MSE News: Bank charges update: the phoenix from the flames + full Q&A

amc01

Centium5000 wrote: »

We can't tell you why because that's never been suggested June.

The idea is that the people who can't stay in credit stop subsidising you.

You then pay for the services you use. They pay for theirs.

Hope this helps to clear it up for you.

People who do not stay in credit do not 'subsidise' the services those who stay in credit use. The cost of supplying the services those who stay in credit use, comes from the banks using the money in those accounts that are in credit!

Centium5000

Cardew wrote: »

I agree with your interpretation.

However would it not mean that for every individual charge a plaintiff would need to prove 'hardship' or 'misfortune' had caused the infringement of the rules?

Unfortunately there are always people who will jump on the bandwagon even if they haven't been treated unfairly. Your point is well and truly taken in these instances.

However, I'm confident that out of the 12 million who have these charges levied on them anually there are many who are unfairly charged.

Even in a legitimate case of hardship I don't think the courts will be persuaded by hardship to alleviate the contractual agreement - for this they'd probably just arrange a schedule of payments to be drawn up. There would need to be a solid legal argument as to why the terms are unenforcable.

I believe the Lords' statement about people in these circumstances is more directed at politicians (law makers, specifically) than the courts - they say as much in their concluding paragraphs.

The law that would help the plaintiff is Regulation 5(1) refered to earlier; the banks can reject a payment at its discretion, but the consumer cannot refuse the out-of-overdraft service.

Whether it has happened once, twice or many times, the consumer has no option but to accept this 'service' if the contingencies they face prevent them from keeping their account in order.

The US has just adopted a law that gives the right to opt-out of overdraft protection, so those that want payments to be made regardless of funds will have directly affirmed this part of the contract:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/20091112a.htm

Perhaps we should do the same?

pingchris

we got steam rollered, the oldest squash tactic in the book,send out the guy to make the sentance that condems it,pick the moment and execute,oh look the queens in bermuda getting her favourite food and relaxing in a deck chair while the country gets its teeth kicked in,just great, i was wondering why the news went really quiet days prior to the test case,did someone have a word with the networks to tell them to not build it up,bloody hell what a con,they worked us over good and proper,if i were to die today,i would die happy knowing how much pure hatred i took along with me to the grave,hatred for banks and government as it is.

merry xmas halifax bankers,i hope your investments crash and your money dries up,i want you all to feel the desperation thousands feel so you may understand what you people have done,angela knight.

Centium5000

amc01 wrote: »

People who do not stay in credit do not 'subsidise' the services those who stay in credit use. The cost of supplying the services those who stay in credit use, comes from the banks using the money in those accounts that are in credit!

I'm afraid not amc.

The banks confirmed this during the case and the Supreme Court notes this in paragraph 1 of its judgement as follows:

The appellants accept that the system of “free if in credit” banking prevalent in this country involves a significant cross-subsidy (amounting to about 30 per cent of the banks’ total revenue stream from current account customers) provided by those customers who regularly incur charges for unauthorised overdrafts (a cohort, we were told, of the order of twelve million people) to those customers (a cohort of about 42 million people) who are in the fortunate position of never (or very rarely) incurring such charges.

For the avoidance of doubt, this is the banks admitting that free banking is subsidised by these charges.

SnargleFlip

valetman wrote: »

if a million people marched in protest to the houses of parliament and caused such a fuss, then i guarantee you that things would happen very quickly

I think about 2 million people marched to the houses of parliament in protest at the Iraq war, which the government very promptly and robustly reacted to by doing absolutely nothing.

fatbelly

Centium5000 wrote: »

For the avoidance of doubt, this is the banks admitting that free banking is subsidised by these charges.

Yet they still deny that this is a 'reverse Robin Hood' scenario!

patman99

I've been subjected to several such charges, but I started talking to my building society each time, and having explained the reason behind each, they were more than happy to refund the charges.

When I opened-up my current account, I wastold all about how good it was, but never did they mention any charges or penalties for going overdrawn, in fact they didn't even give me a copy of their T&Cs to read until after I had signed on the dotted line.

It may have been a few years since I studied English Contract Law, but the one thing I do remember is, that once signed, a contract cannot be altered in any way without the contract becoming null and void, this includes the introduction of new terms or the alteration of existing ones EXCEPT those changed by act of Parliament or a change of law.

Just for the record, I would be quite happy to pay a fee of £2.50 for a bounced DD.

Bob_Roberts

As Admiral Yamamoto so exquisitely put it when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour "...I fear that all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant...!"

Fact is Martin, your campaign will doubtless cost many millions of people many millions of pounds as the Banks introduce, confidently, whatever charges they wish. How long will your "guarantee" last i.e. the one oft aired on TV that Banks would never introduce charges for having an account.

Stephenbw

valetman wrote: »

if a million people marched in protest to the houses of parliament and caused such a fuss, then i guarantee you that things would happen very quickly

If people can't even be bothered to check their own bank accounts it's unlikely that they will make the effort march to London

And you seem to be forgetting the fact that 80% of current account holders are not affected by this ruling.

KitCat

The Supreme Court ruling was a shock, but it looks like the light at the end of the tunnel is still there... just a little further away.

For me though, what is more disapointing than the ruling itself, are the frankly pious bleatings of some holier than thou individuals who seem to be revelling in the fact they have never had an unfair charge and that those that have, help keep their banking free.