MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

Pestie

Exactly, the Alliance and Lecister are a great example of greed.

Explain to me how this works?

If I go beyond my overdraft limt, they charge £25 for PAYMENT REVIEW FEE, plus £5 per day it's overdrawn.

They are good at telling me this, as they send a letter in the snail mail, which If I'm lucky, may take 2 or 3 days to arrive.

Yet, everyday for the last month, Alliance and Lecister have emailed me, telling me to open a current account I already have. - I know they have got that email adress from my Online account. So why do they not email me, telling me I've breached said limit? Hhhhhmmmmm I can think of £10 reasons why they dont do it that way.....

Greedy b*stids

turpin

The campaign was/is misguided.

There is no way that this could have been beneficial for the majority of people because the majority do not rack up charges. And surely the majority should be looked after, even if you have a moral argument with this, there really isn't a business one...Penalise the majority of your customers because a minority, however sizeable, run into trouble? Doesn't stack up.

The only person I know personally who has mentioned this issue to me is my sister in law. She was hoping to reclaim several hundred pounds. By her own admission she racked up the charges by spending way over what she earns, mainly in the pub and also because as she puts it, she doesn't spend her time looking at her bank account. She's a nice person in many ways, but she also doesn't do the normal things you have to do, like live within her means and keep an eye on finances. A chore and somewhat old fashioned notion, I know, but I don't think she should get her money back.

Also, as someone has stated, if you are struggling, then all the more reason to keep an eye on what's going out in the case of direct debits. In fact, I believe that most who rack up charges put booze, fags and other stuff before paying their bills, just like the example I mention. Doesn't mean people are bad, but just the way things have gone over many years.

On the fairness issue, yes the charges are high, but we all know, or should know, what they are, when we sign up for a particular account. At my bank they are high, which is why I make sure I avoid them and I've been through times when this has been very tough.

I spent most of my life on low earnings, in the forces and lowly paid jobs. I'm on better money now, but it came late for me, so not well off. Unfortunately, at some point in the last 10/15 years people have generally stopped being realistic about the lifestyle they can afford and look to blame something or someone else when things go wrong. We all know that this is true and the sentiments expressed by many on this subject come from this direction. The mess we are in now is partly caused by unrealistic borrowing and lending on a mass scale, but who in society is bailing out those who have borrowed too much? The savers, that's who; and I can say that as someone with only minimal savings. For me, the whole culture here is completely wrong and the outrage exhibited by many here is absolutely mystifying. You are now labelled as smug if you buy a house you can afford, stick a few quid away for a rainy day and keep an eye on your expenditure and finances. And if you have the temerity to say you don't want to pay for the foolishness of others, then you are, naturally, heartless.

I find Martin's information frequently useful, but I don't always agree with it. I think he has been digging a hole here without really considering the full implications. Once committed in such a way, it's hard to do a U turn.

And to those on here who have a go when anyone says something against their own popularist view of this, I couldn't care less. Go ahead.

_Andy_

PROLIANT wrote: »

Take Tesco to court for unfair grocery pricing?

That's my usual gag.
As such I will be claiming it back from you

technodup

WASHER wrote: »

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

I assume that is sarcasm. I can't really tell as I'm laughing so hard at the sheer number of tubes on here this fine afternoon.

I think somebody put the GREAT back in Britain today

Miguel1979

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..

Clearly your purpose in life is to be an a*se and you have come on here just to try and cause trouble and get an argument going. So I'm not going to dignify it by responding any further.

In the meantime, maybe you should get a life rather than coming on chat rooms, intended to offer help and advice, just to behave like an idiot. Maybe you need to get yourself some friends to talk to...

mojoparrot

DonnyRover wrote: »

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.

'enquiries@supremecourt.gsi.gov.uk'

I had an email about reduction in charges too

_Andy_

I just bought a coffee from Starbucks. They charged me more than it cost them to make/supply it. Disgusting.

lostcrusader

:mad:Dear Fellow Moneysavers,

Apart from this being a tragic day for consumers it also means in my opinion that banks can continue to charge variable charges from £0 to £110 for going over drawn on a bank account.

As my charges were due to wages not being processed or clearing in time this added to charges that had no consistency between the pricing.


II urge everyone to wrote to their MP, complain and ask them to make it law that fair charges are reflected based on the costs of a letter, postage and no more then 15% added for for the time to print and post the letter...

Fairness in contracts should apply in all banking and excessive variable charges does not reflect this fairness.

I am looking to lobby MP's at Parliament if I can get enough people together to take up the challenge but also protest outside Parliament and the Financial District in London.

Let the people take to the streets and be heard... Time for direct action is the last option...

Sorry for the rant,

Just not a happy bunny and feel that the whole industry is corrupted by greed of the shareholders and the powers that can defvend the people have let them down totally

Wish you all well, and hope that some social justice comes from what ever the future holds for this country..

j19

blind-as-a-bat wrote: »

If O2 can make sure you dont go overdrawn, and thus get charged, why cant the big banks

Just a thought

Visa Debit, Mastercard etc. have no facility for doing balance checking before a charge is made (if you get lucky and happen to use a payment processor or terminal supplied by your bank, then sometimes balance checking can occur).

Only Visa Electron, Solo and the like have the facility for balance checking.

Claimed_n_won

Well It seems we are getting to a low point in this thread as it seems there is so much abuse being flung between the haves and haven'ts (been charged) its seems that somewhere people are missing the point.

Firstly lets look at this from the point of the haven'ts

" I'm able each month to manage my income so as not to attract any charges therefore I look down on those that have the inconvenience of paying for my account to be run. And as the banks have been exceptionally cleaver and warned me indirectly by the media that If they loose it will cost me money to run my account and Ill have to pay for cash machine withdrawals and direct debits so I also feel contempt for those who would 'steal' monies from me by not managing there finances properly."

and the haves

" I feel utter contempt for the banks who give me no choice by using the most underhanded techniques to ensure that I pay to support the haven'ts free ride, taking money from me just because I can't quite afford to make ends meet. even if it is £00.07 over my limit they unfairly and without any way to prevent it take 989% more than it cost. leaving me in a worse situation, so next month when the direct debit that I now can't afford is taken they can make another charge even if they pay or not pay my creditors. "


It is as simple as this. The banks are a commercial business and already make huge profits from your transactions, deposits, loans, direct debits, card payments, interest charges, your employer (bacs, loans, account charges). etc... therefore there will always be free banking as it is in there interest to be competitive.

When a person defaults on there account that money is just underwritten by the banks it is not stolen from the haven'ts accounts. the bank in effect loan themselves more money and charge the haves extortionate interest for the oversight. and then some would say 'steal' [without asking] monies from those who can least afford it as an 'agreed charge', thus netting the banks an extra £2.6Bn a year.

Its all about loss of profit for the banks shareholders who all share the same colour tie and eat at the same club as the lords in the supream court. the banks cannot afford to put their hands up an loose a very lucrative revenue stream, what with the sub prime mortgage fiasco they will run out of Etonian CEOs at this rate.