MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

lewis07

What does it take for you all to see not all cases are equal in fairness.

I was taken into an unauthorised overdraft by the banks charges. By not canselling my direct debits as I had requested they took me into a state of unauthorised overdraft and then compounded charge on charge until i was 1500 overdrawn. Ignoring my voiced concerns and formal complaints to such a degree they and still charging me today.

this is not a case of my mismanagement of my acount but the BANKS!

how can that be fair??

LizzieS_2

sir.chunk wrote: »

What's fair in this....

I have £25 in my account, i have a DD going out for £26. They bounce the DD so it doesn't make me go over. Okay great. But they fine me £38 and they are happy to put my account over which in turns creates more fee's. This is the start of the vicious circle.

I don't think anyone is saying that fee's should be banned. They are there for a reason. But some sort of common sense needs to be in place and that's where the problem is!!

It makes sense for you to cancel the DD before the bank bounces it, and contact who would have received the DD to explain.

_Andy_

Update: I bought a sandwich on my lunch break. Yet again I was charged more than it cost the company to make it. Rip off Britain! Disgusting! Boycott shops - they're all profiteering!!

neverdespairgirl

robpw2 wrote: »

but not exactly untrue

What, so "I lose, therefore the decision-maker is corrupt" is a reasonable, legitimate thing to say?

mojoparrot

_Andy_ wrote: »

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

yes but how much more?:rotfl:

technodup

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

If that's a prepaid card then you CAN go overdrawn in the same way as any other debit card. On a card with £10 credit a POS transaction for £45 in a shop with a floor limit of £50 will put you £35 overdrawn. There is no preauthorisation. Most providers say "you shouldn't go overdrawn" or something similar. They simply cannot guarantee it, especially with people who have no idea what's on the card or what they're spending.

euronorris

Doc_N wrote: »

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).

Oh, honestly! :rolleyes: No one is saying they shouldn't have to pay anything or not pay charges! They are simply saying that they are unjustly high and in most cases lead to a neverending spiral of debt!

As for being clearly laid our in the T&C of the account........what other choice do people have than to sign up and effectively agree to them if they need a bank account? They all have the same policy. And most employers will not pay you in cash.

Now, if they had other options perhaps we wouldn't even be facing this issue!

Claire79

spend2save wrote: »

Well at least Martin Ellis is pimping some Champagne over on the right - he's certainly done alright this past few years constructing a nice shiny bandwagon.

Do you mean Martin 'Lewis'.

Numpty.

kgb26

My son is now in debt to the tune of £1000.00 I believed that the FSA had said that hardship cases had to be dealt with prior to the ruling, and he started with his claim prior to the ruling on a hardship basis. He is in the construction industry and was hit really hard by the recession this year.He couldn't pay his rent, and was in danger of loosing his home, he has lost his car, which is making it difficult for him to work and I have been feeding him! The bank said we would have to wait for the ruling, although they acknowledged that he was in financial hardship. Shall we continue to the ombudsman, or do we just get a DRO, effectivley making him bankrupt, with all that implies.

Yorkmackem

To all those "trolls" or whoever that state "you knew what the charges were when you signed up", please note the following from Part 5 (1) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations :-

Unfair Terms
5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

At what point does anyone have an opportunity to negotiate the terms of the account (insofar as penalty charges are concerned) ? And if it can be demonstrated that there's a significant imbalance (which there surely must be, if the banks can charge what the hell they like) then I can see a lot of amended Particulars of Claim going down this route.