MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

AndrewML

little_mel wrote: »

step back and reflect...the judge ruled that the OFT can rule on whether charges are fair or not under different legislation. Yes it's a blow but there must be something that can be done if the different legislation can be identified...or am I too optimistic given the shambles that is our 'legal system!!!'

Yes i would say you probably are...

munchki

I can only echo what so many have already said. This is totally unfair, talk about legalized robbery. They say the doorstep loan companies are bad what about the banks and the charges they instill on a daily basis? I suppose someone has to pay for the very large bonuses the banks continue to deal out while it is us general and hard working public that must continue to struggle to pay to keep the banks in the comfortable lifestyle they have become accustomed to! We not only pay to bail them all out and save them but we give great bonuses as well! Absolutely disgusting this is! *steps off her soapbox*

Nicky321

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.

some people incur charges, purely because they cannot afford to live otherwise. People lose jobs, end up borrowing, which spirals out of control, the banks charging anywhere in the region of £30 a time DOES NOT HELP!

C_Mababejive

Hurrahh........merge alert...

PadiP

I'm well gutted, as I was in for about 3.5k. I guess it just goes to show that if you're poor you are therefore relatively weak, plus the well known fact that the most marginalised are those who are also least likely to vote. What makes this decision even harder to bear is that it is always the poorest who pay the greatest proportion of their incomes in taxes - which of course at the moment the banks are beneficiaries of. Which ever way, we get screwed.

As a thought, maybe direct action in the form of a peaceful protest demanding our money back outside Parliament might do some good, if there are enough of us. Statistics seem to show that we are in our millions. Failing that, I don't think that e-mailing our elected 'representatives' would do any harm, if not any good, at least they would then know the sense of outrage that a large portion of the electorate feel at what is ultimately a political issue, as even the Supreme court has to act within the realms of the law, which is ultimately a matter for Parliament, and us.

Was there a feeling that the banks were in too weak a position to be able to withstand the financial cost of repaying our money? Are we financially robust enough to support the banks? Let the b*******s know!

hatingutilities

I would like to know if the lords in question have connections within the banks, also everyone should close their accoutns and move any money to another bank. time to make a run on these banks and bankrupt them.

NYGiants

This is great news, I'll be raising a glass tonight :beer:

jacker1976

according to the BBC banks claimed that the court shouldn't find against them because there would be a wave of litigation.

So if a robber uses the defense 'I stole that much money I'll be really, really poor if I have to pay it back' te supreme court will let them off???

Britain where being honest really doesn't pay.

ejmdkb

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.

dirtydavey

"Lord Phillips also noted that in the absence of the charges the banks would not be able
profitably to provide current account services without a fee (Para 88). He stated that it might
be open to question whether it is fair to subsidise some customers whose accounts always
remain in credit by levies on others who experienced events they did not foresee when they
opened their accounts (Para 80)."

Yeah dam right. So the poor have to pay for the rich to bank. If you put a fee on banking at a percentage, we would all pay but only pay what we could afford. At pressent the poor are paying hundrands of punds for the rich to bank free.