MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

stapeley

In many cases it is not a customer using a unauthorised overdraft , its the banks charging when they have not paid a direct debit or standing order due to lack of funds . So they have not even gone into a overdrawn situation . That situation comes about when they take the excessive fee out of the account , and therefore put the out into the red ! It then escalates with more charges added each month .

rambi-bambo

Can we appeal ? As the banks did

mass protest time !?

LATWTTB

The trick is to stop the direct debit and pay in cash-asuming you have it-if you don't you do without-that's how I was brought up....

bigshaund

"The banks will work with the regulators to ensure that the outstanding customer complaints are brought to a swift conclusion."

What does this statement mean? That all banks are going to write to their customers stating that they will not be dealing with any outstanding claims from now on?

mramra

Some good news for a change. At least those of us who budget, plan, take care of our finances aren't going to be shafted again by the introduction of current account annual fees to cover payouts to those who are less so. :beer:

Stephenbw

satelliteone wrote: »

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

I agree; some of the sentiments being expressed in this thread are so ignorant, and as for the spelling :eek:

satelliteone wrote: »

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.

Exactly right; those of us who don't overdraw and keep money in the bank are paying for our own banking; why should we also be expected to subsidise those who overdraw?

heppy23

Triker wrote: »

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.

You could get your salary paid into a simple savings account and just withdraw it all the day the money goes in.

adam.lapworth

What a typical thing to see, the difference in classes really comes to ahead on this forum.

You see the people who struggle like me and working class are fighting the banks because of them taking our hard earned money.
Its ok for the middle class to high class because they dont know what struggling is.

I would love banks to be squashed completly go back to having a brown wage packet at the end of every week with your cash in there, because this system isn't working and if it is working its only for the rich!!!!

spykey_uk

KatP wrote: »

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......

I completely agree! This stereotype of lawyers earning hundreds of thousands a year is just nonsense! I am a solicitor and have friends who earn more than me that are teachers, nurses, insurance salesmen...its just not like that!

I've always said there's no point pursuing a career in law if you're in it for the money! :rotfl:

We are another profession who is judged because of a minority in the city!

cappy1501

I think this ruling stinks of ulterior motives. To me this ruling was made only because the banks are in so much troubles, so for them repaying all of us is unthinkable. It is completely disgusting, because we had to bail them out (and no one asked if we wanted to do that!) but now when it comes to the crunch it really doesn't matter whether a person's house will be taken away from them because they lost their job, or whether a student has to drop out from their last year at uni because they're crashed by the mountain of dept they got themselves into because of the incredibly high bank charges. As long as the banks as ok, the world spins around!!!!

This is a horrid ruling, because it just shows that banks are more important then survival of the little guy. I used to work in the financial industry and can tell you first hand it is riddled with incompetence and politics. I loved being able to make a difference but at the end couldn't deal with the politics it seems to thrive on. And this ruling is all about politics! I guarantee that if it wasn't for the economic situation we're all in, the banks would have had to pay out.

I just hope that this is not an end to the sorry saga. Yes, we have hopefully learned by now to be more money savvy, but it still doesn't mean that we should stop fighting to get our money back.

Martin, please think off something that would get us back on track and start focusing our mind again at something that's important, instead of wallowing in feelings of not being able to make a difference because we're just a little guys!!!!!
:money: