounded that some of the money-saving expert members are gloating in the fact that they have not had fines in the past and are in favour of the ruling, some are even celebrating, how smug! You may want to consider the following:

- During the last couple years a huge proportion of hard-working, loyal and honest people (some may even be family members of yours) of this country have lost there jobs due to the recession, a situation agrivated by the reckless and irresponsibility of the banks in the first place! A lot of customers have suffered financial hardship due to the fact that they lost their job in the first place and have been penalised even further by the very culprits that placed them in that position in the first place!

- Free banking does not exist! Perhaps you can point me to a bank which does not charge any fees, interest on overdraft facilities, charges for international withdrawels etc This ruling gives the banks carte blanche to charge what ever they want for every auxillary service they offer in the future!

- Have you considered the impact that this decision has on your consumer rights in the future?

This is a very sad day for the justice system in this country.......whats next? The war on Iraq is justified? Lets see what that inquiry comes down too....

Sappoo21

TUT tut tut hopefully the banks will see sense and help anyway.
well it was labours chance to help and finally do something good now
they have done nothing in there term in power to help people in trouble.This is very bad for consumer rights.

:eek:

dchappers

FuzzyMoose wrote: »

I agree, this is a great decision for everyone who is able to manage their finances and not dip into an unauthorized overdraft.

I have managed it so far - and was sick at the prospect of having to start support the reckless now with monthly fees for accounts, cash machine charges or transaction charges if the banks had lots this case.

At the end of the day, people need to take responsibility for their own actions and spending habits

I realize that this post will probably cause the majority of MSEers to hate me but I have always felt that Martin's bank charge crusade was short sighted. Yes charges might have been refunded in the short term but in the longer term the fallout would have cost us ALL a lot more.

I’m sure you are trying to be controversial but it’s frankly quite pathetic and you clearly need to wake up and smell the roses.

For one, the banks have made BILLIONS and have lost more than double this amount through their reckless practice To say that by them paying a relatively small amount of unlawful fees back to their customers makes it 'acceptable' for them to subsequently start charging us for general banking makes you ignorant and gullible.

Secondly, not everyone has a choice what happens in their life to determine their financial situation and people like you with your ‘as long as I’m alright attitude’ perpetuate this situation that leaves corporations and the government able to walk over the rest of us.

If you had the ability appreciate concept of the wider picture you would think differently. You represent everything that is wrong with this country and why we are in the mess that we are.

Unless people stand up and stop being dictated to by people who do not have our best interest at heart – who in fact want nothing further from that – we are looking at a very bleak future.

So Mr ‘I’m alright Jack’, lets hope the next campaign doesn’t affect you because I feel your support would be lacking!