MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

Vigornian

ouija wrote: »

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

If the banks charged such a low amount for going overdrawn, we wuld all be doing it. If the shop scenario is used again, if I was charged £35 for something I broke that cost a £1, I would keep me hands in my pockets and practice extreme caution. On the other hand, if I onlky had to pay £1, I probably wouldn't care too much and the proverbial bull in a china shop would be more the case.

Marisan

The Banks and other financial institutions have effectively stuck two fingers up to their customers.From now on they can charge whatever they like secure in the knowledge that the Government (and the Judiciary) will always back them up.You think £35 is an unfair charge - ? You just wait!
We have been forced to open bank accounts -how many people get paid in cash these days? Even the pensioners,sick and unemployed have been bullied into opening an account of some sort.And all the utility companies want to to pay by direct debit.Frankly,to be a non-bank accountholder these days is to be a non-person!
My old Dad was right - get your wages in a brown envelope and pay your bills in cash and whatever's left,spend it.
And to all those holier-than -thou's who've never been overdrawn I say ' Lucky You' and I hope you never fall on hard times - but then again......

euronorris

The_Hallowed_Way wrote: »

Those people who pressed their claims in the full knowledge that it might lead to an end to free banking for the rest of us scarcely showed any consideration for us, did they?

And why should anyone else pay for your's or anyone's free banking?

Charlie94

knighter wrote: »

I know about 1 million people are potentially affected by today's news, does anyone know how many people would have been affected if the result had gone the other way and the banks had started charging all customers for personal banking?

My guess is 30 million.

Well thats a very utilitatrian point to make.

This judgement was not about what makes the most people happy it was about what is deemed as fair. The amount of people a court judgement affects should have nothing to do with what decision a court makes. If it did then that is not justice.

euronorris

Vigornian wrote: »

If the banks charged such a low amount for going overdrawn, we wuld all be doing it. If the shop scenario is used again, if I was charged £35 for something I broke that cost a £1, I would keep me hands in my pockets and practice extreme caution. On the other hand, if I onlky had to pay £1, I probably wouldn't care too much and the proverbial bull in a china shop would be more the case.

But we don't currently get overcharged by shops for such an error and we're not all running around knocking down shelfs and displays breaking all of their goods are we?

Tom1234

The_Hallowed_Way wrote: »

Those people who pressed their claims in the full knowledge that it might lead to an end to free banking for the rest of us scarcely showed any consideration for us, did they?

But as you said previously, you 'pay' for your free banking by allowing the banks to earn interest on your money. Which is it?

Either you're allowing those who can least afford it to pay for your free banking.

Or their claims won't have any effect on it.

You can't have it both ways...

Birminghambrighton

I would like to know what the difference is between unauthorised overdrafts and theft. You try taking money off any other person or organisation without their agreement and you will end up in prison not just being charged for it. As one who does not have an un authorised overdraft I do not want to pay for those that have. If the banks are not allowed to charge for unauthorised overdrafts they will have to get the money somehow and it will be off the rest of us. If you do not like the charges don't go overdrawn - learn to manage your money better - don't spend money you have not got - if you want a loan apply for it properly. As Roy Keane said the other day referring to the Irish football team - you lost, get over it!

The_Hallowed_Way

euronorris wrote: »

And why should anyone else pay for your's or anyone's free banking?

Why should I pay to subsidise those who took money to which they had no right?

PadiP

johnd72 wrote: »

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?

Possibly, but if people had all that money, and pumped it into the economy would a credit crisis actually exist, at least in the short term? People only need credit when they haven't got ready cash - unless of course they've already got a lot invested that's earning more for them than the cost of borrowing more! Strikes me that the economy isn't working very well cos there isn't the cash flow cos people haven't got any money or access to credit. Money only does any good to ordinary people if it's flowing fairly freely, and only the very wealthy do well if they keep their money in a bank, but their banks are usually Swiss, or Cayman Islands... Need I say more?

Stephenbw

Garybono wrote: »

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

What a ridiculous comment, why would you assume that someone calling Radio 4 is on the dole?

They are more likely to be retired and living within their means on a small fixed income.:T