MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

johnd72

The_Hallowed_Way wrote: »

Actually these days it's more likely to get me banned!

hahaha....point taken..

pie81

The_White_Horse wrote: »

i agree 100%. If you have 50 quid and you want to buy something for 60 quid - it should just decline. the end.

the same with a dd. if no money, decline it. then you can sort it out with supplier.

BUT. that isn't how it works and the same scenario can be established if you are careful and keep up with what is in there. You just have to look every day.

I believe on some bank accounts it is possible to set this up - you just have to tell the bank that you don't want them to give you any unauthorised overdraft.

honeybear_2

The_Hallowed_Way wrote: »

Actually these days it's more likely to get me banned!

I think that one was the least of your comments today!

The_Hallowed_Way

honeybear wrote: »

I think that one was the least of your comments today!

Really? I thought I'd been quite restrained today.

pie81

levineg10 wrote: »

I am thrilled that the banks have won - it means fee free banking for those in credit will continue.

Not necessarily. There's nothing to stop banks charging for in-credit accounts too. Yes people would be horrified, but if they all do it then what choice would we have?

pleb_2

As someone who never has been overdrawn and so never been charged unfairly I cant understand those siding with the banks. Ive also never been mugged or been a victim of extortion but if I knew someone that had suffered either of these I would be a little more understanding then those smugly posting on here.

I dont like bullies, I dont like people taking advantage of circumstances to put the squeeze on the little guy. Anyone with any sense of justice can see that the charges in many, many cases were far from fair. What some people seem to have a problem comprehending is that this was a chance for the man in the street to stand up and at the very least say I have the right to be treated fairly.

This was obviously an illusory chance that in the cold light of day has unavelled when faced by the expediency of political and economic realities.

To all those who gloat at this verdict because they were worried that banks might start charging everyone for banking, what makes you think they wont anyway? After all they have done and gotten away with why on earth would they have any compunction about planning just that?

I have noticed a recurring undercurrent through those messages supporting the banks and decrying those who unfairly treated have stood up for themselves. The glaring self interest in those posts reminds me of the lines of the old japanese saying

"The nail that sticks up will be hammered down!"

Just remember while you are sitting there smuggly enjoying the sight of others being hammered back down into what you believe their rightful place is, one day it might be your turn to be the nail.

PadiP

pie81 wrote: »

I believe on some bank accounts it is possible to set this up - you just have to tell the bank that you don't want them to give you any unauthorised overdraft.

Which they certainly will do - and still charge you if a dd or cheque gets bounced.

blahblahdoh

Everybody makes mistakes. Not least the banks. Punishments should be appropriate. Fees should not amount to extortion. Whatever the courts rule, I hold these truths to be self-evident. I'm saddened that so many people here disagree.

euronorris

The_White_Horse wrote: »

You don't get it repaired and use public transport. you can get anywhere on public transport - it may require many changes and walking, but it can be done. Life isn't easy. and it would be temporary.

surely he could borrow a bike from someone???

its funny how these people always live in the most inaccessable areas and have zero friends that can help out!!

OK, firstly. Public transport is NOT accessible everywhere. If you manage to get to the first bus/train stop, then there is still the possibility that the services do not begin early enough. The rest of the journey could take hours and you may be due to start work at 8am! And before you say it, I'm sure some employers would be accomodating of coming in late for a while but not all.

If we're talking out in the sticks, there not be another house for miles and even then, that person may not own a bike. Who are they supposed to borrow it from.

And this is just basing it on someone living in the sticks (by the way, I never implied that this was the case for everyone, just a few). If you are a salesman who travels up and down the country for business meetings then the car is essential. You could probably still do the majority of the journey's by public transport but then you would also most likely be late, lose clients and therefore more money.

I am NOT saying this is the case for everyone. There are a lot of people who are reckless with money. But I cannot understand why you refuse to see that sometimes, there is simply no other choice for people.

Or would it be better for them to lose the car, the job, the income and eventually the home. Should everyone (or anyone for that matter) who has a bad month become homeless as a result? I know it's an extreme example, becoming homeless, but it can and does happen.

And no, the banks shouldn't give the service for free. But they shouldn't charge such high fees for it either. They would still make a huge profit if they just halved the fees!!!

berkshirelady

mramra wrote: »

Or he's been force-fed too many cheap sausages! :rotfl:

lol! cheap sausages but v good quality though, so he'd probably like them. As its RBS, maybe I should force feed him the 'Aberdeen Angus beef with red wine' ones.