MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

Felicity101

glider3560 wrote: »

What I think is disgusting, is that people think they can steal the bank's money without their permission. As an analogy, I would compare going into an unauthorised overdraft as walking into a shop, removing something from the shelf and walking out without paying. You wouldn't get away with "I don't have much money" in the shop, so why should the bank be the same? Most people on these boards are on low incomes but learn to live within their means and not steal the bank's money.

People seem to have got into their heads that it is alright to steal the bank's money without any consequences. It is not and should certainly be made illegal.

If you didn't agree with the charges, then why did you open the bank account?

Before someone says that the banks have stolen taxpayers money, they haven't. In case anyone doesn't realise, the government didn't just hand over money to the banks, but instead bought shares in the banks. This means that when the banks become more profitable again, the government will receive income in the form of dividends from the bank.

Today's decision is an excellent one and I hope that the "free banking" model will continue.

What an incredibly pompous little post! You know, it's not the actual charges that people are against - we do realise that we shouldn't go overdrawn. It's the SCALE of the charge - they are disproportionately high.

DonnyRover

I've emailed the Supreme Court to ask them, if the charges were fair, why have I been emailed today with details of my new lower bank charges. And also how it got through them despite the conflict of interest.

[EMAIL="'enquiries@supremecourt.gsi.gov.uk'"]'enquiries@supremecourt.gsi.gov.uk'[/EMAIL]

WASHER

technodup wrote: »

Buy a cheaper one in a worse area- sell the better one, reduce your mortgage payments. Your fuel bills shouldn't be fixed, change tariff and USE LESS. I haven't had my heating on yet this year. I could probably give you a hundred other tips but why should I?

I hope the repossesion rate goes up and people who actually HAVE SAVED MONEY can buy and rent back to those who cannot manage or understand the basic principle of mortgages, outgoings, fixed/variable costs, personal responsibility etc.

It is not the job of the state or the taxpayer to bail out those unable to understand personal finances..

I and many others would appreciate your money saving tips, go over to the old style board and post on there.

technodup

DMC65 wrote: »

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FREE BANKING, IT IS SUBSIDISED FOR YOU BY THE VERY GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT CAN LEAST AFFORD IT.

Good. It's always been free for me

Doc_N

Perhaps surprisingly, because it is a consumer programme, most of the emails sent to Radio 4's 'You and Yours' this morning were in support of the banks on this issue.

Most people took the line that if you choose to overdraw without prior permission you should accept the consequences (which are clearly laid out in the T&C of the account).

Why should the vast majority of people who operate their accounts normally, not taking money that they don't have any right to, effectively pay through additional charges to reimburse those who decided to overdraw without permission?

Martin Lewis - you were wrong to take this one on, and I think you need to accept that the Supreme Court knows a little more about the law than you do.

jamespir

i think we should all right to the banks to ask them to reduce charges and make them fair and in turn send them an invoice for 35 quid

j0nnyv

I'm amazed that everyone seems so surprised by all this. WE LIVE IN BRITAIN FOLKS! wake up- be more cynical- you'll be amazed at how less diappointed you'll be. As to the Supreme court lead honcho going in favour of the banks- for gods sake- he's a very wealthy indeed rich Judge. He probably had to ask some low life like you or me what in fact an overdraft is- before he made his lengthy ( 2 minute) judgement.

I'm just glad capital punishment isn't around anymore with people like him on the bench-

( let them eat cake)

euronorris

Harry_Powell wrote: »

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.

Is that a serious question???

It's 2009! You try working or doing business without a bank account. Good luck to you!

It works differently here, but well. You are charged for a current account but the fees is small. €8.95 per quarter. Should you go overdrawn without authorisation then they simply charge interest on that amount for the length of time you are overdrawn. (I was overdrawn the minute I opened up the account as they took the first month's premiums for liability insurance etc immediately without telling me first - am sure it's in the docs but my Dutch needs improvement).

Why does anyone expect their bank account to be free anyway? And why would you expect other people to pay for it with unfairly large penalty charges??

No one has said they don't want to pay anything. But 35 quid for something that clearly costs the banks less than 1 GBP is just ridiculous and perpetuates the cycle of debt for those people. If they are already on a tight budget, then 35GBP can and often is too much of a burden to bear and so they are overdrawn again the next month and the next and the next. Where does it end? With their bankruptcy? And all so you can have free banking??

Oh yes, that's logical! :rolleyes:

WASHER

morph3us wrote: »

genuine advice here... So please take it constructively.... :beer:

You need to include an amount in your monthly budget for car maintenance... I used to put £75 a month (if i was doing it now i would make it more like £100 depending on the age of the cars) away and so did my girlfriend for our own cars. That £900 per year covered mot, insurance, tax and about £500 extra for any additional repairs that may be needed.

If you do that then you are covered, ok you may end up needing something major doing costing over £500 but at least its something towards it.

Even for people who budget there are good budgets and bad budgets.... A good budget puts some money aside for unexpected things too - although to be honest i wouldn't call car repairs unexpected anyway, all cars need something doing at some point.... Its just a case of when.

You may say you couldn't afford to put £75 a month away - in that case you are living beyond your means and need to make more drastic changes.

excellent advice.:t

Eggyplop

technodup wrote: »

Buy a cheaper one in a worse area- sell the better one, reduce your mortgage payments. Your fuel bills shouldn't be fixed, change tariff and USE LESS. I haven't had my heating on yet this year. I could probably give you a hundred other tips but why should I?

I hope the repossesion rate goes up and people who actually HAVE SAVED MONEY can buy and rent back to those who cannot manage or understand the basic principle of mortgages, outgoings, fixed/variable costs, personal responsibility etc.

It is not the job of the state or the taxpayer to bail out those unable to understand personal finances..

Is there anyway we can get this person banned? They are insensitive and cruel. People all have different situations and people need to appreciate that.
The comment from this user is completly ignorant and selfish.