Bank Charges - Banks Win!

vet8

The holier-than-thou posters are out in numbers again I see!!

I think that those posters who think that we will have free banking now are simply deluding themselves. The banks have won and will feel that they can carry on doing what they want. They will introduce charges anyway even when they can keep their extortionate overdraught charges. According to an article I read in the paper more than half of customers do not have free banking anyway, they are on those accounts that charge a monthly fee. What is the betting that these are increased more and more so that those who do not pay monthly fees will find their banking severely restricted.

This is a very sad day for the consumer, the banks win and they will screw us all.

Free banking! Ha! I would be surprised if it existed beyond the end of next year.

stclair

never-in-doubt wrote: »

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) ;)

I know yeah itll probably still go on when im ready for retirement. :rotfl:

Extant

vet8 wrote: »

According to an article I read in the paper more than half of customers do not have free banking anyway, they are on those accounts that charge a monthly fee.

Care to find anything to cite such a claim?

Banks would love it if half their user base was on paid-for accounts.

Extant

never-in-doubt wrote: »

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

Banks remain profitable through their retail banking divisions and will look to do so. If this means that they shift their revenue streams from one set of charges to another, that's what they'll do.

So I guess it depends on what your definition of "really winning" is.

cosmic_girl

Whilst today's decision doesn't really affect me as I've never received a charge, i do believe that it is wrong to make it harder for families that are already deep in debt. People can all sit here and make judgements on folk who are perhaps are not as fortunate with their finances but not everyone will be in debt or financial distress due to overspending etc. A large proportion of people will have real and valid reasons for being in debt and i really think it is wrong of the banks to take advantage of these people.

It does make you wonder if today's decision has anything to do with the existing financial climate. I also wonder whether banks may think they have free reign now, i.e. get a load of tax payers money (some behind closed doors), and now they can apparently charge whatever they like. "Free banking" i don't think anyone will be privvy to that for much longer. I would suggest that perhaps banks have us over a barrel now.

the

Although not directly affected I have been following this charade of Banks v Consumer , what this judgement really proves is the mass population has no influence or controll when it comes to the big institutions .

When they (the institutions ) receive answers that they do not agree with, they simply ignore them and ask the same questions in a different manner untill the correct reply (as they see it ) is forthcoming. Nothing dissimilar to politicians

cosmic_girl

the wrote: »

Although not directly affected I have been following this charade of Banks v Consumer , what this judgement really proves is the mass population has no influence or controll when it comes to the big institutions .

When they (the institutions ) receive answers that they do not agree with, they simply ignore them and ask the same questions in a different manner untill the correct reply (as they see it ) is forthcoming. Nothing dissimilar to politicians

I agree completely - roll over and do what the big man says

never-in-doubt

Extant wrote: »

Banks remain profitable through their retail banking divisions and will look to do so. If this means that they shift their revenue streams from one set of charges to another, that's what they'll do.

So I guess it depends on what your definition of "really winning" is.

My definition of winning is quite simply the fiasco that should be the immediate cessation of these unlawful charges. The verdict today doesn't really change anything, it simply means there will be more fights to come.

The OFT will not sit back and take this on the chin, they will comment in December and this will probably be to announce the 'parallel' action they were looking at anyway. They have not been sat there for the last 2 years twiddling their thumbs - they have been researching other area's assuming the worse happened - which did!

Bottom line is the OFT are fighting for the consumer - therefore something aint right or they would not be wasting time, money, effort and credibility. Several of us had a sneaky feeling the banks would win, but we also knew that there would be more to follow.

Watch this space - the 'holier-than-thou' will not be so cokky for long :D

chambta

The image in my mind is of the various London HQs with champagne corks bouncing across boardroom tables this morning. Not one I enjoy. And I work in a bank.

never-in-doubt

chambta wrote: »

The image in my mind is of the various London HQs with champagne corks bouncing across boardroom tables this morning. Not one I enjoy. And I work in a bank.

Mine was similar but instead of champagne and corks, it involved grenades and arsenic :D:D