MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

PadiP

ouija wrote: »

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.

As I posited in an earlier post, an Anarchist approach to banking would mean charges, but only to the point where the true costs plus inflation would apply. This would mean no 'fat cats' getting rich on profits, which is basically unearned income.

ouija

Tiger_greeneyes wrote: »

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?

Has happened to me before on plenty occasions. It's happened with my electricity, and it's happened with my car insurance... and I'm out of pocket for it.

chipbeck

The_Hallowed_Way wrote: »

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

Where have you been mate, if only you'd have joined and posted earlier we may have been able to put a stop to these senseless erks wanting their money back.

How nice it is to see someone in touch with reality.

On the odd occasion when I've attracted charges on my current account I simply call one of the serfs from the kitchen and give them a damn good thrashing. Obviously still out of pocket but gets rid of the anger, what is this country coming to.

ouija

PadiP wrote: »

As I posited in an earlier post, an Anarchist approach to banking would mean charges, but only to the point where the true costs plus inflation would apply. This would mean no 'fat cats' getting rich on profits, which is basically unearned income.

Good. Anarchy > Democracy.

cappy1501

Hi guys,

Is there any way that we can break down the ruling into paragraphs and invite people to discuss the individual areas so that we could perhaps somehow make a sense of it?

It seems that there are bits of points in the individual comments that are starting to make sense and point towards the fact that it is possible to challenge the ruling....but they're lost in the masses of unhelpful comments.

Is there a program or a type of a forum where the analysis can be done easily?

Just a thought......I hate feeling powerless......

MrGunner

The_Hallowed_Way wrote: »

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

WE DIDNT TAKE ANY MONEY!!! the bank didnt pay off our direct debit for us! the direct debit still had to be paid after the £40 which was apparently for sending me a letter and saying to the company trying to take money via D/D "he cant pay"

and if every one was paying say £10 in a fee how are you subsudising me??? i would be payi ng the same £10 as you!!

sukey13

knighter wrote: »

What do you expect people to do?

How about pay for a service they currently get for free?

But I thought banks profitted by investing money that is invested with them and by giving loans out to people/mortgages,etc???

Don't they make enough doing that???

I feel like opening a bank.

ouija

danm wrote: »

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.

I refer you to THIS POST

_Andy_

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.

If everyone switched to one bank there would be zero competition, thus Bank X would then charge what they wanted and offer zero percent on savings etc. Thus consumers wouldn't gain.

euronorris

The_Hallowed_Way wrote: »

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

As will Mrs A on the, now, overlimit balance of 35.01 GBP.

And, if Mrs A is on a low income and doesn't have 35 GBP spare in her budget to bring her back into the black after payday then she will receive another charge. Same thing happens the next month and then DD's start bouncing which incur more charges and so on!

Such a system encourages debt and only serves to keep people in debt.

I don't get why everyone is so against paying for their bank account anyway. You don't expect to get your other financial products for free do you?