MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

Percy1983

caprontee wrote: »

Speaking for the vast majority of bank customers who do use their accounts responsibly and keep in credit, I have done so for more than 40 years, I breath a sigh of relief. We keep our accounts in credit and receive free banking for that. Of course we know the banks use our money, but that pays most of the costs. I have never been under any illusion as to the costs I would incur if I went overdrawn, whether by arrangement or by accident. Should the banks have to pay back money to people who did go overdrawn then the majority of us would have to pay more. Why should we subsidise those who go overdrawn. Well done the Supreme Court!!!

Would be interesting as I completely agree, would be interesting to see what the actual split is on people who are happy/unhappy with this.

fileyflyer

Do not forget you are talking to a bunch of people who love to put their total personal debt in their signature line

Miguel1979

unfuwain wrote: »

I will ask..Can those people who claim against the charges,on the grounds of real hardship still claim. The banks did deal with these claims as a seperate claim to those people just claiming the charges. And most i believe did get payed.

This was one of the questions I originally asked and got lots of helpful responses telling me I shouldn't have been stupid enough to get myself charged in the first place, although had they bothered to read my mesages properly they'd have seen it was beyond my control. Anyway I digress.

I think the basic response is no one seems to know at the moment, I currently had a financial hardship case going through. I was due a response in the next week or two. I strongly suspect it will now be a case of sorry but as the charges have not been deemed unfair 'blah, blah, blah', we will not be refunding you any money.

kgb26

Felicity101 wrote: »

Not funny - I'm reporting your post.

Do so, this is outrageous. People can go into debt for all sorts of reasons, and we have just been through a dreadful economic situation. Some people get into debt through illness, bereavement, the death of a child, depression, loss of a job etc. How insulting to call them ignorant Chavs.

mick_sturbs

Whilst i think that the bank charges are a bit high sometimes, i am delighted they have won their case.The prospect of having to pay for each transaction was not one i was looking forward to.
I am not overdrawn and the idea that i would have to subsidise people who can't manage their money did not appeal.

MrGunner

KimYeovil wrote: »

Not it is not. It is subsidised by those who can afford it but choose not to modify their behaviour after the first time they are burned.

If you are poor you are simply never going to behave in a way to incur any further charges after your very first episode.

How the hell do you know this. unless you have actualy been in this situation how can you tell me that im not doing everything in my power to avoid these charges. Perhaps youll be happier when i am living on the street in a box! at least you will still have free banking!

gumbi

I think the reason that this has been such a long drawn out case that has provoked such emotion from all sides is that all sides do have legitimate points and in this case it's the system that wrong....

The Supreme Court was right in the letter of the law
The Banks are right to charge us when we go overdrawn
We are right to compalin about the level of these charges

So what happens when everybody is right.......The system falls over.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the banks and I think this could all have been avoided if they had accepted that their charges were too high to begin with, however they are right when they say that their charges are clear in their T&C's and this is all they have to do to be legally secure.

The problem is a lack of choice. If you have a job then you need a bank account to pay wages into and no matter which you choose they all have the same terms, let's face where is their incentive not to charge?

What we really need is a new player in the market to shake everybody up with fair charges and we have a unique opportunity at the moment to do just that. If somebody breaks ranks then they'll all be forced to do the same.

I do still believe that the charges levied to date are legally sound but morally bankrupt and that banks need to think carefully about what to do next....Imagine the PR coup for the bank that actually decides to refund even a portion of the charges levied!

Come on Banks....Interest on overdrafts is fair and legitimate but we all know you've been taking the !!!! with other charges so now that it's all out in the open just come clean..you may earn a bit of respect back and surely that's priceless!

euronorris

KimYeovil wrote: »

Not it is not. It is subsidised by those who can afford it but choose not to modify their behaviour after the first time they are burned.

If you are poor you are simply never going to behave in a way to incur any further charges after your very first episode.

hahahah, what nonense!

If you had no room in your budget after the essentials are paid, a 35 GBP charge will be devastating and lead to a downward, neverending spiral of debt as they simply won't have a spare 35GBP the next month!

smudgesmum

Lets face it we all know that the banks are ripping us off but they have the support of the government and by this result the law of the land so maybe we need to look at other ways of handling money so that it doesn't have to go through their hands. It would be very difficult but I would be surprised if it would be impossible.

Doc_N

The_Hallowed_Way wrote: »

Since when was being a Martin Lewis lickspittle a pre-requisite for posting on this site?

jamespir wrote: »

whatever youre a pillock so i wouldnt expect you to understand

What a beautifully crafted response. It says so much about you.