MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

euronorris

The_Hallowed_Way wrote: »

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

You wouldn't be. You would be paying for the service which you received. Which is fair right?

I'm not saying their shouldn't be charges. There should be. But they are not currently fair or proportionate. An overhaul is still required regardless of the ruling today.

For example:

Mrs A makes a mistake and goes over her limit by 1p. Charge 35 GBP

Mrs B is reckless with money, doesn't care at all. Goes over her limit (purposefull one might say) by 1,000 GBP (or upwards). Charge 35 GBP

Does that seem right to you?

sukey13

Stiffedbysupremecourt wrote: »

This is such a shocking decision for a number of reasons. C_Mabebejive, picture this scenario you get £120 every 2 weeks for job seeker's allowance, something happens requiring you to spend a large chunk of your money and your account goes £10 overdrawn, the bank will charge £35 for this so you now have £45 coming out of the next payment of £120 going in. This becomes a cycle that the banks are now allowed to perpetuate. As someone who has had a hardship claim unfairly put on hold by their bank prior to the test case I am absolutely furious with this decision. What a good thing we have this new judicial body to protect the public interest eh? I bet they all have financial interests in the banks that would be affected, or at least they do now if they didn't before the case (if you know what i mean).

I completely agree with this. I am not in this position, but I know people who are - and not usually by their own choice - the banks make their life hell. A good friend of mine, who does a lot of handyman stuff for us is always being paid late by people (not me) and running round trying to get them to pay. To find they pay by cheque that takes 3 - 5 working days to clear. Meanwhile a direct debit will go out and make him slightly overdrawn despite there being funds about to clear. The banks take £30 and then the company ALSO charge for a failed direct debit.... and it's a real battle for him to then pay all the charges... then the cycle continues.

Why if dutch banks can make a payment in one day, can UK not do that? Why does it cost us £25 or more to CHAPs a payment??? Why do cheques appear in accounts but aren't really there for days?

Surely in this electronic world everything should be instant?

DJBlu

As I see it this ruling will allow banks to reduce their charges without paying for the ones gone in the past.

An announcement of a compromise will appear in a few days/weeks, the FSA will give an optional guideline on charges which most banks will follow.

For all those wishing for free banking. Ever had a loan? Mortgage?
Watch the APR increase by 2% in the next year or so.
Watch your savings interest come down.
Watch the tax on savings go up in a year or so.

Tell you, those sat on thousands in their savings accounts are going get a bit annoyed when they aren't earning as much interest. Then watch the gloaters !!!! and moan.

£4.99 a month for everybody?
£35 a charge?
Or 2.5% instead of 5% on your savings?

I know which I'd go for.

Garybono

Stephenbw wrote: »

But those people had money to withdraw.

I thought that all those with who had been charged these unfair fees were so 'poor' they had no money in the bank.

I am not in debt and have no charges to claim back and have money in the bank that i can withdraw, however this does not excuse the banks from their attitude towards debtors.

If people did not borrow from the bank the bank would not make any money,

debtors are the lifeblood of the system why abuse them!!

ads26

Is there a way we can collectively hurt the banks? They need us and our custom. Alone we don't stand a chance. If we nominated one bank and all switched to it they would soon listen to us. With things so precarious at the moment we could do some real damage.

Furey

Oh noes, I dont see how Martin could be in the firing line for this.

This is kinda sucky. Can we really win the new case, wont the banks just take it to every court in the land till they win again? Stupid damp opressive heirachal country, I hate it.

The_Hallowed_Way

euronorris wrote: »

Mrs A makes a mistake and goes over her limit by 1p. Charge 35 GBP

Mrs B is reckless with money, doesn't care at all. Goes over her limit (purposefull one might say) by 1,000 GBP (or upwards). Charge 35 GBP

Does that seem right to you?

But Mrs B will also have to pay interest charges on the £1000 on top of the charge.

danm

ouija wrote: »

Oh what a shame... heaven forbit those who aren't screwed over by the bank and forced into financial difficulty have to pay for banking. £10 a month? £20? I'd pay that. Rather than than £200+ a month in charges.

The banks are sneaky. Those in credit never realise how truly slimy they really are. They are helpful and can't do enough for you. Once you're overdrawn, they will charge you... and charge you for those charges... whilst maintaining a nice public image for everyone else to see. I am sickened by the amount of people posting comments like this. This forum is supposed to be for consumers to band together and help each other, not to sneer at others for financial difficulties because it's "their own fault".

great - so you would pay £20 instead of £200. i'd pay £20 instead of £0. Why would i want that. There are probably 50 million accounts that would now be worse off (made this number up but its probably not too far wide of the mark)

I agree that this is what the forum is for. But so many 'consumers' now use it as a sounding board for how to 'get off' or 'get away with' things which they were well aware of from the start.

I do not sneer at others, but the majjority of people are not prepared to accept responsibility for their actions then jump on the MSE and Watchdog bandwagons. Even then they dont fully appreciate the issue and just complain about how badly they've been treated.

johnd72

glider3560 wrote: »

What I think is disgusting, is that people think they can steal the bank's money without their permission. As an analogy, I would compare going into an unauthorised overdraft as walking into a shop, removing something from the shelf and walking out without paying. You wouldn't get away with "I don't have much money" in the shop, so why should the bank be the same? Most people on these boards are on low incomes but learn to live within their means and not steal the bank's money.

People seem to have got into their heads that it is alright to steal the bank's money without any consequences. It is not and should certainly be made illegal.

If you didn't agree with the charges, then why did you open the bank account?

Before someone says that the banks have stolen taxpayers money, they haven't. In case anyone doesn't realise, the government didn't just hand over money to the banks, but instead bought shares in the banks. This means that when the banks become more profitable again, the government will receive income in the form of dividends from the bank.

Today's decision is an excellent one and I hope that the "free banking" model will continue.

I suppose this, in effect, reflects the ignorance shown by many people on this issue as clearly the analogy is flawed.

No-one is suggesting that the banks have had money stolen from them; if a customer goes overdrawn he will, ultimately, repay that overdraft together with (usually) an amount of interest calculated at a higher "unauthorised" overdraft rate. If he does not he will be forced to repay that money, ultimately through the court system. The germane issue here is the additional compensation or charge made by the banks in these situations........a little like, perhaps, walking into a shop (displaying a sign "take now pay later" akin an overdraft situation) and being allowed by the shopkeeper to take something without paying and agreeing to pay interest.....but then being charged a disproportionate administration fee afterwards............very fair of course to all those who really need that type of facility!

Vigornian

ads26 wrote: »

Is there a way we can collectively hurt the banks? They need us and our custom. Alone we don't stand a chance. If we nominated one bank and all switched to it they would soon listen to us. With things so precarious at the moment we could do some real damage.

Do you think the new bank is going to take on the account of someone who has a history of bank charges and unauthorised overdrafts?