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

chocolady

SnargleFlip wrote: »

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.

We are far too accepting in the country of our fate at the hands of government and the powers that be. We should march and keep up the pressure. We may not want this sort of situation but evil men triumph while good men do nothing. No one is saying no charges just proportionate ones surely that is a totally reasonable argument and needs to be driven home by all reasonable means.

nsabournemouth

Bob_Roberts wrote: »

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.

The banks like your local council will always toy with ways to fine / charge you.

Banks don't care about you, they seee you as a way of making money and why do they not offer you the basic bank account....they won't make much money from you.

How do you thinki many many people have free banking.....because many many people pay huge fines of £35 for a service that costs.....£2-£5. Do you pay for your banking?

I find it strange that some on here are complaining about those with charges when they are giving them free banking...are they just worried they may have to start paying for their own banking, paying for a service they are getting for nothing at the moment?

Cardew

Centium5000 wrote: »

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?

How banking is conducted in future years is important, but not really the point of this thread.

To put it simply, people have smelt £££££s and see the chance of getting back some money.

It seems of no consequence that the charges were in the terms of their contract, and after getting stung once they took no action to prevent further charges, often for year after year.

They are relying on the few cases of genuine hardship or the people incapable of running a bank account, to cash in.

Centium5000

Stephenbw wrote: »

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

If most of that 80% adopt an "I'm alright Jack" attitude, well, I've only one link for them before we turn out the lights:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

Sad but true.

Let's hope Martin succeeds - he's one of the 80% trying to keep the candle alight

Stephenbw

Centium5000 wrote: »

If most of that 80% adopt an "I'm alright Jack" attitude, well, I've only one link for them before we turn out the lights:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

Sad but true.

Let's hope Martin succeeds - he's one of the 80% trying to keep the candle alight

I think that it is highly inappropriate to use a Martin Niemöller quote about Nazis in a discussion about bank charges.

911andy

I still struggle to see the case here.

You have an account, you've signed the contract/terms and conditions. The bank have simply implemented those terms and conditions.

No one asked you to spend money you didn't have, bounce DD's because you didn't have the funds etc etc.

Banks aren't cuddly friendly non profit people, they are business there to make money. They offered a product with certain conditions, thats it as far as i'm concerned.

Next up it'll be 'lets wipe those debts off your credit cards'.........

Centium5000

Stephenbw wrote: »

I think that it is highly inappropriate to use a Martin Niemöller quote about Nazis in a discussion about bank charges.

I'm sorry you find it inappropriate. The sentiment was about political apathy and the dangers thereof, not likening the banks or anyone else to the National Socialist movement.

Given that context, and my original statement about the "I'm alright Jack" attitude, I stand by my posting.

Centium5000

Cardew wrote: »

How banking is conducted in future years is important, but not really the point of this thread.

To put it simply, people have smelt £££££s and see the chance of getting back some money.

It seems of no consequence that the charges were in the terms of their contract, and after getting stung once they took no action to prevent further charges, often for year after year.

They are relying on the few cases of genuine hardship or the people incapable of running a bank account, to cash in.

I understand we're discussing the current legal status here, but two of the key things the Law Lords intimated were:

• There may be grounds to argue (successfully) that such terms are inherrently unfair under current law e.g. Regulation 5(1)

• The difficulties of this case indicate the need for the law to be clearer regarding consumer protection

If such terms are found to be generally unenforcable under current law, even people who suffered no hardship may be able to seek redress. I know this doesn't sit well, but even a clearly stated term is unenforcable if it runs afoul of fairness rules.

In that case it becomes a moral issue for claimants, and I sympathise with what you're saying about opportunists. I have little sympathy for the banks, but if payouts jeopardised our economy (it amounts to billions) then these people need to take a deep breath before claiming their money back.

Either way, as the Supreme Court suggested, the government needs to legislate to make this clearer in future instead of leaving it to interpretation.

Over 2 years until the final judgement, and then on a technicality?

Time to rewrite the rulebook methinks!

MrLeeLee

Centium5000 wrote: »

Over 2 years until the final judgement, and then on a technicality?

2 years, and 2 previous decision going unanimously against the banks.

They were even told in the last decision that they shouldn't appeal!! It just stinks.

flam147

Eric_Jones wrote: »

I'm generally a big MSE fan (hence the log in) but in this case:
Just DROP IT. Martin, You are wrong.
It is wrong to (in many cases repeatedly) take (spend) money that is not yours. Which is essentially what we are talking about. To then complain its illegal for you to be charged a (relatively small) fee for taking whats not yours , with teh consequence that the rest of us who DO manage our money responsibly should pick up your tab is plain wrong.
I do applaud the fact that this will be looked at GOING FORWARD. IMHO the new contracts should tell customers they have a choice:
a) Have any transaction that takes you overdrawn simply blocked
b) Have such transactions allowed - but be prepared for well publicised (and expensive) charges if you do.

In many countries spending beyond your available funds is theft. We've actually had it very easy in this country.

so people who genuine make a mistake of 1p should pay for your bank card then? maybe i can buy you papers anything else? buy your own bank card and i will buy mine. ps the bank makes enough money out of your money without charging you pure greed