MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

MillaJoJo

Ansu wrote: »

It is worth noting that just about every bank/building society out there has procedures in place for people in financial hardship to avoid being charged. The charges are, and always have been mostly avoidable; manage your account correctly, if this is not possible get in touch with the CCCS et al, and get a proper arrangement in place as soon as possible to avoid the debt spiralling.

I'm glad this went the way it did, not just to avoid the compensation culture that is growing in this country, but because I believe free banking should stay the way it is. I have experienced life on both sides of this arguement, and it's not nice being in financial difficulty, but the charges that go with it are avoidable. Having worked with people in this situation as well, the people that fall into the situation through no fault of their own (reduncancy, divorce, death etc) are in the minority, the majority are the one who refuse to give up their £49pm Sky TV, £100 mobile phone contracts etc.

Well if the charges are avoidable, and everyone takes your advice and avoids them. What will happen to free banking then?

Do you then just hope people remain in difficulty in order to maintain your free ride on the backs of others?

LATWTTB

jamespir wrote: »

NO martins on the other side youre the one who sided with the money stealing banks
and just in case you ask me to justify my claims theyve taken well over 60million pounds worth of tax payers money in the loans given to them without asking for our permission thats theft

Actually it is the Bank of Englands role to provide liquidity to the financial sector should it need it and didn't need to ask anyone but the governments position. The only reason this made the news is because of the media circus that has surrounded anything bank related. If we had been told at the time then RBS and HBOS customers along with other worried bank customers would have queued up to take their money out as well as Northern Rock and then where would we be?
People on this thread should do more homework before accusing people in ignorance.:A

MrGunner

mick_sturbs wrote: »

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.

But you happy enough for them to subsudise your free banking?

Oh and its not just people who cant manage their money! thats a very narrow viewpoint!

Janeyc_2

The Supreme court judgement states "

This appeal involved a relatively narrow issue. The Supreme Court had to decide not whether the
banks’ charges for unauthorised overdrafts were fair but whether the OFT could launch an

investigation into whether they were fair.

Therefore, can I as a consumer still take action against my bank in a county court/ small claims court presenting my own case that the charges are disproportionate to the actual bank's costs and are unfair?

We should all wait for the dust to settle and find out the facts and what the findings mean for the future first ( I am sure Martin and many others involved in the campaign will be reviewing the appeal as we speak), before we start bickering amongst each other - dissapointing to see members of this site turning on each other with condescending and hurtful comments! Nothing is final as yet!

Tozer

Yorkmackem wrote: »

Wrong.

The process has been exhausted insofar as the current appeal is concerned.

It'll start all over again with a different approach. No-one (including the Supreme Court) has set a precedent which rules that the charges are fair or otherwise. This is still something to be pursued on an individual basis via the County Courts.

Errrr, no. What I said was the appeal process was exhausted. End of.

"Different approach" = different issues.

County Courts will take a very cautious approach to this. If the claimants win, do you really think they will have the funds to respond to an appeal in the Court of Appeal?

Charlie94

JimpsEd wrote: »

As sad as that is, it doesn't mean the banks should provide that debt for free or at a very low cost.

People are not asking the banks to be compassionate , altruistic institutions they are just asking them to be 'fair'. The charges they were imposing on customers in my opinion were not. Judging by the way banks were paying out before this test case they agree with me.

Banks should not take advantage of peoples misfortune or mistakes. The fines they were imposing on their customers were explotative. I agree that the banks should be able to charge for going over your overdraft but it should be a reasonable sum. Like someone has said it should be proportionate to the amount you owe them perhaps.

Also the banks encourage you to go your overdraft. For instance I made a mistake when I was abroad and the cash machine would still pay out money when I was over my overdraft limit. Why can't you ask your bank to stop you being allowed to take out money on your card when you are overdrawn.

I think this case clearly shows who holds the power in this country.

knighter

Bnzee wrote: »

What a shame. That would have been one way to get the economy moving again!

Yes, by giving money to the very people who have probably been the most culpable in the current economic mess this country finds itself in.

Talk about handing the keys of the asylum to the lunatics!!!

mramra

MillaJoJo wrote: »

Well if the charges are avoidable, and everyone takes your advice and avoids them. What will happen to free banking then?

Do you then just hope people remain in difficulty in order to maintain your free ride on the backs of others?

I can't believe the number of comments like this one that imply that those who are prudent with money, taking care to budget are somehow to blame, while those who borrow money from their banks without prior approval or consent are somehow the victims in all this.

MattBosten

I personally work in the offices of one of the UK's biggest banks (and one of the few that didn't take any bailout money) and I have to say I'm surprised at the decision, although the charges debate and court cases are very much far from over. Ultimately if the charges had been deemed unfair the banks would have found a way to maintain there profits, but unfortunately this provides little solace for those who are hundreds of pounds in debt through bank charges.

I do however feel that having a charge is fair, but I think the banks should look at how much they are charging. There also needs to be an effort from the banks in general to remove the fear that some customers feel when they do go overdrawn. Unfortunately far too often I see people who have held debts for months when originally they were only £50 overdrawn, but they ignore it and there debt grows.

The best advice I can give if you are in debt is to maintain contact with your bank, and seek advice wherever you can find it, from you bank, websites like this and recognized organizations like the CCCS or National Debt Line.

HalloweenJack

hi ,i have a question regarding this:


the supreme court said it would not allow an appeal to the european courts , yet wasn`t the same limitation put on the banks , which they ignored and did it anyway?

so whats stopping the OFT simply going ahead and appealing to the european courts (since the banks allready ignored a court limitations)