MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

nikki2804

It just shows doesn't it that the little people count for nothing!

Bank charges do not need to be fair? Does this mean that they will escalate beyond reason in order to recoup the "goodwill" payments that have already been made? And then continue doing this so they get a nice bonus at the end of the year?

While I wasn't assuming that we'd get our £1400 back it would have been a welcome addition to our house deposit fund. I can appreciate that others would have been in desperate need if it.

It just shows the unfairness!!

giffy00

The judgement says:
[FONT=&quot]“However, the charges might still be open to assessment by the OFT on other grounds under[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Regulation 5.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Reg 5[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
Unfair Terms
5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

(3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract.

(4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was.

(5) Schedule 2 to these Regulations contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I would say this applies as my contract was not INDIVIDUALLY NEGOTIATED[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This ruling will allow banks to charge what they like and get away with it.[/FONT]

pinkcloudnine

I for one am happy with the result, we have never in 32yrs of having a current account been over drawn, had a chq bounce or incurred 1 penny of charges. We earn between us less than the national average for 1 person. if the banks had lost everyone would be a loser. Imagine having to pay to take your money out of a cashpoint again, paying for every cheque you write or any cc transaction you make.
Anyone can make a mistake & go overdrawn once, but surely you learnn by your mistake & make every effort not to let it happen again. As for other op's saying they were on for £3k+, in reclaimed charges, how in g~ds name do you let charges get to that level. I would have been stopping all but essential spending & money saving for England. It is tough to budget, sometimes we have felt is it worth it, but looking at the mess some people are in we are sure glad we do budget.

nindyman

What a suprise ! Goverment involvment they obviously need it to pay for more expenses. Its just another fat tax where the rich get more and the working class get treated like dirt again. At the end of the day the money in half the banks has been already taxed from us anyway another kick in the teeth

Speedys

No real surprise though, it was always going to happen.

Maybe the European courts will take a different view.

qprfcmark

CORRUPTION OF THE HIGHEST ORDER!

What a corrupt lot our banks and judicial system are. The average person in the street screwed again for the sake of banks and the system. The judge even said the case cannot be referred to the European Court of Human Rights! Why not? Probably because they know they would vote in favor of the consumer.

Simple540

What a load of crap, the nationwide took over £8000 off me over the eight year period.

I expect that the Supreme Court received part of monies owed to us as payment for over turning the decision !!!!!!

Harry_Powell

dirtydavey wrote: »

Dont be silly, NO one has ever said that you should pay for me to go over dwarn. The argument is that I should not pay for you to have free banking.

If it costs the bank £2.50 every time I go over drawn I will be happy to pay that. But it does not.

The problem here is that I am paying for you to have free banking! And thats what this is all about! I think you have massivly missed the point. We dont what a free ride, and we also dont want to give a free ride to you. We want whats fair, we will pay what it costs the bank for us to go over. (even though must of us have begged our banks not to make payment if there is no money in the account)

The problem here is that you don't understand the concept of living within your means and saving up. You expect the bank to underpin your poor budgeting by lending you money (without even being asked to do so).

If you spent all your money and then started dipping into mine without asking, I'd charge you too!

cashgang

How they can make such a decision and not be ashamed of themselves. This new supreme collection of lords are a disgrace and have no place in a democracy.
And for the banks letting the poor paying so the rich get free banking my thoughts - If I go to to the swimming pool, as I can swim, I don't need to pay because the non swimmers do it for me! Or am I wrong?

Dadooronron

Why am I not surprised. The legal system in this country beggars belief. It is clear that it is not there for us, only for big business. It sucks.

Can I suggest Martin, that you Name and Shame each and every lending institution, to publicly show their charges. We could then move to those that are more realistic.

Thank you so much for what you have done so far. This is not failure, indeed it has been massively successful in showing how greedy our banks are, and how the great British legal machinery springs to the defense of the great British public