MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

ouija

mramra wrote: »

What about if you signed a waiver on your way in to the shop stating that you would have to pay a charge of £35 if you broke anything while in the shop? Would it then be unfair for the shopkeeper to charge £35 when you broke something?

Yes, if that item cost a penny. Banks will charge you £35 for going £0.01 overdrawn. Pathetic.

Ruth1969

santiago7 wrote: »

This is an outrage!!!! we are in a recession and they want us to spend ?? then give us back our money!!!

the judge must of got A VERY GOOD BACK HANDER!!!

i have a case on hold with courts what will happen to this ??

absolute rubbish!! i would like to meet the judge to see exactly how much he got paid to do this!!

I paid over £120.00 to take my case to court, just dyas prior to them announcing the "stay"!!

Will I be able to get the court fee back, at VERY least?

I have over £3500 on hold and was convinced we would win!.

Totally gutted!.

Garybono

[QUOTE=

According to the man from Motley Fool on BBC News earlier the majority of those ringing local radio stations are in favour of this judgement, as I believe were most of the callers to Radio 4.
.[/QUOTE]

People who have time to call into Radio 4 should be at work and not scrounging dole of the tax payer

Llogan1988

mramra wrote: »

What does that mean?

basicly that the banks have probebly paid some1 off and theyl hav people inside, using our money to screw us all over again, simple, noway the banks have won fairly, coz every1 been against the banks, i dont see how court systems can decide something like this anyway, i thought thats why we had a government, must be my small minded idiotic side comin through lol!

euronorris

I wouldn't sign such a waiver as I have plenty of other choices of where to buy such items.

None of us have such a choice with banks.

And just because they wrote it into a contract, with terms they are unwilling to negotiate, doesn't make it fair or right.

PadiP

euronorris wrote: »

OK, there's been a fair few of these 'examples' given on here.

Firstly, you went in into the shop, chose the item, weighed up the cost of the item, paid happily and left. Fine. However, this is not comparable to banks making high charges for going over your agreed overdraft limit.

A more accurate comparison would be if you went into the shop, chose the item, decided it was too pricey and decided to leave. However, on the way out, you knock a shelf, items fall off and one of them is damaged. So, effectively, as a result of your actions that shop has now lost the revenue generated from that item.

The reasonable response would be to pay for the item. And this is what would happen in most cases. However, if they insisted you pay double, triple, quadruple the retail price....then this would be unfair. Agree? And who would pay that? Who would even expect you to??? No one.

And actually in that scenario you would only have to pay the shop the wholesale value of the item(s) damaged, as retailers are not allowed to make a profit from damaged goods, only recoup their loss at wholesale value. This should be an analogy for bank charges.

Dan_Bailey

I'm quite amazed that today's ruling has blown any recliming out of the water, its as if the banks just stalled the trial until someone would listen. How can two rulings go the consumers way and then this just totally dismiss our argument?

The OFT are looking totally useless in all this, all they really managed to do was put a stop to reclaiming 2 and a helf years ago. Lets not forget this has turned out to be the government ran regulatory body versus the now government backed banking industry, judged by the govenrment biased Judicial system. They're all the on the same side really and if someones decided the economy couldn't handle paying all this money back then thats it then.

Bank charges always were the ultimate stealth tax anyway.

johnd72

i am in the fortunate position now of not suffering charges for being overdrawn, but there was a period in the early 2000's when I was....and the bank charges ran into several thousands of pounds and (albeit some might argue self-inflicted) led to severe emotional and financial issues. The claim to have these repaid was commenced against Lloyds by me in January 2006 and "frozen" by the Court in July 2007 at the outset of the OFT case.

Lloyds have now announced that they are immediately writing to all the Courts where claims are in abeyance requesting they be dismissed on the strength of the Supreme Court judgment; that therefore seems to be that. A rather sad outcome which has seen some customers (those who received "goodwill" payments) treated differently to others (those who did not) and their is absolutely no fairness in that.

What I cannot understand is why the various banks were "happy" to agree a £12 "cap" with the OFT on charges levied on credit card accounts but not on current accounts?

Could it possibly be that this judgment is more of a political one taking into account the cost of success against the banks which would run into billions.....(in fact not far short of the recent cash call made on shareholders by Lloyds Tsb) and the fact that it would see the start of another credit crisis the fault of which would be laid at the door of the banks? Or am I being far too cynical?

Stephenbw

ouija wrote: »

Here here! :T:T

Where? Where? :huh::huh:

Garybono

point is guys the banks are ar*eholes they cant run their own business without government intervention,

The points i made in my original post are being taken far to literally. if all you self rightous people on hear are so happy with the banks decision why post on this forum??