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

valetman

although the supreme court is the highest court in the land, it can only enforce the law...... its parliament that MAKES the laws !!!!!!!!! and MP's are all only there through being elected by you and me.. get in touch with your MP and DEMAND he / she takes action on our behalf

nsabournemouth

I think we should just sit and wait for those in the know what can and will happen next.

I alsot hink that certain people should think before they say that those who get charged should learn to manage their money.

We are well aware that when things go wrong you can get charges. We should also remeber that banking is free for some because some pay the huge charges for going overdrawn. I would also say that as the bank do not pay the DD if there is not enough money in an account what are they actually borrowing from the bank?

The head of RBS has said that people need to pay the bank for their services. Well in that case it shouldn't be the 1 in 5 who get charged but everyone and some banks should remember why they are still around.

Sappoo21

I can't see what harm a well worded petition on the No.10 website
with everyone signing up to it the mp's would take note of this or better
a massed rally on whitehall with as many disgruntled MSE website users
as possible.

:eek:

Cardew

Centium5000 wrote: »

!

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?

I agree with your interpretation.

However would it not mean that for every individual charge a plaintiff would need to prove 'hardship' or 'misfortune' had caused the infringement of the rules?

Let us be frank, when an individual was charged for the first time he would then be aware of the situation and should take steps to avoid getting overdrawn.

Many of those now protesting simply carried on in full knowledge of the implications of their actions and breached the conditions time and time again. They now see this campaign as a chance to jump on a gravy train.

I would have more sympathy for a campaign to limit excessive charges in future.

BernardM

Let's face it, when it comes to unarranged overdrafts, the biggest offenders in history are the banks themselves, who have just had a multibillion-pound unarranged overdraft from the taxpayer to pay for their irresponsible and profligate handling of our money.

DotingDad

valetman wrote: »

although the supreme court is the highest court in the land, it can only enforce the law...... its parliament that MAKES the laws !!!!!!!!! and MP's are all only there through being elected by you and me.. get in touch with your MP and DEMAND he / she takes action on our behalf

The EU made this law not our parliament and EU law takes precedence over that made by our elected representatives

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/11/stunning-victory.html

junebjh

Tell me why I should pay for banking services to subsidise people who can't stay in credit. If you can't pay for it wait until you can. What's hard about that?

Marsdendean

Because people sometimes are unaware when direct debits are going out, and card payments are sometimes delayed.

Ive got £1600 in overdrawn charges with abbey, yet they wouldnt even consider an overdraft!

DotingDad

junebjh wrote: »

Tell me why I should pay for banking services to subsidise people who can't stay in credit. If you can't pay for it wait until you can. What's hard about that?

People are compelled to have a bank account and to pay for essentials by direct debit.

If their income, through no fault of their own, is irregular then they enter a spiral of debt.

The point for me is not the principle of charging for being overdrawn but the excesssive amounts compared to the actual cost to the bank.

It is blatant profiteering or, to put it another way, licenced mugging!!

Centium5000

junebjh wrote: »

Tell me why I should pay for banking services to subsidise people who can't stay in credit. If you can't pay for it wait until you can. What's hard about that?

We can't tell you why because that's never been suggested June.

The idea is that the people who can't stay in credit stop subsidising you.

You then pay for the services you use. They pay for theirs.

Hope this helps to clear it up for you.