Bank Charges - Banks Win!

Chadsman

olly300 wrote: »

Lokolo has a degree but didn't get into debt.

Was this a recent degree? :eek:
If so then he is a very rare individual. Lokolo, how did you manage it?

Scousebird_2

I agree with the ruling. At the end of the day, I am a great believer that an overdraft is for an emergency and that is it, therefore should I be in a position where I lose my job (which I have been in)-I have operated my account responsibly and the bank know that. I always ensure that I have enough funds left on my overdraft to protect me and pay my bills in the event of a crisis, plus credit cards which I also have for emergencies if I need them. I do not expect to borrow money on any of these facilities without paying interest charges. Everyone is by now clearly aware, and cannot deny knowledge in that exceeding their borrowing limits will mean the banks WILL charge a penalty fee, just like a train operator charges a penalty fare if you use their services and expect not to pay/dom't buy a ticket. On this basis I fail to see the unfairness. Yes, the charging amount and structure could do with a review (and the banks have started to do this), however I certainly do not feel it is unfair and on that basis, that is what the Supreme Court were asked to rule on-THE FAIRNESS.

I personally do not see why people who operate their accounts responsibly, and those who have saved all their lives-eg the Elderly, should have to subsidise those who have operated their accounts in an unsatisfactory manner. If the banks were to lose, everyone would have to pay for their banking services, very much in the way that commercial customers pay for their banking (eg-pay to collect change, make payments, deposit cheques etc) and I do not feel that THIS is very fair to the everyday Joe public. At the end of the day, the message is simple.

Don't spend what you haven't got. If you cannot afford to pay bills due to an unforseen circumstance, cancel all your direct debits and standing orders, contact the companies and explain your difficulties and hence you will avoid bank charges.

So that's my view anyway-let the flaming begin

**Scousebird ducks and runs for cover**

oxenryd

chris_m wrote: »

And their decisions were based on their knowledge of you, your circumstances, your banking history, etc, rather than just "computer says yes".
They were also available and able to provide advice based, again, on their knowledge of you as a customer, not just an account number.

But surely with the creation of Ebanking and Telephone Banking, plus the fact that customers have accounts with 5 different banks (Example) it is surely no longer possible for the manager/adviser to know you personnaly anymore ?

welshmoneylover

Just want to add my twopenneth, I'm so glad the banks won cos I like my free banking

Aged 40 and a bit and never been overdrawn :j

G_M

Absolutely the right decision today. What is this assumption by so many people that there is a 'right' to an overdraft?

It's not your money you're spending, it's someone else's. If they lend it to you it's a priviledge not a right. And if there are conditions attached, like interest charges, fees, penalties etc, well, check them out before you borrow it. Still want the overdraft? OK, but accept the cost.

It's because of too much dependance on borrowing and living outside one's means that the credit crunch happened.

Hooray!

sosos

Why can they not implement a Yellow Card system? Once a year you're allowed to go overdraft, but a second time within a year and you get penalised.

stclair

Yes I agree it was the right verdict today why should the people who manage there account properly suffer.

On the downside thats all my overtime at work down the swanny.

Plus after today it will make my job sooo much easier lol

chris_m

oxenryd wrote: »

But surely with the creation of Ebanking and Telephone Banking, plus the fact that customers have accounts with 5 different banks (Example) it is surely no longer possible for the manager/adviser to know you personnaly anymore ?

Precisely - we have lost that opportunity for considered advice and well thought-out decisions. The only thing we really have now to prevent us getting into financial do-dos is common sense, and that is far from as common as it used to be - or as it should be.

stclair

Lokolo wrote: »

Haha I love the way you think I work for a bank. :rotfl:

Thanks, you've made my day.

Also looks as though a lot of people on here are happy for the banks. I bet the response is the complete opposite on the reclaims board!

I wonder how Natweststaffmember feels?

Maybe you could do an exlusive interview.

They was the first person I thought of today whilst I was sat round a telly at work waiting for the verdict. I choked on my tea once it was announced :rotfl:

never-in-doubt

stclair wrote: »

Yes I agree it was the right verdict today why should the people who manage there account properly suffer.

On the downside thats all my overtime at work down the swanny.

Plus after today it will make my job sooo much easier lol

I really think you mis-heard the judgement! You'll be busier than ever right now and this is far from finalised! God, you;re all so quick to jump in gloating at victory but it will be short and sweet - as Martin said earlier 'They lost twice already - what is going on?'

we'll see, we'll see (who really wins) ;)