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

Rikochet

acslater wrote: »

I wouln't consider myself poor, but at the time when it all started I had difficult cashflow.
No I dont think only poorer people have charges - that would be stupid wouldn't it!!

Rich people don't pay bank charges because they are rich. Therefore their bills get paid and they don't get unauthorised overdraft fees.

Poor people however get S*&^ upon from a great height because the banks couldn't care less.

This country is run by idiots and we allow them to run it the way they do because we'd rather spend time moaning on forums and writing letters of complaint than actually doing something about it.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion but just because you haven't had a bad experience with a bank doesn't mean that you should support them 100%

Osama Bin Laden didn't do me any harm but I wouldn't get on a plane with him.

Rikochet

neilwjsimpson wrote: »

Do you use a PC with Microsoft Windows, or a Mac with Apple OS X?

I assume you do, or some other variation, as you read everything you agree to, could you please quote Paragraph 60 of the EULA of either..

What?? You didn't read it?! I'm truly shocked!!

For those who don't know what a EULA is, it's the "End User Licence Agreement" that most software has and you have to agree to it before installing/using the software.

Hear, hear!!!

Big companies know fine well that the vast majority of people don't read the small print which is an excellent way for them to hide the odd loophole in it. How many times have you tried to cancel something only to be told you are in a contract and you have to pay for the service even if you no longer require it?

acslater

Well put Neil.

I have (had) a friend who was Mr Careful with his money, always talking about it and where he had put it to make it grow. He also disapproves of those people who cant look after their money and are now complaining.
Can I tell you, he was the first person asking Mr Government, can you get me my money back from Iceland. The hipocritical prat. I hate people like that. Pull the ladder up Jack.

People like that should realise that it takes everyone to make the economy work. Pull the ladder up, and then everyone is f***ed.

mramra

Rikochet wrote: »

How many times have you tried to cancel something only to be told you are in a contract and you have to pay for the service even if you no longer require it?

Not once. I tend to notice when I sign a binding contract.

[Deleted User]

Would like to make a point about "free" banking.

I would like to see an end to "free" banking.

If I had to choose a bank based on price and service, there might be more competition, and better prices and better service. New innovations.

I'd like to see a bank that offered some decent money management tools like Mint dot com in the U.S., or a similar less established service called Kublax over here. They tell you in advance when your nearing your credit limit for example. Now if a bank here told me that in advance, and charged me say £3 a month for it, I'd gladly pay it as it would mean I wouldn't get default charges from the bank (although I'd like to see these reduced as well).

Centium5000

neilwjsimpson wrote: »

When one buys a car, one does not enter into a contract. Please do correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm afraid it is Neil, it's a contract regulated by the Sale of Goods & Services Act (amongst others).

Other than that, I believe you're absolutely right. If you need any further evidence regarding this charges scam, you'll probably find it in here:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/financial_products/OFT1005.pdf

Keep fighting the good fight mate. :T

P.S. For $150,000 that Bentley would need to have a high degree of merchantability, proportional to the asking price I believe. I think that only applies for goods rather than services so the Bentley was an all-round bad analogy on the author's part.

acslater

With this latest decision, does it mean that banks can charge anything they want? Or will they have a conscience and reduce the fees.

If they do, will they be admitting they they are unfair.

Remember, they still need to make £2.6bn a year. They will not willingly reduce their profit potential.

Rikochet

mramra wrote: »

Not once. I tend to notice when I sign a binding contract.

Well sometimes life just isn't that simple for a lot of people.

So you don't have any binding contracts? 12/18/24 months?

I suppose your mobile/home phone/car finance/satellite provider has a special secret package that's only for smarmy ba$74rds like you?

mramra

Rikochet wrote: »

Well sometimes life just isn't that simple for a lot of people.

So you don't have any binding contracts? 12/18/24 months?

I suppose your mobile/home phone/car finance/satellite provider has a special secret package that's only for smarmy ba$74rds like you?

I have several binding contracts, but I know about them. It's bizarre to imagine that I could have a contract such as the examples you gave and not be aware of it or the contract length? You've lost me there.

Centium5000

mramra wrote: »

Not once. I tend to notice when I sign a binding contract.

How often have you signed a contract you later noticed wasn't binding?

That's the point.

If a contract is unfair it is unenforceable unless it's capable of standing on its own without the unfair terms.

You'd need to have entered into the contract for a court to declare it unenforceable - just because you read and signed it doesn't mean that it was a fair bargain.

The courts balance freedom to contract against the inherrent rights of the parties involved. Normally, this means protected the party in the lesser bargaining position i.e. the consumer.

Not many people do notice the unfairness until they feel it in practice.