MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

technodup

Big_Daft_Lad wrote: »

Really? I hope that they all get to experience it. They would change their opinions then, I am sure. Smug, smug people.

Doubt it. I don't earn a vast salary, I don't have an overdraft, I don't use my credit card- I LIVE WITHIN MY MEANS.

I haven't been on holiday for I don't know how long but I am enjoying laughing at those with a misplaced sense of entitlement to nice cars and holidays who are now on the breadline whilst blaming everybody but themselves.

You reap what you sow.

BigCraigJohn

I had a feeling this was gonna happen.
Ah well I was viewing it as a bonus if it came and its not going to so nothing lost. On a positive note, 1 good thing to come out of this is that i'm now a lot better with my money and dont take any !!!! from banks or credit cards. Ive spent hours on this site learning my rights and therefore will be in more control for the rest of my life with any luck.
I do however feel sorry for those who were relying on this money, I have myself been in a position where things were just snowballing, 1 bounced dd costing hundreds of pounds etc and once it starts its near impossible to get out of.
I do also find some of the self righteous posts on here disgusting, some people really need to learn some empathy.

Oh yeah and I think business studies needs teaching in schools from age 12. Far more important than RE or German.

Stephenbw

Miguel1979 wrote: »

And I downsize a 1 bedroom house - how?!!

How can I reduce my outgoings? My mortgage, council tax, fuel bills, commuting costs etc are all fixed! I have cut back wherever possible, but there are some costs that are beyond my control!

Low income + High council tax = council tax benefit

http://www.entitledto.co.uk/

Your bank/BS may be willing to reschedule your mortgage payments.

DataWraith

Seeing as there's obviously two sides to this argument, both from the OFT and the Banks and us here as well. I feel that the banks do unfairly charge for whatever mistakes we make, either going overdrawn. missing a payment whatever the reason.
Another thing I don't appreciate is all the junk mail I get from my banks regarding other accounts, or the fact that they can change the terms and conditions at a whim. whereas WE the paying public can't.

Over the last 3 months I've had about 3 changes from Alliance and Leicester. I didn't sign up for them.

They charge US for going overdrawn , sometimes upto £35 for a letter ( to cover their costs and 'admin'), how about we send them invoices for sending us letters about other accounts or services? For our 'admin' of recieving and opening, reading and then disposal of said letters?

I'd still say tell everyone no matter how good your finances are right now, even if you've got a positive balance, sooner or later you'll get a charge through no fault of your own, show the banks who's in charge and that it isn't the stockholders.

DRAW OUT YOUR CASH. Unless of course you LIKE being treated like a account number and not an individual Human being?.

BR54

neneromanova wrote: »

What's a POC?

Particulars of claim. If you have said they are penalties, you would have to amend it.

What legislation are you going to quote to show they are unfair?

Lurking_Lawyer

neneromanova wrote: »

What's a POC?

Particulars of Claim.

The court document that sets out the legal and factual basis for the claim you are pursuing.

headcoat

WASHER wrote: »

I agree with this statement, the banks send notification of charges by letter to your home to inform you of changes to terms and conditions and to charges, no-one can say they are hidden charges, you had the opportunity to read the info the bank send and you happily agreed to bank with them.

What are the options though. All banks charge the same (ish) because they can get away with it. What is to stop them all now charging £135?

whatmichaelsays

Wow. There's a lot of libellous comments on here isn't there?

Personally, I'm relatively indifferent to the decision.

I didn't have a claim in (I've never been charged) but I was interested in the decision because, as many have alluded to, the concern would be as to how the banks would look to replace what they had used as a relatively lucrative revenue stream (ie, the removal of free banking).

I have no objection to the principle of charges, although I disagreed with some aspects of them (the way that they "rolled-over" and accumulated being one). However, I agree with another point made earlier about differentiating between approved and unapproved overdrafts.

If a customer is exceeding their authorised overdraft (and in some cases, on a regular basis), they are effectively using a lending service that was not pre-approved. Given that even approved lending services are rarely free, surely unapproved borrowing should be paid for? Should those charges not be sufficient enough so as to discourage customers from using credit facilities that are not pre-approved? After all, if the charges were negligible, what would be the point in approved overdrafts?

A pre-approved overdraft is a safety net; something to fall back on in case the !!!! hits the fan the week before pay day. It isn't a licence to spend more and then bleat about how you're being charged for spending further still.

I don't think you can place this decision down to "corruption" or government influence (although that the banks could take the appeal to the Supreme Court in the first place was questionable to say the least) and I don't feel a sense of "entitlement" because the state has a stake in certain banks (that is an entirely seperate issue). I just think that a court has come up with a decision that a lot of people disagree with. Just because a decision is unpopular however does not mean that it is wrong.

extrakt

gordothegopher wrote: »

I do have sympathy for those who find themselves in financial hardship caused by extortionate charges from banks and it is right that they are given assistance to come out the other side with a fighting chance.

However, some people seem to have a warped version of the definition of 'fair'. Banks charge if you go over your authorised overdraft limit. I'm sure this isn't news to anyone. So how people manage to rack up £1000's in bank charges and then plead 'but it ain't fair, guv' is beyond the pale. After all, it is US the consumers who have a responsibility to manage our financial affairs and ensure we don't live outwith our means.

As one commentator already pointed out, overdrafts are there to be used for unforseen circumstances and emergencies, it's not extra 'free' money from the banks for you to spend. 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.

I think there are many people who need to learn to manage their money better, and take responsibility for their own overspending. That's certainly the lesson I've learned from it all ... to take responsibility for my irresponsible spending and put it right, rather than blaming it on the banks not playing fair, who at the end of the day are looking to make money!

i really didn't want to get involved with this thread, but i have to say that although i fully appreciate all your points..i have to defend the simple mathematics which are causing many people problems.

when considering charges and how they amount to £1000's, it isn't always a flagrant disregard for your own personal financial management (although in some cases this is true) but rather the amount of the charge. anyone will be able to afford 3 instances in one month where the charge may be 'fair' (ie in the region of £4/£5) but with them being £30 upwards, all it takes is for one charge to carry over and you're charged again..and yes there are instances where you can be charged on a charge. over the course of a year or so, this will undoubtedly add up. the real problem has arisen with the customer not sorting it out that first month..once you're in the loop, it's difficult to get back out.

admittedly though, before all the test case came about, charges were nothing more than a date on a statement..with no offer of support from the bank..you can be cynical if you wish and believe the banks 'allowed' this to happen..as they know exactly how it'll pan out.

as for refunding of bank charges, to everyone annoyed at the thought of paying for the claimants expense when you managed your account properly..you're quite right to be annoyed, however, don't take away the fact they paid for a fairly large proportion of your free banking

berkshirelady

Mark_Rutter wrote: »

that with the result of one of the most important decisions in recent times this forum has descended into name calling and pettiness.

Personally it came as no surprise to me that the banks won the final appeal. As soon as the Government took a controlling stake in our major banks this case was only ever going to go one way.

I like may others on this forum have been deeply affected by debt problems. You will always get one or two people that will say that it is our own fault for over spending but it is not about spending too much, this is about financial institutions blatantly trying it on.

I personally do not mind being charged if I have gone over an overdraft or bounced a cheque etc, that is fine but it is the amount of money being charged and the amount of times the bank can charge that is totally wrong.

I have been charged over £300 for being £10 overdrawn on an account that I never asked for an overdraft on. If you or I tried to do anything like this we would be arrested for racketeering.

The big question really shoud be, what can we actually do about this? Instead of doing the usual British thing of moaning and not actually doing anything perhaps we should think of sensible ways of making an impact.

Protests are a fine but we need to think outside of the box. What is it the banks rely on, how can we affect them? Is it possible for us to seriously undermime them?

well, the banks rely on us to stay away from local branches and do everything via an off-shore call centre or online. It saves them money, has boosted profit, and has allowed them to lay off a lot of hard working front-line staff over the past few years. (Which is why these charges are such a joke, all this automated stuff hardly costs them anything). I'm in favour of technology and being able to do banking outside branch opening hours, but at the same time, the banks have set up the system to keep customers away from the human beings at the local branches (reduced opening hours, inability to call the branch direct, etc).

So, here's a couple of ideas, off the top of my head...would take people's time and a bit of effort, but if lots of people joined in, it might have an impact?

En masse, customers can request an appointment with an account manager at their local branch to discuss their situation, instead of being on hold for ages on an 0845 number to an agent who can't do anything anyway, and which the customer pays for. It would fill up the appointment books very quickly. I'm not sure if there are any FSA regs or anything in the banking code re: response times to an appointment request, but if they're so booked up they can't meet a timescale, then customers could respond by making a formal complaint re: delay/poor customer service, thereby swamping banks' complaints departments.

The banks are supposed to respond to complaints within a set timescale. If they don't, customers can make a complaint about this to the Ombudsman. If complaints depts are swamped then it is unlikely they'll hit the timescale for a lot of complaints. Therefore customers will be able to involve the Ombudsman. If the Ombudsman gets hit with a huge rise in the number of complaints, they may feel the need to bring pressure on to the banks.

Go in to the local branch as much as possible to make small deposits or withdrawals in cash. OK, lots of queuing if loads of people do it, but again, cashtills and automated deposit machines in the lobby are there not just for your convenience, but to save the banks money. If the teller tries to make you use the machine, tell them you're not obliged to use it, and that you prefer face-to-face transactions.

I think the aim would be to use up as much of the banks' time and human resources as possible, as this is what costs them more. I guess there is a risk to this though - if as a result they either have to keep staff they were going to get rid of, or take on more staff, they'll pass the charges on to the customers! (but they've been given the green light this morning to do what they want anyway so what have we got to lose).