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

Rafter

iangaylard wrote: »

Thanks for this. I have a question which no one appears to have asked. Do any of their `Lordships' who gave this judgement in the Supreme Court ( or indeed any of their family members) have shares or other interests in any of the Banks ?

At the start of their Judgement they confirmed that all the Justices have bank accounts with the appelants but that both the Banks and the OFT had confirmed that this did not mean that they could not be objective.

I have a feeling that Judges are not allowed to directly invest in stocks and shares but would have to hold them indirectly through fund managers or trustees to avoid any risk of unfairness.

R.

jamespir

tazzygirl wrote: »

just wanted to say thank you to martin and his team for all the hard work they have put in 'lets hope this is'nt the end .need you ask the banks wauld win.but hey someone has to pay all the thousands for the banks xmas parties' guess its us again .sad really as there wauld'nt be any banks if we had'nt bailed them out 'and they had'nt been so greedy in the first place.

it wasnt really thyre greed that ended up with them havng to be bailed out it was americans sub prime lenders and british who took out mortgages then found they couldnt pay them and yes the banks sold the debts to another bank and in turn did the same untill they all got in a pickle

jamespir

Rafter wrote: »

At the start of their Judgement they confirmed that all the Justices have bank accounts with the appelants but that both the Banks and the OFT had confirmed that this did not mean that they could not be objective.

I have a feeling that Judges are not allowed to directly invest in stocks and shares but would have to hold them indirectly through fund managers or trustees to avoid any risk of unfairness.

R.

that means nothing the guy they got in to investigate the MP's expenes scandal was himslef an mp so i doubt that would have been fair

nsabournemouth

911andy wrote: »

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'.........

Where in your banks terms and aconditions does it say they will pay a DD for you even if you haven't got the money?

People are not spending money they don';t have, they are not borrowing from a bank.

spango

As a last resort if all goes wrong, we could always start a rumour that one of the main banks is in trouble and start a run on it, just to show them who really has the power.:beer:

POSITIVE_AND_FOCUSED

mramra wrote: »

I would go further and say that 80% of current account holders are affected positively by this ruling as banks don't need to introduce current account charging to cover the costs of unfairly re-imbursing people who have mis-managed (to be polite) their finances. Surely on the whole an 80% 'win-rate' is a good thing?

I haven't read through all this thread, but I feel I just have to respond to this posting. I agree with what you say in principle, however isn't one of the points of the unfairness of charges about how the banks do not consider life events and the impact they have on finances. I have been charged over £500 worth of charges over the last 6 years and to have those refunded would ease my situation considerably. My situation is that my husband was murdered in 2003 when our dd was 10 months old. I have a disability that has worsened considerably since then not least because I have fallen over more than I used to, I believe due to the stress of it all. I work f/t self employed, still pay a mortgage, the bills etc etc. And its just sheer determination to keep on top of it all that I haven't succumbed to giving up. When I have fall over and therefore couldn't get to the bank to pay money in, or couldn't work to get the money to pay in because of my injuries as a result of falling there was no consideration by the Banks whatsoever when I contacted them. When I was dealing with police matters as a result of my dh situation, there was no consideration of the fiasco that had entered into my life and the time out of the week that would otherwise be working time. When I had to go to the hospital, and work everything around dd at nursery there was no consideration. I have not taken time off to mourn my dh because I have wanted to be strong and pay the bills, my soul purpose in life is to keep a roof over my dd head, and keep on top of things. I suppose what Im saying is it's not just down to poor budgeting that people are charged and I think it is this understanding that is sadly lacking in the banking industry.

mramra

POSITIVE AND FOCUSED: I'm sorry for your situation. I do have genuine sympathy for some claimants who have true mitigating circumstances and have found their debts snowballing to unmanageable levels. What has annoyed me though is that this cause has grown into a bandwagon that includes many people who mis-managed their money and have no mitigating circumstances other than their own actions, but have now seen the opportunity to make a quick buck.

Hope everything works out for you.

cazz_13

did we actually think we could win though free money to banks money=power who are we to ask for it back

colprimus

mr_jetlag wrote: »

Big thumbs up to the MSE team. Bona fide consumer champions.

The judge should have explicitly said rather than hinted what he thought the basis for a legal challenge SHOULD have been. It's within his remit as part of the judgement.

However, great news. Let's get this into the media.

I believe the Court was told by those who really run the country what the verdict was to be, hence the Judge 'hinted' what the next move should be.

mott999

The main problem for most in this situation is that they don't have the ability to 'magic' money from thin air. My son got charged £1500 by LloydsTSB when his student loan was slow coming and he was charged overdraft charges because his money was late (I had the same when a company I had done work for went into administration) His charges were all charges on money already taken from his account for charges. When he went to the bank, a bit late in the day admitedly, he was unable to buy food or pay his rent because of these 'fees'. The answer from the bank that wants you to sign up 'For the Journey' ? - Tough! This court ruling was one day after it transpired that this bank recieved billions of pounds of his and other peoples money, secretly, to pay for their poor running of their finances. The iniquitous levy of charges resulting from the levying of charges on those who cannot just go to someone for a bailout or even a loan is what is unfair. After he graduates and is in a stronger financial position I'm sure he will remember how helpful his bank was. I will.
For all those sanctimonious souls whose banking has been subsidised by we who lost our jobs or had the misfortune to fall ill while self-employed - aren't you lucky?