MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

baron_von_bubba

oowson wrote: »

I don't understand what all the fuss is about - this is EXCELLENT NEWS.

If the banks had lost they would have to make money other ways - for example by charging us all to have an account, use a cash machine, etc.

As it stands, people who are stupid enough to borrow money from their bank without first setting up the rights to borrow the money are paying all these fees for us.

I can't think of a better out come. Long live free banking for those who are sensible and have some common sense.

i realize you are just trying to get a reaction. obviously nothing more interesting to do or maybe you just crave attention..........
but explain how a £35 charge is fair for going £1 over drawn!

MaidMarianofNottingham

Live within your means and you won't pay any charges. Nothing is free.
I am pleased by the ruling.
If you don't like the charges then don't borrow the money!
I am a pensioner, by the way and living on a low fixed income.

gordothegopher

Hi Miguel1979,

While I think that there are plenty of people out there who do not manage their money well (and I was certainly one of the worst offenders), my comments above were not intended as a flippant "oh well, tough t*tties to you all then" remark.

I appreciate there are plenty of people like yourself who have had to endure rising costs and falling incomes, and are now facing more hardship due to bank charges, and I think for people like yourself it's only fair that assistance is forthcoming either from the government or from the banks.

My remarks were more intended for those 'serial offenders' like I used to be, who regarding an overdraft as 'bonus money' rather than its intended purpose. People who have had bank charges almost religiously every month for 5+ years.

Thanks.

mramra

baron_von_bubba wrote: »

i realize you are just trying to get a reaction. obviously nothing more interesting to do or maybe you just crave attention..........
but explain how a £35 charge is fair for going £1 over drawn!

Simple. That's what you agreed when you opened the account. If you don't want to pay £35 don't go beyond your authorised overdraft.

yellowlawn

WASHER wrote: »

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.

I had an account with FD when it first started for about 9 years and they stuffed me over some stupid charge for a DD I didn;t authorise to continue. And amazingly when they replayed the recorded call were I asked for the DD to be stopped it was garbled.

Lurking_Lawyer

Namechanger wrote: »

Can we still continue to claim under hardship as this is not a final ruling on the case?

But it IS a final ruling on the issue of whether bank charges can be assessed for fairness. The Supreme Court is precisely that - supreme. There is no right of appeal anywhere else.

To pre-empt the question, you can't "appeal" to the European Court of Justice.

National courts are required to refer matters to the ECJ if a determination is needed on the interpretation of a piece of European law. In this case, the Supreme Court considered whether it needed to refer the matter to the ECJ to interpret the relevant bit of the European Directive that had given rise to the UK Regulations and decided that there was no need to do so.

technodup

Miguel1979 wrote: »

So as a couple we will have lost over £10500pa from our income, our outgoings are still the same as they ever were (probably higher due to inflation, increased fuel bills etc).

I'm having to use credit cards to get by every month. Yet you think it is my fault I have incurred these charges?!!

Back to my original point, does anyone know how this affects financial hardship cases?

Thank you.

Hardship doesn't apply if you have a steady income (albeit reduced). You are not in hardship. Takes some !!!!ing ownership. Reduce your outgoings. Downsize your house- you clearly couldn't afford the one you're in now...

BR54

All this came about , as I see it, is because three or four idiots rushed forward to reclaim charges and didn't consider learning the process and lost in court. It was then decided that there must be a test case to decide once and for all.
If these idiots had slowed down and learned about the correct way of claiming, they would have won in court and none of this would have happened.

BR54

Lurking_Lawyer wrote: »

But it IS a final ruling on the issue of whether bank charges can be assessed for fairness. The Supreme Court is precisely that - supreme. There is no right of appeal anywhere else.

To pre-empt the question, you can't "appeal" to the European Court of Justice.

National courts are required to refer matters to the ECJ if a determination is needed on the interpretation of a piece of European law. In this case, the Supreme Court considered whether it needed to refer the matter to the ECJ to interpret the relevant bit of the European Directive that had given rise to the UK Regulations and decided that there was no need to do so.

BUT it is only a ruling on whether they can be assessed for fairness, NOT whether they are fair or not!
S5 of the UTCCR is the way to go forward IMHO

gpaul49

santiago7 wrote: »

This is an outrage!!!! we are in a recession and they want us to spend ?? then give us back our money!!!

the judge must of got A VERY GOOD BACK HANDER!!!

i have a case on hold with courts what will happen to this ??

absolute rubbish!! i would like to meet the judge to see exactly how much he got paid to do this!!

name the judge all his bank connections
dont vote labour all liars

gordon brown is laughing his head off