MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

phoenixx

Clearly the banks had too much to lose and so did the government. I paid charges last month of over £200 for going over my OD limit because of another charge...it is a vicious circle. Those people who say it is our own faults have clearly never been paid late, lost a job suddenly or not received their maintenance on time. Seems like a coincidence that many of us received notice of reduced charges from our banks today. All I can say is that I have lost all faith in the democracy of this country and will be doing everything in my power to get rid of this government and then escape this corrupt country..!

Many thanks to Martin for all his efforts on the site. Good to know that there is someone out there prepared to stand up for the man in the street. Law and politicians don't.

yellowlawn

mach wrote: »

I have started already. I will leave in enough to pay the bills. The rest goes in my pocket as cash, and offshore. No longer will they be investing my hard earned money to make themselves rich.

Surely most offshore accounts are owned by our High Street banks? What is the real alternative to using Banks & Building Societies?

Nemo1966

Lets look at what's happened:

Gordon Brown (or other) has ordered the Supreme Court to rule in favour of the banks. This lets the banks off billions in reclaims and now the OFT and banks have sort of agreed to clean up the charges etc

This was always going to happen in the corrupt Country.

Brown the Government and the Supreme Court should be tried for Treason against this Country.

WASHER

yellowlawn wrote: »

Is there an alternative to Banks to put your money? Why don't we all close our accounts and transfer elsewhere?

I think you will find you are in the minority for closing all bank accounts etc, I absolutely love First Direct bank, even though I have had charges in the past(my own fault, not claimed for them, didn't agree with claiming) I can't praise them high enough for their customer service.

No point jumping out of the frying pan into the fire cause the ruling didn't go how you expected.

technodup

gordothegopher wrote: »

So if you take home £1000 a month and also have an authorised overdraft of £1000, this does NOT mean you have £2000 to play with! You live within your means (i.e. £1000 a month) and you have a bit of wiggle room in case you are hit with a big bill one month.

People who take home £1000/m shouldn't have a £1000 O/D. As you say it should be wiggle room, so 10-15% should be ample.

Despite having NO sympathy towards muppets who can't manage credit I think this practice is down to the banks (however the customer doesn't have to agree to the maximum).

BR54

northerner79 wrote: »

Handing down the , Lord Phillips, president of the Supreme Court, said: "It may be open to the Office of Fair Trading to assess the charge under other criteria."

What does this exactly mean? Do we still have hope? Is it more hope that we have or confidence?

All must not be lost with Martin and the MSE team on the job!

Have a look at S5 of the UTCCR

thundachild

For those of you who never get into debt and are happy with the ruling, consider that one can get into debt despite managing you money reasonably well.

As some one who earns well and tries to use an over draft for emergencies I have had constant problems with bank charges.

1. In general my outgoings <= my income
2. Overdraft is used for unexpected large payments, such as when two cars needed attention in the same month
3. My bank has a "flexible" attitude to overdrafts - I have an agreed overdraft - the bank agreed to lend my up to the limit, and I agreed to only borrow up to the limit, but as I have a good credit score, when I hit my limit, they grant me an informal increase up to double my limit, for which they charge between £25 - £150.
4. I have no control over when these "upgrades" occur because they happen on demand
5. Now my income < outgoings + £150, so it happens again

I spent a year budgeting myself back into the black only for Christmas and said car trouble to put me back were I started by the end of Feb. I don't even have the choice to switch banks as I would have to pay all debts off, which is a challenge with a fixed income and a family to support.

I would much rather pay fixed known, fair bank charges for which I could budget for than random arbitrary charge, over which I have no control.

The laws in this country with respect to banking are heavily weighted against the consumer. We need to correct the imbalance because if the economy recovers, but only the rich benefit then the recovery will be a false picture of the state of the nations finances.

knighter

ejmdkb wrote: »

Gutted... I was on for around £8k... all my own fault I know, but would have come in nice for my forthcoming wedding. Instead now - another loan I guess.

That sounds really sensible.

Personally I am also glad this result went the banks way, in many other countries you pay charges for many things which the VAST MAJORITY of the UK's banking customers currently get for free.

Why should I be forced to pay for someone's poor financial management, I play by the "rules".

lauraloo111

Glpark01 wrote: »

well im a bit gutted, halifax charged us over £4000 in 6 years. We never had a set charge they just seemed to charge us anything from £12 - £125 a time and just took the money from my oh's wages and told us afterwards. We manage our money fine and since moving to the coop over 2 years ago we've never had one single charge and have been on top of all our bills.

I too never appeared to have a set charge. I was going through my statements from NATWEST I noticed I was being charged an assortment of amounts over the years ranging from £15 £28 £30 and £38 sometimes £100.
Since I have switched banks I have been much more careful and I am now in a fortunate position where I only have my car insurance coming out as a DD as my partner pays all the bills from his account as he earns a lot more than I do and I have managed to have only one charge from Yorkshire Bank using that account which was considerably less than those from NATWEST.

The_Hallowed_Way

Nemo1966 wrote: »

Lets look at what's happened:

Gordon Brown (or other) has ordered the Supreme Court to rule in favour of the banks. This lets the banks off billions in reclaims and now the OFT and banks have sort of agreed to clean up the charges etc

This was always going to happen in the corrupt Country.

Brown the Government and the Supreme Court should be tried for Treason against this Country.

Do you have an iota of proof for any of this? Or has your tin-foil hat caused your brain to overheat again?