MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

angelflower_2

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 am sorry that is what you read into my comment. Of course people realise that the bills still need paying. The point is, anyone who incurrs a charge is not TAKING something from the bank, they are accessing a service. When that service then makes disproportionate charges, it makes life difficult for those at the bottom of the scale.

The campaign was to request proportionate costs to the service provided, something the majority of the banks have taken on board. Many have reduced this charge in recognition of the fact they were not charging in a moral fashion. The blow for individuals following this case is that the difference in prices between the high cost and the renegotiated costs will most likely not be refunded.

Should I pay phone bill this week or have electricity? Quite often, the reason people have to make these choices is due to the fact they have received a bank charge and the negative figure is taken from wages etc before anything else and when a budget is SO tight that every penny counts, it can be very difficult to get yourself out of.

superdood

Stephenbw wrote: »

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?

God there's a lot of cr*p on here ...... just let people have their rant they have had a shock and are disappointed.....or change your username to IAMHOILERTHANTHOU and then you won't even have to type anything, people will get the message instantly :rotfl:

kayleighb1985

if my case gets thrown out im not gonna be a happy bunny!!! i think this is alot of Bull!!!! no way the bank should of won this...
the fact they can throw out outstanding claims is rather crap! i think they should be made to give back EVERYONES bank charges ...
i defo do not trust the banks i suppose at this rate its another loan for me!!!
which i cant afford due to being ripped off by the bank previously for ppi (which i got back) but still stuck witha hefty loan with stupid intrest.

i hope they fight against this pitch forks sounds good!!!!!!

LATWTTB

Nice one...

smothy

ste_coxy wrote: »

they're saying it cannot be referred to the European Court of Appeal... C U N Ts!!!

Surely that would be illegal? It is now part of the legal system and the last chance of us getting any justice.

unluckychappie

Free banking is a marketing tool. In the world of charging current accounts a bank offering free services will attract plenty of switching customers in the hope of gaining brand loyalty.

Anybody can be placed into a financial crisis through a loss of job, flood damage or bereavment. There will be an understandable timelag when outgoings have to be adjusted to match income. It is a disgrace that a spiral of debt is created by excessive charges.

No overdraft for 30+ years, but close to one on several occasions.

Blondetotty

eurows wrote: »

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.

Totally totally agree. Never really believed that the courts would in the end find in favour of the 'consumer'. The banks were always going to win this case one way or another.

Triker

Trouble is none of us have a second option, I have no say in getting my salary paid straight to me in cash every month....it has to go through a bank.

This means the banks have a monopoly in handling our money. Therefore if their service, cash machines etc don't work I cannot get my money.

Why should a bank say they are offering me a service because they allow me to access my own money.....

If I had the option I would take my money in cash.

See what happened to Northern Rock when everyone took their money out....that happened very quickly.

We do have some power, we just think we don't, it's our money that they need to function, without it, they're stuffed.

LATWTTB

The ruling by the high court was unanimous and therefore final.

chunter

Solved the problem. most of my business is cash based so I'll never have any more than a couple of hundred quid in the bank at any one time.

No point getting shafted by rich Eton mates in pinstripe suits.

They've shot the bolt. I'd imagine awhole lot more bank branches will close now because people will just not use them.

Plus, because there'll be a huge increase in cash transactions, it's a fair guess the taxman's revenues are going to drop.

Go on lads, shoot yourselves in the other foot now.