Bank Charges - Banks Win!

oscar52

Forgive me if I am wrong on this, I havnt read too much (in detail) of todays ruling. But basically, other avenues are still open, the waiver has been lifted etc, and the ruling basically stated the oft cant asses for fairness (if I understand it correctly)

Cant we just go down the the old/previous route of "they are a penalty and if you dont give them back I will go to FOS"

Extant

oscar52 wrote: »

6) if the supreme (not really a deserving title) court can overrule the FSA, FOS, OFT and every other regulatory body, whats the point in having these bodies in the first place?

Checks and balances?

And lastly, and again a point to the holier than thou who "manage" their finances properly (and this is not a dig), perhaps you would like to comment on the other news today of how the Cheif Execs, CEO's (whatever title they use) previously went cap in hand to a bloke called Mervyn for several BILLION pounds, what for ut "beacuse they didnt manage their accounts (or rather other peoples) properly.

I'd say you can draw a fair parallel between bank charges for consumers and the large stakes that the government received in both RBS and HBOS/LBG, which may very well leave them with significantly more money than they pumped in.

terrorfirma

Lokolo wrote: »

I suspect you would feel the complete opposite if you looked after your account, never had been charged, and had a free bank account for 10 years having never paid a penny to the bank.

Also, ending free banking would not lead to a better overall service. It would be exactly the same but for a cost for those that have never had to pay charges.

Welcome to the 'we save before we spend' part of the board

I keep seeing the phrase 'free banking' banded about. Has everyone forgotten the billions of taxpayers money pumped into the banks to keep them afloat. Maybe today's decision on bank charges has been made with thought of the estimated £2.6bn a year revenue made by the banks raking in these extortionate charges. You don't have to be a financial genius to see that a charge of £35 for a computer generated letter telling you your account is pennies in the red is extortionate.

chambta

oscar52 wrote: »

Quite possible, in my case I would say a mixture of both.

Out of curiosity, and as another point raised somewhere above, would you agree we need to go "back to old fashioned banking" rather than rely on computer generated decisions?

Clearly there's a difference between those suffering as a result of bereavement, unemployment, illness and those who are reckless, willfully or otherwise.

I'm all for old fashioned banking-indeed it's the way I personally try and do my job, but we're not going to move away from credit scoring etc.

oscar52

Extant wrote: »

I'd say you can draw a fair parallel between bank charges for consumers and the large stakes that the government received in both RBS and HBOS/LBG, which may very well leave them with significantly more money than they pumped in.

As in the Govt took advantage of the banks when in trouble as they banks did with their customers? - if so still doesnt make it right.

oscar52

chambta wrote: »

Clearly there's a difference between those suffering as a result of bereavement, unemployment, illness and those who are reckless, willfully or otherwise.

I'm all for old fashioned banking-indeed it's the way I personally try and do my job, but we're not going to move away from credit scoring etc.

Agreed, but surely the computer generated credit scoring is someway to blame. As stated in numerous posts (on other threads), I work for MBNA - anyone who has ever rung them for a balance transfer / money transfer has been met with "the hard sell" - are you sure you only want £2,000 - your credit limit is £15,000, I could transfer £14,000 - go on christmas is coming up etc etc. While it may be fair to argue "you didnt have to take it", maybe we should move away from the "bonus culture" to responsible lending (which there hasnt been too much of recently)

chambta

oscar52 wrote: »

Agreed, but surely the computer generated credit scoring is someway to blame. As stated in numerous posts (on other threads), I work for MBNA - anyone who has ever rung them for a balance transfer / money transfer has been met with "the hard sell" - are you sure you only want £2,000 - your credit limit is £15,000, I could transfer £14,000 - go on christmas is coming up etc etc. While it may be fair to argue "you didnt have to take it", maybe we should move away from the "bonus culture" to responsible lending (which there hasnt been too much of recently)

That's not the credit scoring system; that's the bank's own policy to push debt. In my role we've moved away from that to a degree and long may it continue.

Extant

oscar52 wrote: »

As in the Govt took advantage of the banks when in trouble as they banks did with their customers? - if so still doesnt make it right.

On what grounds? Morality?

Every service has a cost.

Extant

terrorfirma wrote: »

I keep seeing the phrase 'free banking' banded about. Has everyone forgotten the billions of taxpayers money pumped into the banks to keep them afloat.

This ruling affects retail banking, which is typically a profitable enterprise. The taxpayer money was used to bail out two banks - not "the banks," and certainly not everyone party to this case - and represents a significant return for the taxpayer, despite being, effectively, an essential move (allowing large banks to collapse is not a good thing).

There are calls for retail banking to be separated from investment banking as a matter of prudence - so this case is considerably more far-reaching that it initially appears and is beyond comparison to any government assistance given recently.

You don't have to be a financial genius to see that a charge of £35 for a computer generated letter telling you your account is pennies in the red is extortionate.

This assumes that the charge is rendered for the letter itself, rather than the service provided. Regardless, the majority of banks have restructured or reduced their charging structures.

oscar52

Extant wrote: »

On what grounds? Morality?

Every service has a cost.

Well, lets put it this way.

Maybe if the banks had helped some of those customers in trouble (for whatever reason even their own making), rather than seeing them as a profiteering opportunity and allowing these customers to "stew", then the country wouldnt be in mess it is now (and incidentally, none of this debate over bank charges or test cases would have ever occurred)