MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

_Andy_

What next then - campaigning against Amazon sellers charging £2.75 for postage on a book even though it doesn't cost that much to send?
A campaign against Tesco for charging different delivery fees according to popularity of time/day?

LeGrandThommo

I am paid £15,500 a year with debts of £6300. I have suffered at the hands of the banks but over time have learnt to managed my affairs properly and avoid charges (usually). Oh, I have 2 kids as well. If I can do it, anyone can. You know the rules when you sign up for your account so have no excuses. Arrange your overdrafts rather than burying your head in the sand and you will be fine. If you are in genuine hardship, the banks will deal with your claims on an emergency basis.

Shame on you Martin Lewis for whipping the public up into a frenzy and building up their hopes. You clogged up the court system, meaning many people with genuine claims for other matters (i.e. not bank charges) couldn't get their cases heard. People began to expect their money back (see many comments on this forum) and believed that they were owed it, booked holidays on the expectation they would get a windfall and now find themselves in even bigger financial difficulties. I bet you won't even respond to this post.

dirtydavey

Harry_Powell wrote: »

I have a pay as you go mobile phone because I can't afford a contract. I also don't have SKY tv and all the other trappings that people must have. My direct debits are therefore only for essentials and are all fixed amounts and so are easy to budget for.

Vodafone will have given you a bill prior to taking the money, if you don't read them.... If they took an incorrect amount over what they said they would in the bill, then you could claim for any charges.

If you are sailing close to the wind financially, then only essentials should be on direct debit. The rest should be paid via debit card, cheque or cash. You can't go overdrawn due to an unexpectedly large direct debit payment if you have essential DD's that are at fixed monthly amounts.

Its all very well for you to come on here and say things like this. But millions of people are not able to manage there cash as well as you.

Why are you here, to brag? Or to take enjoy other people misfortune. Why?

A minute ago you where banging on about bugets, now you are not. I was living to my means. I was bugeting just fine. Then I was wacked with massive charges for one mistake (not checking my vodaphone bill, I know I was fuc*ing dumb to trust they would not sharft me from behind, but they did.) Then it spirals. And thats the problem here. Banks are getting people into massive problems, to make a quick buck.

The_White_Horse

Tom1234 wrote: »

Much as I'm unhappy with the ruling, I'm even less happy with the !!!!!!!s that have posted on this thread to gloat.

Most of you say you 'learnt to manage your finances'. Bullsh*t. I'd bet daddy bailed you out when you got into financial difficulty the first time. Unfortunately those of us who have to manage by ourselves aren't so lucky.

The ruling is clearly made on the basis that 'banks can't afford to pay out'. Nothing more, nothing less. They even say so in the write up.

that is such a lefty thing to say "daddy bailed you out" boo hoo hooo. What if daddy simply worked, didn't get into debts and set a good example.

Unless you have no tv, or pc (which you do - or are you at work), no clothes, you have no right to speak.

anyone who has one charge and has been on a holiday in the last 5 or 6 years is a peice of scum in my opinion. i have had no holidays in that time, because i couldn't afford to. i have also had no bank charges. i realise the world doesn't owe me anything!

stop trying to live like wayne and colleen!!!

DataWraith

I thought the banks would win this,:mad: after all the public and their opinion do not matter when it comes to the banks and their grab at your cash.:mad:
Sorry but I think we should as an angry public show who's in charge of the banks and everyone DRAW OUT ALL OF YOUR CASH from them, even if you have to pay your bills early , as soon as your bills are paid draw out the rest of your money and let the banks sweat.If we all did it as a sign of how angry we are at being treated like nothing but assets I think you'd notice a very fast turnaround on their attitudes to us.:money:
Draw out only what you have left, pay the bills, and any other charges , but DO NOT let them gain any profits off the spare cash you have as you leave it in there.

The banks should do the honourable thing and pay all the charges claims at least that way they'd get a bit more credibility than they have right now.

After all the banks boast how much profit they make every quarter and then welch on paying back what the public is owed.:mad:

BankReclaimRebel

We're all forgetting that the OFT can still look into the charges under different rules....

cragdoo

I think it's a truly disgusting ruling. A compromise should have come from all this. I mean some banks have been bailed out of trouble with hundred of billions of pounds of tax payers money , but they still expect us to pay overpriced charges. I spoke to my bank a few weeks ago when I was charged £35 for being 7p short on a Direct Debit , when I spoke to the bank I asked why was I charge so much for being 7p short , the bank replied 'the system doesn't know how much you were short by , only the fact that you were short" . Surely in this day and age of technology it's not too difficult for their system to recognise if a bounced DD is short by a few pence (or pounds) and make allowances for this ..... of course it's easy , but they don't want to as the would lose money .......

Greedy greedy barstewards.

PadiP

alfieg40 wrote: »

Here's an idea. Rather than trying to pay our debts, lets all go bankrupt. If the millions all over the country did this, think of the pain that it would cause the banking industry. Firstly the initial loss of the debt, but then the ongoing damage of no mortgages, so no many earnt in interest. Then, we can all lean on the government for social housing as we cannot apply for a mortgage for six years, so in turn it costs them money to meet the demand. Yes, i can see that this might be cutting your nose off etc, but it would certainly damage the incomes of the banks for many years. And before you yell taxes to pay for the social housing, lets all hit the benefit trail. Seems to me that most are better off in that situation too. All in all, we as consumers have the power to make or break this country and it's political and banking system.

Ever thought about Anarchism? It's not the chaos many people think it means. We could then make our society the way we wanted it, including having banks the way we wanted them. All we have to do is organise!

_Andy_

ILW wrote: »

I would have thought the obvious solution was not to go overdrawn. Or am I missing something?

No, you're missing the point - which is that according to most of the people on the MSE forums, the horrible nasty banks shouldn't be allowed to make any profit. Ever. Links in with the ridiculous, overly-emotive concept of 'consumer revenge'.
Remember, it's always someone else's fault ("I was mis-sold", blah blah)

superfozzie

I've just had an email from Nat West (7.20 this morning) reducing all their charges some massively. The biggest reduction was the unpaid item/unarranged overdraft fee was £38 now £5