MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

roddydogs

Heard Martin on J.Vine BBC 2, thought he was going to explode, surprisingly J.(Sit on the fence)Vine was quite critical of him, so were the phone ins.

Vigornian

There have been several replies on here that implies those of us who support the decision of the Supreme Court are cash rich and have no experience of financial hardship. Nothin could be further from the truth. I handle my account catiously, I make full use of this website to secure the best deals, and I only buy what I can afford. For anything else I save. What is he problem? Isn't this whole site about managing your money better and finding the best deal?

ouija

What really gets me is that most banks will process a DEBIT transaction before a CREDIT transaction.

If you have £10 in your account and a £20 CREDIT transaction pending, and want to spend £25 on something they will process the DEBIT first, putting you £5 overdrawn (even if both transactions are on the same day). Two weeks later you are charged £35. If this charge happens to be before your next payday, or you simply can't afford the charge....

....

Tough! They'll take it, and charge you a second time for going overdrawn. Isn't that nice of them Thanks for the free banking, but you can forcibly insert it into your rectum.

berkshirelady

river wrote: »

I have, for quite a while now (2-3 years), not been able to stand any of the banking adverts on TV. But of course, they do trust the old manipulating ways of advertising and keep using them to try to change the perception of their cutthroat businesses to be something other than the vile and greedy, people-abusing practice that it is. The bloodsucking reputation of lawyers doesn’t even come close to banks and those who work for them.

It makes me physically ill every time I see bank adverts...the more I see them the worse I feel. Anyone else feel the same way?

The awful high pitched choirboy tune on the Lloyds ad has got to be the worst. And they use it as the hold music at the call centre as well. The last time I phoned them I was put on hold for 15 minutes and that bl**dy tune was going the whole time. aaaarrrrgh!

colprimus

bunker wrote: »

I think this is splendid news. Those who have been charged for UNAUTHORISED overdrafts have either simply disregarded the need for authorisation or have been turned down on the grounds that they shouln't be borrowiing anyway. I can now look forward to continued free banking and NO CHARGES FOR CASH WITHDRAWALS. Listening to BBC's PM programme just now, apparently many people have contacted them with similar views.

Free banking will come to an end, the banks have spent years looking at alternative ways to generate income so do you seriously thinks they will just drop all that in light of todays judgement..we'll have these charges plus all the new ones that are coming.

PadiP

Stephenbw wrote: »

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

Or even working from home!

Garybono

Stephenbw wrote: »

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

Well if they had saved harder maybe they wouldn't be living on a small fixed income.

ouija

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?

Non-free banking would be a much fairer system to everyone, and would not leave people thousands and thousands of pounds in hardship, struggling to pay for food at the end of each month because the banks take that money in charges. No argument can ignore this fact.

Dan_Bailey

I always thought a free banking business model would be built on returns on investments made with our deposits. You know, that thing they do in the city. What kind of business says part of its business model is by penalising its poorest customers?

Tiger_greeneyes

The_Hallowed_Way wrote: »

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

Ok, so if my gas and electric supplier charged me twice one month in error and that meant half a dozen direct debits incurred £35 each when they were refused as there was not enough money in my account to cover them, you're stating it's actually MY fault that this error occured?