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

Eric_Jones

valetman wrote: »

I think you have missed the point entirely,, it doesnt matter how well publicised the charges are, if they are unfair and over inflated they should never be allowed to stand. banks should not be allowed to put customers over a barrel by saying that if you dont like it, tough, realistic charges are fair enough, but we should not be ripped off by them :D:D

On the contrary.
The point I'm making (perhaps not very well, and you will probably disagree) is exactly that the fees are NOT unfair, nor overinflated. The arguments made over the years have generally been that the fee is higher than it costs the bank to send out a letter.
My point is that THAT completely misses the point.
From that limited viewpoint - the charges are high.
From the viewpoint that someone has effectively stolen from the bank (repeatedly and often with apparent complete disregard for the consequences according to many on these threads) then the charge is really very , very small. In most countries you would have bigger problems as spending money that is not yours is (correctly IMHO) regarded as theft.
The bit we probably all agree on is that; If they allow you to go over without knowing it, then more leniency is appropriate in those circumstances. (If limited and rare. I have no sympathy when its done repeatedly) - Hence the suggestion for what may be appropriate going forward.
Hopefully a fairer system will ensue.
There is a big difference between "moneysaving" vs. "grabbing whatever you can irrespective of right or wrong and hang the consequences on the responsible"

valetman

rattla wrote: »

"In explaining his ruling, the Supreme Court's president Lord Phillips said that bank customers agreed to pay overdraft charges as part of the price of having a current account, so they fell outside the scope of the 1999 consumer contract regulations. "

A victory for common sense.... At Last!!!!

everyone who is reclaiming their charges knew they would be charged them, so it wasn't a surprise. Now hopefully I won't have to subsidise those that can't manage their accounts properly, by paying for my bank accounts!

maybe it wasnt a surprise, but was it fair ??? you'll be agreeing with the huge bonuses that bankers award themselves while we the taxpayer bail them out next !!!!

mikeyhinde

I do love this site and it has helped me in other sections of the forum - but if I may play devil's advocate for a moment...

Is it this site that has played a part in the success of this case?

The banks weren't really bothered about standing their ground in the early days as only a small number, almost exclusively of deserving cases, were requesting refunds.

Then the band-wagon started to roll getting on everybody who had been charged a fee... sure they may be excessive but they are known, and a lot of this group of claimants were seemingly in problems of their own doing. Of those people I know personally whom were claiming refunds, all had been charged due to financial mismanagement, overspending on luxuries and not following the rules of the account. I imagine a large proportion of the £2.6bn quoted figure is down to similar cases as opposed to those in genuine hardship or cases that have spiraled out of a single charge that wasn't their fault.

By getting all these less-than-worthy claims on board the potential cost to banks rose to such a level as to make the final outcome a little inevitable.

I feel most banks and building socities would have continued to help out those customers that got into difficulty due to exceptional circumstances, but were in control enough of their finances to approach their bank and discuss options for getting through the problems.

Just a thought like.

FWIW I don't disagree that the charges should be lower, but to prevent a moral hazard their should still be a punitive element to deter poor financial management. IMO it's the safety net for those that get into troubles not of their own making that needs to be improved.

mikealfa

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...

Not necessarily - remember, the bankls make serious money from levying these charges firstly and secondly by offering them overdraft facilities subsequently. Lots of lovely dosh for them.

MrGunner

rattla wrote: »

"In explaining his ruling, the Supreme Court's president Lord Phillips said that bank customers agreed to pay overdraft charges as part of the price of having a current account, so they fell outside the scope of the 1999 consumer contract regulations. "

A victory for common sense.... At Last!!!!

everyone who is reclaiming their charges knew they would be charged them, so it wasn't a surprise. Now hopefully I won't have to subsidise those that can't manage their accounts properly, by paying for my bank accounts!

How whould you be subsudising us? i would be paying lets say £10 a month aswell. At the moment we are subsudising your free bank account! but its fair aslong as someone else pays for it yea?

mikealfa

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.

Who are the banks to lecture us on financial professionalism??? Many of the charges incurred are as a result of a 1 day small overdraft rather than long-term financial mismanagement by people and you shouldn't forget that they make millions from these charges which are then used to fund dodgy dealings by dodgy "professionals" with dodgy clients. Yet we have still bailed them out while the rest of Britsh business has been left to rot! Is that capitalism? If it was the banks would have been left to fail. Do you work for a bank I wonder......

catinahat_2

I'd like to reiterate what many people have already said here. MARTIN AND MSE, A HUUUUUGE THANK YOU! You guys have been constant in your support and a true champion of the people.

Yes, the initial news, like an earthquake, was a shock... unexpected and disorientating.... I suspect the judge has to be careful what he says as he is supposed to remain impartial and simply oversee that both parties state their cases within the limits of the law... or rather, he's there to look at the hard and fast letter of law and referree in a sense, that both sides adhere to 'court etiquette'. I suspect his very brief comments were an attempt to let us know that whilst we may have lost this battle, we haven't lost the war.... so, as time allows those people like Martin, the OFT etc, the QC that Martin will find for us, to absorb this ruling and pursue other avenues, we should not give up but consolidate whatever efforts or offerings that we can; in order to achieve a collective aim here. ie redress some injustices and get back some of our money... thanks again everyone. Onwards and upwards!!! CatX:T

MrGunner

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.

Ok fine how did i spend money i didnt have? did the bank pay the direct debit for me .... no! all they did was send me a letter and tell the originator of my direct debit that i couldnt pay!

PadiP

SnargleFlip wrote: »

What I find really odd is the quotes that 'the banks argued on the basis that they would have to pay more than £20b should the ruling go against them'.

Since when has an inability to pay a fine or penalty ever been used as defence in a court of law?

Er, when it's a bank or a government...

Wondering_Star_2

Big Question for me:

Is it possible that the Supreme Court Judge refferred to the credit reference / credit file aspect of over overdraft actions?

I mean if we have agreed "over overdraft charges" with our banks and then been negatively scored in a nationwide credit file due to this would that be "Not in Good Faith"?

You can gladly answer by e-mail as I'm still dissapointed that over overdraft facilities cannot be removed from current accounts by choice (was told it was automated many years ago)