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

jamespir

vhadfield1805 wrote: »

I do hope that everyone does get there money back, but the thing that worries me is that some banks have said that if they have to pay back all the money, they will just get the money back via other means.

Like charging us £2.50 everytime we draw cash out, at the moment its free and charging us for having an overdraft facility which at the moment is also free with most banks. So we never really win against the banks.

I have also know some people that have had money from the banks and then subsequently been asked to close their accounts and leave the bank and have then had trouble getting an account with another bank.

I just hope that this doesn't back fire on us and cost us more money in the long run!

you pay afee t have an overdraft any way so theres no change there

frenchprop

MillaJoJo wrote: »

I knew it wasn't the end despite the banks and the media carefully wording thier statements.

Hi terrible news to all claimants and the superb work put in by you all
Just a thought now that banks are saying they will now charge us £10.0 for sinning then surely this is an admission that their original charges ie £30-60 was too high and we might be able to re-submit our claims for at least the difference
no doubt we will all await your meetings with the lawyers
good luck

levineg10

The banks have won - what a fantastic result!!

Fee Free banking to continue for those in credit.

river

PEOPLE POWER - LETS PUT A BANK OUT OF BUSINESS!

I've never objected to being charged...but I want to be charged FAIRLY! When various heads of the institutions themselves have said that a charge of around £5 would have been enough, there is no ethically defensible reason to charge anything more than that!

I have a small suggestion...but as always, it needs people to realise that they do indeed have the power to make a change. We are the ones who ultimately grant power to these overgrown and obese organisations who are feeding upon our blood to fatten their own flesh and we can change things around...apparently not completely through legal means as the judicial system seems to have abandoned us. But there are always ways...short of a revolution, we may be able to show our power through one act.

LET’S BOYCOTT ONE BANK.

Let’s agree on boycotting one bank and everyone who is a member of that bank, abandons it for another. Granted, it will just give more business to the other banks but...if we all abandon one of them, EFFECTIVELY PUTTING IT OUT OF BUSINESS...the rest of them will know that we can do it to them too.

I would simply recommend targeting one of the banks that took part in this court case...

pie81

Sorry... but the type of customer who is upset about bank charges, is generally the type of customer banks aren't too bothered about losing...

valetman

I was 0.15p overdrawn this morning , and lloyds have just charged me £39 as it took them 4 days to tell me about it with a letter, i complained and was told they would waive half the fees if i agreed to let them charge me £2.50 a month for a text message to let me know i was overdrawn, i said i have internet banking now, and didnt need it. So they charged me full whack , i said i would take them to court as i had i before and won £987 in previous charges,, then my bank manager said with the biggest smile ive ever seen .... the decision on bank charges has went with the banks, didnt you know ?? i honestly could have swung for his smug little face, thank god for martin and the team continuing the fight, hopefully the fight wont take another two years and that the OFT can make a succsessful case based on clause 5 instead of 6, ( maybe they should have done this in the 1st place though ??) will the OFT take this to the european court to appeal the supreme courts decision or will it be be a whole new claim on clause 5 ? keep up the good work MSE ..... Valetman:D:D:D

mramra

valetman wrote: »

I was 0.15p overdrawn this morning , and lloyds have just charged me £39 as it took them 4 days to tell me about it with a letter, i complained and was told they would waive half the fees if i agreed to let them charge me £2.50 a month for a text message to let me know i was overdrawn, i said i have internet banking now, and didnt need it. So they charged me full whack , i said i would take them to court as i had i before and won £987 in previous charges,, then my bank manager said with the biggest smile ive ever seen .... the decision on bank charges has went with the banks, didnt you know ?? i honestly could have swung for his smug little face, thank god for martin and the team continuing the fight, hopefully the fight wont take another two years and that the OFT can make a succsessful case based on clause 5 instead of 6, ( maybe they should have done this in the 1st place though ??) will the OFT take this to the european court to appeal the supreme courts decision or will it be be a whole new claim on clause 5 ? keep up the good work MSE ..... Valetman:D:D:D

So you got yourself into a situation where you had £987 of charges in the past. Didn't you learn from that? If it were me it would have scared me so much that I would have ensured I never went into unauthorised arrears ever again.

Eric_Jones

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.

valetman

the banks are saying that when we open up an account with them, we accept there terms and conditions, but if we dont accept them, then we dont get a bank account, and lets face it, how does one survive in this day and age without one ? What does the supreme court judge expect people to do ?? the law is as usual an !!!.

MicheH

pie81 wrote: »

Sorry... but the type of customer who is upset about bank charges, is generally the type of customer banks aren't too bothered about losing...

The type of customer who are bothered about bank charges are the exact type of customer the banks want to keep.. they thrive off people who can't pay their credit cards each month, people going over drawn, people needing 'bailout loans'