MSE News: Bank charges: banks win test case appeal

euronorris

alexjohnson wrote: »

Lots of coulds and woulds and shoulds here. Britain is a suburban and urban country in the main. Most people can, in fact, use public transport if they want to. The point was valid enough for an internet forum.


That's where we disagree. People do have choices. They also have the choice when, for example, getting a car fixed to chose to pay by credit card or loan or authorised overdraft. Let's not fixate on that 1% edge case and think about the other 99% who couldn't be bothered. The flipside of the outrage people apparently feel with the non-reclaimers being unsympathic is that we are not mugs and know that most of you thought you could print off a few letters and cash out. Nice while it lasted, now let's take some responsibility.

There are lots of coulds, woulds and shoulds as these are hypothetical. It is the reality for some but not for all. My point is also valid enough for an internet forum.

Where exactly did you get your 99% and 1% figures from? Whilst i am aware that plenty of people abuse the system, the number of people who are genuine, honest and hard working people is, I believe, considerably more than 1%. If you have the facts to back up your claim, please...do share.

Tiger_greeneyes

alexjohnson wrote: »

I see that. I would be incandescent - though in this example I would submit that bill to the utility company. I get the outrage part - who wouldn't? What I struggle with is why you wouldn't do something about it, like move to Alliance & Leicester, Citibank, or First Direct. It's a hassle and I completely get that we are busy people and have better things to do, but my point - and I think the point of those of us who are not reclaimers - is that it is in your hands to do something. Everytime someone mentions this here - and it has, predictably enough - just happened to me, the terrible hard luck story starts. Obviously I have nothing usueful to say there BUT as others have also noted claims of thousands of pounds represent a clear pattern of avoidable behaviour and it defies common sense to think otheriwse.

You don't have a clue.

Firstly, if the utility company caused all this to happen while I was running my account properly, do you really think they'd pay back all those charges that their error caused?

Secondly, how is it a hard luck story if you're forced into debt by astronomical charges that occurred when you were doing everything you could to run your account with a black balance?

Thirdly, I'm already with Alliance & Leicester and have been for 26 years.

And finally - why are you assuming that everyone goes into debt happily and voluntarily, and doesn't do their absolute best to rectify things?

The only reason you've not been in the same position as some of us who are struggling is because luck has been on your side - it's not because you're careful or in control, because many of us are careful and in control. It happens without our knowledge or input and can be practically impossible to stop when you don't have anyone to help you out financially - or if you've lost your job, or your health goes wrong.

How can you be so adamant it'll never happen to you? The majority of us are in the situation where one personal disaster can lead us kicking and screaming into bankruptcy, despite our best efforts.

MrGunner

danm wrote: »

I have a genunine question to those who feel the banks are ripping them off.

forget the issue of fairness. This ruling wasn't about fairness it was about contracts.

Why do you feel in this instance that the contract should be unenforable by the bank. What other areas in life do you feel this should apply and are there areas where you are on the positive end of a contract.

I understand that no-one set out to intentially get into financial difficuly, but i'm genuinely interested to hear why people feel, when things don;t go to plan, they should be able to bbe absolved of the responsibiliities and penalities that form part of their contracts.

i.e. mortgages - should the bank be able to tear up those mortgage contracts of those people which -0.605 BRT's? They didn't see that happening.
- should i be able to tear up my blockbusters contract when i'm charged a late fee.


As i say, fair or not (and for the record i think charges are excessive - but also feel there should be some punitive measure) is not the question. Nnor was it the basis of the ruling.

I think the point is that no one denys that there should be a charge of some sort. But we belive the law dictates that the charges should be appropriate and proportinal to the cost incured. with your example of Blockbuster for a late fee you pay 1 extra night in a fee (say 3.50 or what ever it is). Now i think you would have a problem if they charged you £35 for a late fee! this is in a very simple terms what the issue is.

mackers8923

simonp wrote: »

I'm obviously in the minority here but I'm glad of this decision.

No-one will win - if the banks lost they would just end free banking and we'd ALL have to pay for it.

As someone who hasn't paid a bank charge since being at uni in the 90's, I'm more than happy with my bank

If you go overdrawn without permission, you pay the fine! Simple!

Sorry - don't shout at me! I'm a big Martin Lewis fan but have always been against this campaign.

Yeah alright Simon and your probably on a 6 figure salary which your bank won't complain about either. BTW Have you spared a thought anyone here considering that today this judgements simply confirms that the poor are paying for the better off!

I guess not, this is a disgrace and nothing short of *&$&^"&^£ against the everyday average working joe bloggs in the UK.

Stephenbw

MrGunner wrote: »

I think the point is that no one denys that there should be a charge of some sort. But we belive the law dictates that the charges should be appropriate and proportinal to the cost incured. with your example of Blockbuster for a late fee you pay 1 extra night in a fee (say 3.50 or what ever it is). Now i think you would have a problem if they charged you £35 for a late fee! this is in a very simple terms what the issue is.

No, the charges should be punitive to discourage people from incurring them in the first place.

We have it relatively easy in the UK; in many countries spending money you don't have is considered theft and bank services are withdrawn.

jamespir

PROLIANT wrote: »

The reason overdrafts are not available to "all" is because not "all" people deserve them due their financial track record.

not true people have a lot of credit tend to get accepted because your deemed credit worthy those like me who dont arent

euronorris

Stephenbw wrote: »

No, the charges should be punitive to discourage people from incurring them in the first place.

We have it relatively easy in the UK; in many countries spending money you don't have is considered theft and bank services are withdrawn.

But not here and there are far less people in debt!

Stephenbw

mackers8923 wrote: »

Yeah alright Simon and your probably on a 6 figure salary which your bank won't complain about either. BTW Have you spared a thought anyone here considering that today this judgements simply confirms that the poor are paying for the better off!

I guess not, this is a disgrace and nothing short of *&$&^"&^£ against the everyday average working joe bloggs in the UK.

Why do people keep saying that this will affect the poor ?

The 'poor' people I know, pensioners and disabled people on small fixed incomes, are not affected by this as they don't overdraw.

My friends who complain about bank charges are working full time on higher than average salaries and simply choose to live beyond their means.

MrGunner

Stephenbw wrote: »

No, the charges should be punitive to discourage people from incurring them in the first place.

We have it relatively easy in the UK; in many countries spending money you don't have is considered theft and bank services are withdrawn.

Ok fine how did i spend money i didnt have? did the bank pay the debt for me .... no! all they did was send me a letter and tell the originator of my direct debit that i couldnt pay!

and in fact i belive the charges are discrimanitive, particularly against people who are already in dire financial circumstances.

blahblahdoh

danm wrote: »

I understand that no-one set out to intentially get into financial difficuly, but i'm genuinely interested to hear why people feel, when things don;t go to plan, they should be able to bbe absolved of the responsibiliities and penalities that form part of their contracts.

I suppose a lot of people don't read the small print, or try to, then give up because its so long and tediously written. Or else they forget it after being with a bank for years without a problem. Or maybe they lose track of the constant unilateral changes being issued by one party to the contract. After all, ordinary people can't be expected to behave like forensic lawyers, and one bank is much like any other. Most people probably just assumed that a responsible longstanding institution wouldn't dream of alienating them by imposing unreasonable, escalating, extortionate charges and if they did, then the OFT, the courts and the government would protect them just as they do in every other industry.