MSE News: Bank charges fighting on: a new legal argument

ashleydavies1984

Did you give the same reponse mramra when the people we trusted to manage our money lived above thier means and spent big bonus and then came running to the goverment for a quick buck to help them out? Tax payers money then helped these greedy fat cats getting rich, perhaps its the peoples way of saying we'd like OUR MONEY back.

Maybe if you stopped your arrogance for a second and thought about it for a while you'd realise we are in a ression and losing your job which is of nobody's doing, sometimes leads to you being overdrawn getting yourself in situations you wouldn't usually get yourself in to. And the reason of these people losing thier job, ression due to the banks bad management of funds!

What an ignorant clown you are. :T

oscar52

edwace wrote: »

No I`m afraid your mistaken ,the principle is equally applicable to UK Banks and credit Card companys ,banks world wide are all in the same boat.

UK Financill law does not apply in the US. US financial law does not apply in the UK - even if it is a US backed bank - such as MBNA and Bank of America - they still have to comply with UK financial law. You cannot say that because banks in America refunded / waived fees then all other banks worldwide have to do the same.

MrLeeLee

Just heard Martin Lewis on Radio 2 say that they will be announcing the next step on reclaiming bank charges on Monday.

Think I heard right, sorry if I didn't!

kjetilniki

i note that Martin's QC has taken up my thought on s140A-D Consumer Credit Act as being a way forward. i am dubious aabout tRegulation 5 arguments.

if people are interested in seeing the result of s140B CCA challenge in different circumstances then can read just published Patel v Patel [Sorry as a new user you are not allowed to post with links. This is done to stop spammers clogging up the site. Please edit your message below to continue]
on the web at bailli which is an org address searching under citation [2009] EWHC 3264 (QB)

Centium5000

Yeah, thanks for originally pointing that out kjetilniki, much appreciated.

pingchris

the oft said that bank charges should only represent the actual cost to the bank for an issue of a charge,this is reported to be approx £2.00,who has the actual costs on paper,why cant we see them,i have asked about them but have been waffled at by bank staff,"but its a service she said,it all part of the service"no i said,i want the actual costs to administer a charge on an account",again she waffled about the service they provide,this is troubling me,1.why cant we see them,why has the oft not demanded to see them if there is doubt,after all the oft insisted they were to be the actual cost and not to draw a profit,banks pursue people for these charges and take people to court over them as if it is a debt,this also troubles my logic,watchdog say they have evidence that bank charges actually cost between £1 and £2,surely this case can be wrapped up if we knew the actual costs to the bank,why have the oft not pursued this or if they have what was the outcome ?

the supreme court ruling right,we never got to see them,what a cover up

natweststaffmember

pingchris wrote: »

the oft said that bank charges should only represent the actual cost to the bank for an issue of a charge,this is reported to be approx £2.00,who has the actual costs on paper,why cant we see them,i have asked about them but have been waffled at by bank staff,"but its a service she said,it all part of the service"no i said,i want the actual costs to administer a charge on an account",again she waffled about the service they provide,this is troubling me,1.why cant we see them,why has the oft not demanded to see them if there is doubt,after all the oft insisted they were to be the actual cost and not to draw a profit,banks pursue people for these charges and take people to court over them as if it is a debt,this also troubles my logic,watchdog say they have evidence that bank charges actually cost between £1 and £2,surely this case can be wrapped up if we knew the actual costs to the bank,why have the oft not pursued this or if they have what was the outcome ?
That argument is about charges being penalties but since they are within the terms and conditions then they are not penal whatsoever. They are for a package of services which may or may not be fair
the supreme court ruling right,we never got to see them,what a cover up

Stop making farcical statements without reading the various judgements. You can't use the penalty argument and you keep using it.

Centium5000

Oh Nattie, you couldn't resist, could you?

Check this out pingchris, it'll really cook your noodle:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_doYllBk5No&feature=related

If all money is debt, however useful it might be, is bank 'cost' relevant at all? Costs are incurred by businesses that don't create their own money. Banks have liabilities and assets, but do they have costs in any real sense?

orc_2

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Stop making farcical statements without reading the various judgements. You can't use the penalty argument and you keep using it.

Perhaps you really should have resisted the temptation Nattie. It is the season of goodwill.

Chris is entitled to his views. He is passionate. He has been wronged by the banks and is entitled to vent his frustrations. Remember, you have previously stated that you have never incurred a bank charge, which is great for you. Following on from that, you presumably have not suffered the pain of being hammered continually by the banks. (I do of course accept your much valued assistance and contribution to the campaign, without doubt)

Frustrations which we have all felt and many relate to. If his views cannot be aired on here, where can it be? As I know you are aware, but I will remind you, "if you don't agree with a post, you don't necessarily need to feel obliged to reply". Sometimes it works better that way.

Compliments of the season to you Nattie.

pingchris

firstly thanks actually to natwest,he or she puts me back on track as to what the arguments are after i spout off,thats good it needs to be said by someone who actually understands what is going on.it helps me get my head around the true facts,the banks have very cleverly wrapped up there agreements in this term of "charges are part of the service they provide when you agree to sign for an account" something along those lines right ? that being the case i need to rethink and attack from a different angle.

thanks for keeping me right nat although your patience will wain lol:eek: