MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

kiggy

I am sorry but I cannot understand how the discision was made so fast in court today because these things take ages - unless there was gin and tonic deals made and no one can tell me that members of the court that made this discision are not friends with the bankers - the banks are the biggest criminals out they even continue taking money out of people's accounts when they know it is a scam - I hate living here, nothing to be proud off, want to go and live where we exchange goods and services for goods and services - things are so coruppt here, the biggar you are the more you get away with it.

superdood

superfozzie wrote: »

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

old news sorry

robpw2

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I think that's an outrageous thing to say.

but not exactly untrue

Badster_2

Delighted with the result on the Bank charges!! If the banks reduce their fees they would just charge fees to everybody for the privlidge of :jhaving an account. Why should I have to subsidise the people who cannot manage their finances and live within their means?
I've got a good idea-stay within your overdraft and you wont get charged at all!

PadiP

Tozer wrote: »

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.

Possibly, but it might crash their mail server!

Harry_Powell

euronorris wrote: »

And what do you think they will do now?

The court ruled that their charges don't have to be fair. It is only a matter of time before they start charging you to keep the account anyway. And another charge for setting up a DD. And another for transferring funds to another account. And another and another and another.

None of us win with this ruling.

If banks started charging for Direct Debits then people would go back to the old days of paying via cheque, postal order or cash. It's as simple as that. They would also revert back to having simple post office type accounts for savings and using cash for everything else.

Would that be such a bad thing really? Was there all this debt back in the 70's before the explosion of credit cards, direct debits, current accounts, debit cards, ATM machines, etc.

If people ensure that they have adequate employment protection insurance that covers their essentials such as mortgage, then they would not get into such dire straights in the first place.

I'm 25 and have just bought my first home. I have no money but I owe no money either. We're doing the house up as we go along and we're saving up for every thing. We pay the mortgage, gas, electricity and phone on direct debits that have a set monthly amount. Everything else is paid for via cash, cheque or debit card. There is no chance for us to go overdrawn and if there was I would arrange an overdraft with the bank and so would only be charged interest for borrowing the money.

DaveO

ILW wrote: »

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

Yes. Unforeseen circumstances such as your employer being late with paying your salary into your account.

Even if people stay in credit normally not everyone has enough money to cover such an eventuality and such things do happen.

Most of my direct debits are timed to go off after my wage arrives and if it was late I am OK as savings would cover it and be transferred but not everyone is in that position.

As far as the bank is concerned salary being paid late into your account meaning direct debits or other payments take you overdrawn is no excuse not to be charged.

This is so obvious how on earth did you not think of it?

Dave

kayleighb1985

99% of the people fighting these charges are paid a decent wage.. spend it all on beer, fags, DVDs and clubbing and then expect to be able to spend money they don't have.. for free.. until the next pay day.

really !!!! and unfair thing to say?

i go out once a month... spend £20.
buy no luxuries!! well the odd bar of chocolate..

ALL my money goes towards paying off debt and my car...
my car i got a 205 which i run of veg oil to make my monthly outgoing payments cheaper!

so to u saying that all i can say is sod u lol

Knackered

_Andy_ wrote: »

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)

Take up the issue with the guy who runs this website then. You tell him he's wrong and you know better. Go on!

Samster

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.

Probably in the minority but not alone!!