MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

PadiP

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.

Ahem, slight reality check - the government doesn't actually have any money of its own, it's our money, which if you believe, as I do, was stolen from us through that marvellous sleight of hand called taxation. Think about it, would you allow anyone to help themselves to your money from your wallet without permission? No, of course not, it would be stealing. So why allow the government to steal from you?

disleksik

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.

Thank you Simon. The voice of reason and common sense.
I posted quite some time ago that I thought this campaign was mis-guided and, if successful, would be to the disadvantage of those of us who lived by the rules.
Reading some of the recent comments on this site only reinforces that feeling.
I too am a supporter of Martin and this site, I just feel he got it wrong this time.

Hoddie_2

Harry_Powell wrote: »

The problem here is that you don't understand the concept of living within your means and saving up. You expect the bank to underpin your poor budgeting by lending you money (without even being asked to do so).

If you spent all your money and then started dipping into mine without asking, I'd charge you too!

Sorry, but you expect free banking to be provided as a right? Despite it being paid for by your provider's punitive charges on society's poorest?

The point isn't and never has been that people shouldn't be charged for going overdrawn, it is that they're often not given a choice. Add to that the clearly disproportionate charges. The bank could very easily say 'no' to a Direct Debit, leaving you to deal with British Gas or whoever directly. But what happens is your bank effectively 'buys' that debt, and charges you handsomely for the privilege.

hudu

We have been shafted at every turn by the legal system.

This is my first experience of it, and I am disgusted. Lloyds failed to deliver court papers the day BEFORE the stays were effected - the courts then simply ignored my letters and would not speak to me in phonecalls as 'the cases were stayed' - Right now I'm as keen to get the 450 quids worth of charges in court 'fees' back that anything.

I will be moving my money from the banks and working in cash whereever possible from now on.

Any protests, I will be there.

My votes will be going elsewhere for the first time in a lifetime.

satelliteone

I am really sad today. What a sad state this country is in!


Who called it free banking needs there !!! kicked!

Your money you leave in the bank. makes money for the banks! (interest), the longer you leave it, the more money the bank makes from YOUR money.

Thats the idea in savings accounts. They give u a good cut and then keep the rest of the interest. Thats how they invest in services.

How does that make it free!. for whom? They are making money from your money. If we stuffed it all under the bed in shoe boxes, then the banks are stuffed.

If every one closed thier accounts, went back to cash. Employers/DWP CASH only! pls. I dont want the banks to have it! then see who goes down the pan.

I agree also ,that many smell a rat regarding todays ruling.

Discusted with the UK and the powers that run it.. FAIR!.. sadly Not..

garethb1981

Absolutely gutted!! RBS have sent me details today of their new charges, these show much lower charges than a year ago! Does this not show that the banks know these charges are unfair?!!!!!!! £1500 lost! Would it be worth looking into one of these no win no fee companies to persue it? After all, i very much doubt i'll ever see my money back anyway!! Im goin to look at changing my accounts now and closing the RBS! I hope everyone des the same and puts them right in the sh*t!! They should be wearing masks!!!!!!!!

Tozer

qprfcmark wrote: »

EMAIL THE SUPREME COURT AND TELL THEIR LORDS***S THAT THEY CAN STICK THEIR JUDGEMENT WHERE THE SUN DON'T SHINE!!!!!!

enquiries@supremecourt.gsi.gov.uk

Yeah, because the Law Lords will read each email and take into account the legal arguments from a bunch of people posting on an internet forum,

Stupid idea.

Katie-Kat-Kins

quantium wrote: »

I am not surprised at this given the amounts (+VAT) solicitors charge for letters. The charges by banks are comparable, so a group of lawyers is hardly likely to say otherwise.
Solicitors' offices are incredibly inefficient, with practitioners using snail mail and telephone whereas email is far more efficient. I expect than banking suffers the same problems.
With email, messages, rather than people, are queued. A solicitor may spend hours listening to music, and recorded lies about their call being important, in order to speak to another call centre based law firm. This is charged to clients at a rate of £100 to £250 per hour (+VAT).
What is needed is thorough and public investigations into improving the efficiency of all administrative processes where the client is charged - soliciting at law, accountancy, banking, financial services and so on - so that costs can be brought down. I would not be surprised if a ten to one reduction in charges could not be achieved by the proper use of modern electronic technology.

That simply isn't what happens.

I can't charge for any time that doesn't materially progress the matter I am dealing with. So time spent on hold is not charged for. Letters and emails are charged for on a time spent basis in six minute units. Generally a letter will be costed at six minutes the same as an email of a similar length. The hourly rate is governed by the courts, but needs to take into account all the costs of running a solicitors business as a solicitor's time is the comodity that they sell.

There are very strict rules about what can be charged for that are enforced by the courts and the SRA as well as our clients.

If I charged for time spent on hold I would quickly loose all my clients.

Law firms in this day and age are not massive money makers and have to be very efficient to survive, this is why many small firms have gone under or merged with bigger firms in the last ten years or so.

Us lawyers aren't all fat cats either, I know one solicitor who went back to her original career as a nurse as it paid better! My friend is a teacher who graduated the same year as me, she earns about £8k a year more than me for less hours......

Big_Daft_Lad

qprfcmark wrote: »

EMAIL THE SUPREME COURT AND TELL THEIR LORDS***S THAT THEY CAN STICK THEIR JUDGEMENT WHERE THE SUN DON'T SHINE!!!!!!

enquiries@supremecourt.gsi.gov.uk

Yes, that should do it. :T

moggylover

Harry_Powell wrote: »

benjy50 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."

Be afraid - be very afraid. Don't be smug. Do not think for a minute that you are exempt. They will suck you dry with charges on credit cards, ppi and any other credit agreement you just happe to have.
The banks can and will do anything to screw everyone - even you![/QUOTE]

The banks can't touch you if you pay off your credit cards in full each month. You then wont need PPI and if you live within your means and budget properly you also wont need any other credit agreements.

If you lot who are disappointed with the judgement want to get back at the banks, then simply SAVE UP and don't use their credit. The banks make their money out of people who can't live within their means and have to have everything now. Don't be one of these people and you will beat the banks!!!!

I have to say, with respect, that this is totally naive and simplistic and that it shouts more of smug barstewardness than any helpful or insightfull comment!

At the time that my partner walked out on me and my two very small children I had just about been keeping our heads above water for some time even though we were living VERY frugally since he lost his job and was on a reduced income. All of a sudden I had next to nothing in the way of income and despite hurriedly trying to cancel the direct debits, I got charged! It took several weeks for the DSS to sort out my claim, and all of that time I was being charged on the charges despite contacting my bank, going in, and sitting down and talking to them and explaining. At the same time, and despite my writing to them before the first payment even became due, and despite the fact that my mortgage was subject to "annual review" and thus not really in debit, Bradford and Bingley decided to levy a £10/month charge until the inevitable arrears were cleared. The arrears mounted at a mere £30 per month btw (the shortfall on the £100 per month that I could not quite manage) so the £10.00 was way excessive!!

I managed to get some of the charges from the bank (Nationwide) refunded at the time, and they agreed an overdraft for me so that the rest of the overdraft could be cleared in a reasonable time (only I think because I had a previous 10 years record of good management of the account).

You appear to smugly assume that people ONLY get into debt because they overspend and waste money and live "beyond their means". This is just so untrue that it is a pathetic judgement!

I also have little or no patience for people like that (and there is many a "millionaire" out there remember, who lives so far beyond his/her means that their debts are equal to their wealth, especially those with "property portfolios" amassed during the last few years for instance). However, I appear to have a far greater understanding of the misfortune that can befall even the best organisers/planners and managers amongst us: perhaps because I have experienced that fall from Grace and the hardship it can bring about.

I got myself out of the mess eventually: but it would have been much, much easier without the "kick em whilst they are down" attitude that the Shylocks present.

Having said that: I am not entirely in favour of those who run on overdrafts constantly being able to reclaim ALL of their charges and those of us who remain in credit being asked to pay fees in order for them to do so. I do believe that the charges should be set at much fairer levels (for instance the first time my account went overdrawn when my partner left it was to the tune of 43p - and the charge levied was £35!!!!!! - which was refunded, but not before it had caused more charges and problems).

I do not believe that those who do live within their means should subsidise those who do not (but that includes the banks as well:D) however, but I feel that we need to have a far bigger understanding of how many of these debts come about for the lower paid and not just assume that it is ALL due to fe cklessness.