MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

imapoorstudent

I am eagerly awaiting my next "Changes to your banking agreement" leaflet form Lloyds TSB in which they'll tell me, with much pleasure, that I will now be charged £100 for going overdrawn and there's NOTHING anybody can do about it.

Surely, this ruling means the banks can now legally charge any amount they want.

This is a sick, disgusting ruling. Yet another reason why I should leave this country and head overseas...

Tozer

rambi-bambo wrote: »

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 !

With respect, you show very little knowledge of what the European Court of Justice actually does.

What is the point of European law that has been contravened in this case??? That is the only basis for an appeal to the ECJ. Or do you really want Europe to be the supreme arbiter for the UK?

marcharrison1979

Well i'm shocked!
But am I surprised? mmmm... probably not, i have always thought of the house of lords being a boys club whos members are out of touch with reality and they are only interested in looking out for themselves. I bet they themselves are major share holders with many of the banks which this ruling effects. How can they say these extortionate bank charges are fair? because it's what lines their own pockets thats why. And thats exactly why all the major political parties jumped on the band wagon recently, pledging their support for the reclaiments, they knew all along how the law lords would vote and they have made them the perfect scapegoats. Lets all burn down the house of parliament and tell them that's fair! i am no longer paying for their wages and am looking to move abroad asap.

stevegoodman

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.

Where did you get it into your head it's stealing?

Simple example, so you'll understand.

Account balance: £0.
Direct debit of £15 fails.
Account balance still £0.
Bank charges customer £35.
Account balance -£35
Customer pays in £35
Account balance £0

Bank is up £35 and uses that money (apparently) to pay what you would otherwise pay for your account.

Customer still has to pay £15 for the missed direct debit to insurer, loan etc.

See the good example from angelflower on the previous page for how this happens to normal people.

How the hell is the person being charged stealing from the bank? !!!!!!!?

And if the bank does pay the DD for you the charge is usually an overdraft arrangement fee or similar, which means they agreed to lend you the money and charge you interest on it. The bank always has the option of not letting you go overdrawn.

To use your example, that's a bit like walking into the shop and applying for a store card to get the item you want. High rate of interest for having the shop lend you money their and then to take away the item.

And if everyone did manage their money properly as some of the trolls are saying... that would be the end of free banking too, as no-one would pay the charges. It's a no-win situation.

Knackered

claireh2284 wrote: »

i set my direct debits to come out on the 28th, the bank lets them go on the 26th so i have no money in my account on that day, then i get charged. i change the date of my direct debit to the 24th and the same thing happens. we manage to scrimp and scrape and sort things out so we dont go over our overdraft or even in to our overdraft and then my partner is mad redundant twice in 8 months. the banks are getting an easy ride. i opened my bank account so my wages could be paid into it, if it wasnt done by bacs then i could get a cheque so i could cash it in town for 15% of the cheque or put it in the bank. you clearly have no idea. i hope you never find yourself in a similar situation.

What are you talking about? I am supporting the reclaimers - I AM a reclaimer.

Tozer

LATWTTB wrote: »

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

Ruling in the High Court was by a single High Court Judge and subject to appear to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords (now Supreme Court).

melancholly

oh dear - this ruling hasn't brought out the best in people, has it? registering on the site to gloat? *sigh*

i think 'free banking' is a myth as most current accounts have offered tiny tiny interest payments while the banks made much more from having our money. more of an issue when the rates were higher than now though.

it is really sad that some posters take pleasure in other people's financial misfortune.... whatever opinions are on the ruling (i'm not desperately surprised to be honest but i think it's a sad day for consumer action all round), manners are free!

orc_2

Remember that in most cases where the banks made refunds for charges that they stated they were repaying them "as a gesture of goodwill"

Consequently, no-one should be required to repay charges when they were made on that basis.

If you are in hardship, the banks must still treat you sympathetically. I would imagine that the case would need to be argued under the new banking code.

Things will become clearer.

The OFT are to make a statement this afternoon. Remember, there is potentially a plan B.

emmalt

pinkcloudnine wrote: »

Lloyds do not charge us as we are always in credit. The gold account & its benefits [such as they are] for us is also free. We have no complaints about our bank, 32 yrs with them.
Please can someone explain how they have managed to accumalate such high charges? I would really like to know how the charging system works

Easy, Lloyds for example:

If you go overdrawn £1:

£15 monthly fee
£6 daily fee up to a max £60
interest
then charges for each unpaid item (£20)

So you are could be £75 down before interest and any unpaid item charges.

If you overdrawn by £100:

£15 monthly fee
£25 daily fee up to a max £250
interest
then charges for each unpaid item (£20)

So you are could be £265 down before interest and any unpaid item charges.

PadiP

Whilst it's becoming apparent that there may be a way forward for the OFT to decide whether or not the charges are 'fair' and it seems, (from my understanding) that the government could legislate as other European governments have, we need to keep the pressure up. Peaceful direct action can be a very effective way of letting both the banks and the politicians know that we are not happy. It might not get us our money, but it could ensure that the banks are better and more fairly, (to us) regulated. I seem to remember that this kind of 'people protest' had a positive effect in Argentina a few years ago when the banks refused people the money they had in their accounts. Perhaps something concrete could be coordinated here? I'm certainly up for it.