MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

gomeraman

Hoorah! Hoorah! Hoorah! Common sense at last!

Yes the charges should be transparent - but idiots who go overdrawn should not expect to get off completely f.o.c. I did it once, paid up, then have not done it again - consequences govern behaviour.

PadiP

For anyone considering writing to your MP or Gordon Brown:

Dear [Name of MP or Gordon Brown]


I am writing to express my profound dissapointment at the ruling of the Supreme Court regarding bank charges. This is a particularly hard blow for the many of us who are in financially streightened circumstances who would have used any monies recovered from the banks in a way that would have been immensely beneficial to our present struggling economy.


What makes this blow even harder is the fact that ordinary taxpayers, the many who do not earn high incomes but who yet bear a disproportionate amount of the burden of the financial support recently given to many banks by the government, are the same who have had to pay these extortionate charges to the banks in the first place.


Already the public has become aware that the banks are considering the annual bonus they will pay to their top performers, many of whom are responsible for the present parlous state of the banks, bonusses that will in many cases amount to several years salary for many bank charge reclaimants.


I feel that I must point out that a General Election is not too far away, and my decision of who to vote for, or indeed whether to vote at all will be decided in great measure at the government's, (or the opposition's) response to the Supreme Court's decision. This could bring into question the whole issue of the democratic legitimacy of any incoming government.


I reiterate my disappointment at the Supreme Court's decision and trust you will consider this when formulating any response on the part of Parliament.


Yours sincerely,




Okay, maybe it won't achieve very much, but at least you will have voiced your unhappiness, and might even get a response, or crash the House of Commons mail server! Even better would be to use snail mail, as that would deluge them in paper, and they would have to respond in some way. But to be effective, lots of us would have to do this. At the very worst, it'd be as effective as voting... (I don't think I'm cynical, really I don't.)

paulthedude34

the c.ckhead bankers are this site crawl back under ur stone if it was not for the working class of this country u lot would have been out of work by now load of [EMAIL="dickhe@ds"]dickhe@ds[/EMAIL]

Felicity101

Harry_Powell wrote: »

This is what I've been trying to say all through this thread - don't use direct debits for all your bills. If you use direct debits to pay for your gas (for instance) and your pay cheque is late then you will default on the payment and incur a charge. Alternatively if you don't use direct debits and the gas bill comes in you simply phone the Gas company and tell them that your payment will be delayed and why. No charges and no worries!

The worst that can happen if you can't pay your gas bill is that they put you on a pre-payment meter. If you pay by direct debit, you not only don't pay the gas bill but you also get fined by the bank.

The issue here is to stop using direct debits!!!

Replied in haste - realised that these are in fact standing orders. But no, I still don't pay gas or electricity by direct debit.

pingchris

this judgement is wrong,can anyone else see that this is a cop out,a sham an excuse,a sententce of words that end this case,is that all it has taken at the end of it,this is insanity gone mad....................

qprfcmark

_Andy_ wrote: »

OK this will really make you angry - I'm sat here typing this at a PC for which I paid MORE (yes, more!!!!! (include extra exclamation marks here for emphasis)) than it cost the company to make it.
Everyone should boycott Dell - the thieving, profiteering lowlifes!!!!
Makes me sick I tell you!!!

OK this will really make you happy - I received a letter from my bank this morning informing me that I have to pay £100 in bank charges for going 1p over my overdraft limit (yes, £99.61 more!!!!! (include extra exclamation marks here for emphasis)) than it cost the company to send a first class stamp.
Everyone should go overdrawn at their bank - the fair, understanding bankers!!!!
Makes me happy to be alive I tell you!!![/QUOTE] :rotfl:

jodenice

consumer action group says

As we read further into today's judgement it has become clear that the OFT may have used the wrong part of the UTCCR. The Supreme Court have pointed to Clause 5 of the Regulations as a better possible avenue for the OFT to have used, and this may lead consumers to consider rewording their claims.

Clause 5(1) states that "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."

Any clause allowing a bank to impose repressive charges, and increase and change those charges at its own discretion would be extremely likely to put the bank in a dominant position - and therefore the term should not be allowed to stand.

Obviously the judgement is still being analysed, but it would seem that the fight is most certainly not lost.

jamespir

Snakeeyes21 wrote: »

The treasury minister just said on the news that thats the end to trying to make retrospective claims for charges, that theres no other avenues open.

So those of you clutching at straws should just accept it.

you mean the same politicians who lied about the money they were claiming
and committed fraud

and the same politicians who lied about giving 60 odd million pound to banks when they said they wernt im sorry but i dont belive anything they say

euronorris

Percy1983 wrote: »

I have a different thought on this. If the people 'won' this case the banks would hit us all with charges elsewhere to recover the money.

I have never paid any charges, so would nothing to claim back yet I would have been hit with all sorts of charges to cover the money the financially inept have claimed back.

Yes I do agree charges are more than they should be, if you don't like that then don't put yourself in a situation where they can charge you.

Basically we would never have won.

But why should you get free banking anyway? Why should ANYONE get free banking?

And, currently, that free banking is being paid for by others being charged ridiculously high penalties.

Personally, I think we should all have to pay a small fee for our bank accounts. Then there wouldn't be any need for such large charges elsewhere (that's not to say that the banks wouldn't still do it, just saying the need would be removed).

Incidentally, I don't have a claim either, nor do I intend to. But I do sympathise with people who get into this situation either by no fault of their own or by one small mistake. One small mistake for someone on a low income can lead to a spiral of neverending debt due to compounded charges and interest. Should they never be offered the opportunity to get back on their feet? Should they pay for this mistake for the rest of their lives?

Hell, even a simple condition such as 'a late penalty fee will not be applied if, in fact, the account becomes overdrawn due to a late penalty fee' would be an improvement and allow people to sort this out pretty quickly.

Eric_Pisch

The_Hallowed_Way wrote: »

Do you have an iota of proof for any of this? Or has your tin-foil hat caused your brain to overheat again?

Does make sense thou

The banks are bringing in billions in fines and penalty's, this is pretty much all profit, most of the banks owe the government billions so by allowing this practise to go on it becomes a very indirect form of taxation.