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

heartattack

As always thier happy to not give us OUR money back but are still happy to recieve HUGE bonus's ?:mad:
My view is that Martin and his team are striving for ALL of us and THANK GOD.
Its nothing worse than going back to the dark ages where the RICH stole from the POOR...
Martin is our modern ROBIN HOOD... :Awithout the tights!! thank you for all the hard work.
I WILL NOT GIVE UP whilst Martin keeps me going, why should they Bully us.

Thanks Martin x:beer:

heartattack

Every time they placed a charge I went further into debt it was a vicious circle,
Then when I put a claim in for charges ..THEY TOOK MY FACILTY FOR OVERDRAWING OFF ME!!
ITS LIKE KICKING A MAN WHEN THEY'RE ALREADY DOWN. iF THEY HADN'T PLACED OVER INFLATED CHARGES IN THE FIRST PLACE THE CIRCLE WOULDN'T HAVE BEGUN...
Where did all this money they took off each and everyone of us go... SOME TOP NOTCH BANKERS YAGHT FUND IN THE CARIBEAN!! :mad:

Captain_Cautious

MrGumby wrote: »

Call me stupid, but I don't get it.

Happy to. Stupid.

Why should responsible account holders who manage their accounts properly, staying in credit or at least negotiating authorised overdrafts, subsidise those who don't?

If the Supreme Court ruling is overturned, I will probably finish up paying charges on my account, paying to use ATMs, and so on, effectively paying the fees of others.

I acknowledge that some people have valid complaints against their banks for ridiculously excessive charges, and I support them all the way. But the majority should pay up and learn to manage their money responsibly. Banks aren't charities and have to recoup the costs of lending and administering badly run accounts.

It comes down to a question of ethics. We all agree that banks are businessess, not charities and as such must be run in a profitable way. This is obvious. And, whether we like it or not, in one form or another we need these institutions, until the blessed day we discover a way of replacing them.

HOWEVER.

The issue, from day one, has been how much banks profit from the charges in question. Is it ethical that banks were making profits in excess of £20billion during the good years, much of which was derived from penalty charges to customers? This is no way to run a bank, as eventually customers were going to wise-up to the swindle and either stop incurring charges or try to force change through the courts. As it is, the banks have been shamed into change. You witter on about people "learning to manage their money properly" and yet all this has occured against a backdrop of the major banks nigh bankrupting the country (yes, it really is that bad and we're nowhere near out of the woods) due to outrageously excessive risk taking, asset stripping by nomadic staff (bonuses) and general mismanagement and total dereliction of duty by lavishly rewarded executives.

Were the banks paragons of financial propriety I could just about stomach them lecturing all and sundry on why the charges are fair, and why "good customers" shouldn't subsidise the "bad". We don't have free banking you pillock. As a UK taxpyer, you're "free banking" is anything but.

The problem is, like many, you don't want to see the inherent truth of the matter because it terrifies you, you'd rather imagine the banks aren't rapacious, malevolent beasts with not a care for the general populace, helmed by greedy individuals with little or no attachment to reality.

natweststaffmember

Captain_Cautious wrote: »

It comes down to a question of ethics. We all agree that banks are businessess, not charities and as such must be run in a profitable way. This is obvious. And, whether we like it or not, in one form or another we need these institutions, until the blessed day we discover a way of replacing them.

HOWEVER.

The issue, from day one, has been how much banks profit from the charges in question. Is it ethical that banks were making profits in excess of £20billion during the good years, much of which was derived from penalty charges to customers?
In 2006 it was estimated at 4 billion pounds out of a 40 billion pound profit in total or 10% of the total profits. I don't follow this argument since I have been using this argument when people say that banks shouldn't charge for an account.

This is no way to run a bank, as eventually customers were going to wise-up to the swindle and either stop incurring charges or try to force change through the courts. As it is, the banks have been shamed into change. You witter on about people "learning to manage their money properly" and yet all this has occured against a backdrop of the major banks nigh bankrupting the country (yes, it really is that bad and we're nowhere near out of the woods) due to outrageously excessive risk taking, asset stripping by nomadic staff (bonuses) and general mismanagement and total dereliction of duty by lavishly rewarded executives.
There is no direct correlation between bonuses and the recession. For example, we did not have a massive Bearings Bank scenario where one person brought that bank down.
Were the banks paragons of financial propriety I could just about stomach them lecturing all and sundry on why the charges are fair, and why "good customers" shouldn't subsidise the "bad". We don't have free banking you pillock. As a UK taxpyer, you're "free banking" is anything but.
Interest forgone on credit balances was more in 2006 than charges as it funded 50% of the total cost of current accounts and charges was 30% of the cost.(OFT 1005c, if my reference)
The problem is, like many, you don't want to see the inherent truth of the matter because it terrifies you, you'd rather imagine the banks aren't rapacious, malevolent beasts with not a care for the general populace, helmed by greedy individuals with little or no attachment to reality.

I do understand what you are saying but the argument can be reversed to be honest.

oldwiring

Mark_GT wrote: »

:rolleyes:,,,,for a service that only costs it £5.

Unless you can prove that is so, I take assertions as that as emotional, self justifying claptrap.
:rolleyes:

natweststaffmember

It is reported that we are not going to get an announcement on the OFT test case until after the New Year

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?t=20705

tifo

MrGumby wrote: »

I will probably finish up paying charges on my account, paying to use ATMs, and so on.

Banks aren't charities.

Why should you NOT pay to use your debit card or an ATM or any other banking service? You do use these services don't you?

After all, as you correctly state, banks are not charities so why should they allow YOU to use THEIR facilities for free?

tifo

Alpine_Star wrote: »

For what it's worth, in last week's Question Time Lord Falconer - in the context of overdraft charges - was unequivocal in saying that the banks operated a ''cartel''.

Watch the 4th question option - 'Banks' http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00p36jw#p005c7wb

Is there any way of downloading only the clip and not the whole program, as a transcript is not available?

Should the statement by Mr Falconer be used in a court of law or is it just one person's opinion with no bearing on anthing?

BenS1

Just seen the clip!

Theses banks are not particurlary nice... Prehaps the government should bail us out individually everytime we go overdrawn.

:rotfl:

Bob_Roberts

Just read your response - reality is that Bank uses credit balances I keep on my account to lend to other people i.e. they borrow money from me free of charge and in return give me free Banking. The "Fines" of £35 or whatever are what helped our Banks make enormous profits - the people who didn't pay monies back that they had borrowed without asking helped our Banks incur enormous losses. Incidentally, isn't there a simple legal term for "borrowing" without asking!