MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

LATWTTB

jodenice wrote: »

Really? If you mean abusive and ignorant, then yes, they certainly are. This board is usually quite supportive. As you'd know if you had ever posted more than 20 odd times. Bye.

What are you talking about??? I thought this was a thread to discuss the Bank Charges results not to soothe poor people who mis-manage their affairs and expect the banks to support them without cost...

Miguel1979

The_Hallowed_Way wrote: »

I've posted thousands of times over about four or five years under various names, so don't lecture me on what this forum is like.

Why the various names? So you can continue to insult people without being found out?

Do you have a 'nice name' for when you might actually need and want advice? Because lets face it, you wouldn't get it if you posted under your 'abusive name'

MillaJoJo

Who let the children stay home from school and loose on this board?

You're making yourselves look like nothing but complete fools.

Tozer

marcharrison1979 wrote: »

There's no such thing as a nice banker, i have a friend who works for a bank and he's a right !!!! head, i'm kick the !!!! out of him if he wasn't my friend.
Message to all you bank scum! i hope you all die horrible deaths.
Cheers!
xxxxxx

Bet he feels really, really proud to have a friend like you.

Chomerly

I've read the article on this and to be honest it comes as no surprise.
The fact that the banks are in big trouble for their attitudes towards lending to people who couldn't possibly afford to pay back what they had lent would have only put a stop to people like us reclaiming back unfair charges. And who would have ever thought that the supreme court would have ruled against them anyway? These banks are relentless and unashamed in how they conduct themselves behind closed doors and you can pretty much guarantee that there would have been some back hander coming from somewhere to get this ruling. It may also be a quiet way of helping bail out the banks but it'll be people like us who will pay that bit more than everyone else.
That said, it still isn't all a complete loss.
According to the article, the OFT still may have grounds to move in and challenge the fairness of these charges.
I would like to point one thing out though.
If these charges, according to the supreme court ruling, are not unfair, then why is it that my bank (Natwest) has dropped it's charges for unpaid direct debits from £35 (up from £28 just 12 months before) to £5?
Surely this must show some admission from the bank that the costs for unpaid direct debits, standing orders ect. doesn't cost as much as they would have had us believe and that any amount over the initial £5 is nothing more than punitive.
Would anyone agree with that statement or is it just me reading between the lines a bit to much?

DotNetter

mustrum_ridcully wrote: »

So am I. If the OFT had won I'm sure we would have seen the end of free banking for all just because some !!!!less people can't manage their finances.

Putting on my best Yorkshire accent, I've had to pay one of these charges years ago and it did me good!

I can see your point and I understand where you're coming from but I think you need to consider how people get into these situations.

For my own part, I have heavy debts which I have built up over the years and I'm not expecting anyone to get me out of that - I am happy to pay it back...however....

A few months back the cambelt went on our family car (our only car). we ended up having to weigh up either spending £900 to have it repaired or trying to buy another family car for £900 - we opted to have it repaired as it's better the devil you know.

Because of our financial situation something had to give and as a result we went over our overdraft by £250 - I was charged £150 for doing this so in total was £400 over my agreed limit.

The knock-on effect of that is that the next month I was against £400 over my agreed overdraft and I was charged £200 this time - so now I'm £600 over my agreed overdraft...I think you can see where this is going.

I rang the bank and explained the situation but they would not waive the fees. They suggested a flexible loan which would be cheaper and not incur charges; great I thought. We went through the application process and I was turned down on affordability grounds?!

So, just be clear - the bank are month-on-month making my financial situation worse but won't help me out because I can't afford it; but apparently I can afford £200 in charges each month?

There are many reasons why people get into debt and have to incur charges and I don't think it's to do with managing finances so much - some people just have no other options.

Regards,


Wayne

gooner72

Totally agree, to many people in this country are always looking for someone else to blame for THEIR actions. Wake up people it's your money, look after it, no one else will.

Miguel1979

LATWTTB wrote: »

What are you talking about??? I thought this was a thread to discuss the Bank Charges results not to soothe poor people who mis-manage their affairs and expect the banks to support them without cost...

It is to discuss the charges and also to give advice to those who need it, if you bothered to read all posts you would see that a lot of the cases have not been caused by 'mis-management'.

I don't see how a pay reduction of over £10,500pa as a couple as a result of the recession can be classed as 'mis-management'?!

_Andy_

This is one of the funniest threads I've seen on MSE. Ever. Genius.

jodenice

The_Hallowed_Way wrote: »

I've posted thousands of times over about four or five years under various names, so don't lecture me on what this forum is like.

Well don't be so gutless today then.