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

Centium5000

musashi10 wrote: »

Is it possible to get clarification please as to whether new claims can be made against credit card companies after this ruling?

Thank you very much.

This ruling shouldn't affect credit card claims as the issues involved are different.

Rather than charging you for rejecting payments / providing an unauthorised overdraft, credit card companies are charging for late payment / non-payment which is a penalty (default) charge not a charge for services.

This is still not enforceable in common law - they would have to demonstrate either that it isn't a penalty charge (yeah right!) or that it is proportional to their costs (ha!).

That's probably why the credit card companies weren't invlolved in this case.

I'm not a solicitor, but I believe that to be a fair reading.

HTH

meher

Don't defend the bank, it's not their money. It is people's money. You read a little more and you'd sense that it is a political decision more than a judicial one. I think Martin is very much on the right track and consistent with his working for and to emower consumers, it is so much appreciated although I don't agree with all of the justifications but that is me being consistent in finding somthing to disagree with.

Cardew

For the first infringement, I can understand that someone would be upset if they were not aware of the high charges that would be incurred.

However many of the cases I read about involve individuals who time and time again commit the same infringements and pay charges of thousands of pounds over a period of years.

There can be no 'defence' that they were unaware of the conditions of their account and yet they continued to 'offend' - and seemingly were prepared to pay the charges for their actions.

Surely once you have been 'stung' you have to be crazy to continue to stick your arm into a wasps nest.

Centium5000

robberrob wrote: »

Why not stop this campaign
...
BUT just look at the alternative - Do you want the bank to bounce any payment that takes you 'just a bit' over your limit ---They used to.
Do you want to pay even if you dont go over your limit - just to cover the people who do??? I Dont

If you use a service you have to pay for it , and remember if you dont go overdrawn you dont pay.

I and many others would prefer to have the bank bounce the payment and us pay a (reasonable) cost to the payee rather than be charged for a service disproportionate to the benefit it provides.

We should at least have the choice of allowing payments to bounce - we'd then be protected from unreasonable charges from the payee, only real loss would be payable (e.g. normal interest) to whomever we owed the money.

I'm afraid you misunderstand about the free banking system. If a charge was introduced it wouldn't be "to cover the people who do" go overdrawn.

The banks admitted in this court case that the charges have nothing to do with the cost of overdrafts etc. The current charges are used to subsidise to whole current account banking system.

Subsidise means to make cheaper than it would otherwise be - i.e. free banking is some customers having a free ride at the expense of others. The fairest system would be for charges to be in proportion to the services actually used. That would end free banking but would be fair.

The question is, do you believe in fairness?

Cardew

jonpnash wrote: »

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

To quote...
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"

In elaboration of an earlier post!

So on the first occasion you were charged this sum "that you did not forsee"(because you never read the small print!) their Lordship's judgement might give you grounds for complaint and redress.

However surely for subsequent occasions when you breached the conditions of the account that 'defence' is null and void?

Or is your argument that only the first 'unforseen!!' charge should be refunded?

irishdanc

I believe the banking system should be fair.
I think today's judgement was more about imposing the legitimacy of a new supreme court. Previously I have always accepted the judgements of the appeal court as being cast iron so was a bit gob smacked to see the case go even further.
Common sense will prevail!

jonnyb1978

I have to be synical here and state thats its all one big conspiracy. At the end of the day banks are a business and work close to the government. In order for the banks to thrive they need people to pay charges. Lets face it if everyone suddenly started to manage there money properly and have no overdraft charges, dd defaults etc etc the banks would be charging everyone even more to make up for the short fall in lost profits. These vunerable people that they prey on keep the banks in business not the the ones managing their accounts properly.
At the end of the day they and the government and credit card companies love and secretly encourage these people to stay in debt to fund their big fat cat corporations.

It a monoply that gives the consumer no choice. How do we survive without a bank. Personally i dont want one as they have no interest in me as an individual although i chose to bank with them. They never reason, they never listen. I would rather collect my wages from my payroll department stick my money in the house under a floor board.
What i would like to come of this though is a genuine bank rising out of the flames who will listen, who do have common sense and understanding, one who will charge fair and more important one who will have the customers interests at heart. Im sure this bank would flourish as everyone would move accounts and they would profit big time out of genuine fairness.

lauriepops

Looking at a copy of the letter my sister posted on my behalf it doesnt make any reference to subsections or what have you so does that mean that they're more likely to review it properly than if it had said "section 6" or "section 5" or whatever?

Centium5000

Cardew wrote: »

In elaboration of an earlier post!

So on the first occasion you were charged this sum "that you did not forsee"(because you never read the small print!) their Lordship's judgement might give you grounds for complaint and redress.

However surely for subsequent occasions when you breached the conditions of the account that 'defence' is null and void?

Or is your argument that only the first 'unforseen!!' charge should be refunded?

I'm afraid you may have misunderstood the original quote Cardew...

It isn't about whether the consumer 'foresaw' the terms in the contract, the Lords assume that we read the thing!

The Supreme Court is questioning whether it is fair to subsidise financially stable accounts with charges levied on those experiencing contingencies (personal circumstances) they hadn't foreseen when entering into the contract.

The banks are doing this and make you complicit in this by giving you something for free you would otherwise have to pay for.

More succinctly, is it fair to profit from another's misfortune?

valetman

if a million people marched in protest to the houses of parliament and caused such a fuss, then i guarantee you that things would happen very quickly