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

Paul_J

MrGunner wrote: »

At the moment we are subsudising your free bank account! but its fair aslong as someone else pays for it yea?

Erm..........Yes. And thank you for doing so :j

Stephenbw

MrGunner wrote: »

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!

Not exactly:

The originator of the DD claimed the money you owed them from your bank.

They received this money from your bank and credited it to pay your bill.

The Bank then tried to recoup this from your individual account and found that there weren't the funds to do so.

It then had to reclaim the money back from the originator of your DD.

The DD originator then had to withdraw the money from your account with them reinstating your original debt.

The bank and the originator of the DD then sent you letters.

The Bank charged you a fee; the originator of the DD didn't.

PadiP

Stephenbw wrote: »

Not exactly:

The originator of the DD claimed the money you owed them from your bank.

They received this money from your bank and credited it to pay your bill.

The Bank then tried to recoup this from your individual account and found that there weren't the funds to do so.

It then had to reclaim the money back from the originator of your DD.

The DD originator then had to withdraw the money from your account with them reinstating your original debt.

The bank and the originator of the DD then sent you letters.

The Bank charged you a fee; the originator of the DD didn't.

But increasingly the originator is also charging a fee e.g. phone companies.

Stephenbw

PadiP wrote: »

But increasingly the originator is also charging a fee e.g. phone companies.

I wasn't aware of that, but it is long overdue.

As I said in another post it costs council tax payers hundreds of thousands of pounds to deal with bounced cheques and Direct Debits. Councils should be able to claim this back from those responsible.

bfb

There is a whole range of ways that people can get into a cycle of these charges starting and mounting up with interest to unmanageable levels, this particularly following long term illness, loss of work and so on.

It is not a definite sign of !!!!lessness to be in that position- it may be it may not.

Everyone who uses bank accounts receives a service and it is not unreasonable to pay proportionately for that.

However it is not reasonable for these rotten disproportionate charges which are indiscriminate in their application often adding penury to misfortune to pay for those in credit to receive the service they use for nothing.

It ill behoves those who benefit from the misfortunes of those whom the banks have been hammering with these charge by getting a free servcie to pontificate to those who have suffered from them.
No-one knows about the resaons why another may have got into the cycle of these charges. Accordingly it is foolish to make sweeping generalised statements coindemning those who have incurred charges

The judge today certainly hinted to the OFT to go ahead other ways indicating that the pursuit of these charges should go on. The reference to narrowness of the case also indicated this.

Remember banks are like people far from infallible. For example I have been offered a refund on a ppi including return of the interest paid on an "apr/Aer" basis i.e. a return of compound interest- the bank cannot calculate it doing their calculations on a simple basis, this inability to do the sums is nonsensical

This is not the end or ultimate victory for the the banks or the bile-mongers - the oft and fsa must go on to ensure that the law is applied. as intended

bfb

Thriftysaver

The Originators do charge a fee, generally about £25.

PadiP

Stephenbw wrote: »

I wasn't aware of that, but it is long overdue.

As I said in another post it costs council tax payers hundreds of thousands of pounds to deal with bounced cheques and Direct Debits. Councils should be able to claim this back from those responsible.

And they do through court costs and administration fees etc, as so they should, but they only claim their costs, and don't seek to profit from it.

jonpnash

So the FSA has now released the waiver on claims!
What does this mean.... That everyone who is trying to claim can now take their case back to banks, the FOS or county court? So the situation reverts back to what is was before July 2007? or am I missing something here.

This current OFT case was only ever limited in it's scope. Reading the judgment it seems it was judging not whether the fees were fair or not, just whether the OFT has the power to assess them.
The judges do seem to agree they are unfair, as they say this over and over in their "learned" judgment. Seems to me this would be a very good argument for a county court. i.e. the top judges in the land seem to agree that the charges are indeed unfair.

I am now going to take it to country court. Armed with the supreme court's judgment...
?

To quote...
"The members of the Court are well aware of the limited nature of the issue which
we have to decide in this appeal. But many of the general public (who are understandably
taking a close interest in the matter) are not so well aware of its limited scope. It is
therefore appropriate to spell out at the outset that the Court does not have the task of
deciding whether the system of charging personal current account customers adopted by
United Kingdom banks is fair. "

"It seems to me that this reasoning is relevant not to the question of whether the
Relevant Charges form part of the price or remuneration for the package of services
provided but to whether the method of pricing is fair. It may be open to question whether
it is fair to subsidise some customers by levies on others who experience contingencies
that they did not foresee when entering into their contracts"

MillaJoJo

Paul_J Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGunner
At the moment we are subsudising your free bank account! but its fair aslong as someone else pays for it yea?

Erm..........Yes. And thank you for doing so

There we have it, from the horse's mouth. Paul does not like the possibility of having to pay for other's banking services, but is happy for others to pay for his.

Double standards are rife nowadays, and morals are thinning.

iantresman

This issue was not about whether the banks CAN charge, it is about HOW they make an unauthorised charge.

At NO time, does the bank contact me and ask whether I would like (a) continue with by bank payment and go further overdrawn, and be charged (b) whether I would like to make funds available, and then continue with a bank payment, and not go further overdrawn.

I want to be notified if my bank payment would incur extra charges, and I want 7 days to manage a solution.