Court rules banks can !!!!!! you provided they warn you first

Former_Spice

From one of the best sites on the web.

Millions of bank customers have been told by a Supreme Court judgement that banks can take them roughly from behind, just as long as the banks tell them it is coming in their small print.

The court has overturned earlier court rulings that allowed the Office of Fair Trading to investigate the fairness of them taking everything you own simply because you borrowed a tenner without getting written consent in advance.

A bankers union representative told us, “This is obviously a victory for common sense. Well, common sense and billion pound commercial enterprises.”

Banks were keen to stress that they had done nothing wrong in applying extortionate punitive fees to people who unexpectedly went overdrawn.
“Look, if there was a sign on dark alley that said you were very likely to get raped if you used it, then you can’t blame the rapist when you get attacked and repeatedly violated.”

“He made it very clear what was going to happen, and it doesn’t matter if your other routes home were all on fire - he gave you fair notice, and therefore did nothing wrong.”

“So we’re a bit like that rapist, and you’re a bit like the victim who hasn’t had the foresight to plan a better route home.”

Fair

The courts have issued a statement claiming that the ruling has nothing to do with the the Government owning a significant interest in pretty much all of the banks at risk in the case.

“Of course not,” said Supreme court president Lord Phillips.

“Banks cannot be held to the standards you or I adhere to.”

“If we mismanage our finances, we should get financially raped, but if the banks mismanage their finances, they should get billions in support from the Government - it’s only fair.”

“The fact that the Government pays my wages, decides if I keep a job, and provides me with an excellent pension, has nothing to do with my decision in this case whatsoever.”

michaelvintner

You have a right to your opionion but I don't think it is right to compare what has happened to rape, which is a vile crime committed by vile people who should be hung.

Ask a rape victim if being charged £35 for going over their overdraft was indeed in the same league as being violated by a vile pervert.

Justr trying to say that I don't think it should even be mentioned in the same statement.

Would people please get a grip on things.

pingchris

March on london march on these horrible nasty con men who are screwing you and me into the ground,i hate these people,what example are they setting the young of britain,rip off is good ,con is good ,lies are good,deception is good,

they need to be stopped,britain is crumbling while they take there cash and sit in there deck chairs sipping whisky,they laugh at us,they lie to us,they steal from us and what do we do,we type words into computers like i am doing now,as its the only way to vent our anger,they think they can stop millions from marching on them,i hope we march to london,every man and woman,to get these GOONS to take notice of what they are doing to my country,i hate them,i want them out,the stench coming from number 10 downing street makes me sick

michaelvintner

pingchris wrote: »

March on london march on these horrible nasty con men who are screwing you and me into the ground,i hate these people,what example are they setting the young of britain,rip off is good ,con is good ,lies are good,deception is good,

they need to be stopped,britain is crumbling while they take there cash and sit in there deck chairs sipping whisky,they laugh at us,they lie to us,they steal from us and what do we do,we type words into computers like i am doing now,as its the only way to vent our anger,they think they can stop millions from marching on them,i hope we march to london,every man and woman,to get these GOONS to take notice of what they are doing to my country,i hate them,i want them out,the stench coming from number 10 downing street makes me sick

Bout time for a revolution actually, lol.

ILW

Or to rephrase the header.
Courts rule that banks can xxx you as long as you agree to let them,

Snakeeyes21

Then dont agree to contracts your not happy with

or get an authorized overdraft instead of using an an unauthorized one then complaining of unfair charges which you knew would be levied when you use the unauthorized overdraft

Im sure you dont sign employment contracts if your not happy with them

poppingjay

Hello everyone, I've been lurking these boards for a long time but recent developments compelled me to post. Oh where to start?

Firstly, I wouldn't mind so much if having a bank account was an avoidable luxury but it isn't and is thus a public service and as such should not rip people off 'just because they can'. Ethics simply must come into play - business is a tool of human interaction, not some insatiable beast that must be obeyed. It amazes me how many people are good pets just because the inherent unfairness of a system doesn't effect them personally.

All the money is in private corporate hands and the only thing of value in our society is a spanking fine credit rating. The banks create this 'credit' out of thin air when they give you a loan or mortgage in fact the only thing of real value is your next 30 years of toil to repay it. From my perspective the problem is far bigger than their freedom to extort ludicrous fees should you God forbid have insufficient funds.

The finances of a country should not be left to the whim a handful of very rich bankers, can anyone see rosy future for our grandchildren if they are left unchecked? Banks love model citizens as they earn a fortune off them in mortgage repayments - its a win-win situation for them. If a housing crash happens you still own them the money - tough luck, your risk?

How can unfair terms and conditions suddenly be fair because it's printed in some glossy leaflet?

iolanthe07

while they take there cash and sit in there deckchairs

The thing is, though, these people probably know the difference between 'there' and 'their'.

MillaJoJo

iolanthe07 wrote: »

while they take there cash and sit in there deckchairs

The thing is, though, these people probably know the difference between 'there' and 'their'.

Pedantic much?

nsabournemouth

Snakeeyes21 wrote: »

Then dont agree to contracts your not happy with

or get an authorized overdraft instead of using an an unauthorized one then complaining of unfair charges which you knew would be levied when you use the unauthorized overdraft

Im sure you dont sign employment contracts if your not happy with them

Does a bank pay a DD if there is not enough money in your account?

Do you borrow any money from the bank or anyone else if there is no money in your account to pay a DD?

mojjie

poppingjay wrote: »

Hello everyone, I've been lurking these boards for a long time but recent developments compelled me to post. Oh where to start?

Firstly, I wouldn't mind so much if having a bank account was an avoidable luxury but it isn't and is thus a public service and as such should not rip people off 'just because they can'. Ethics simply must come into play - business is a tool of human interaction, not some insatiable beast that must be obeyed. It amazes me how many people are good pets just because the inherent unfairness of a system doesn't effect them personally.

All the money is in private corporate hands and the only thing of value in our society is a spanking fine credit rating. The banks create this 'credit' out of thin air when they give you a loan or mortgage in fact the only thing of real value is your next 30 years of toil to repay it. From my perspective the problem is far bigger than their freedom to extort ludicrous fees should you God forbid have insufficient funds.

The finances of a country should not be left to the whim a handful of very rich bankers, can anyone see rosy future for our grandchildren if they are left unchecked? Banks love model citizens as they earn a fortune off them in mortgage repayments - its a win-win situation for them. If a housing crash happens you still own them the money - tough luck, your risk?

How can unfair terms and conditions suddenly be fair because it's printed in some glossy leaflet?

Oh where to start indeed - you have got a bank account, you read the terms and conditions I presume in that glossy leaflet you mention and duly signed up so caveat emptor I would have thought. I would not dispute with you that the charges are unfair, iniquitous and pretty indefensible and that banks as a whole are a cancer on society but no one forced you to sign up to a bank account or have an overdraft. That maybe unpalatable but is true.

I am also not sure how you think this thin air credit works. You buy a house off me, get a mortgage to do so and I am paid nothing? The mortgage company fronts perfectly real money. If not the whole sub prime bubble would merely be a mirage and everybody would be hunk dory.