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

NeilW

Having done the fighting court cases part myself back in 2000 I can tell you categorically that only the lawyers will win whatever the outcome. What needs to happen now is that the law needs altering to stop these charges from happening - and that needs engagement with the politicians

I don't buy the banks 'divide and conquer' FUD trick of trying to suggest that credit customers will pay if these charges are stopped. That would simply show that the banks are running a cartel, since nobody in a competitive market can simply dictate prices. Running a cartel is illegal under the Enterprise Act.

The banks have sent us all up a garden path and it is time that they were sorted out with a legally enforceable set of rules - in return for a licence to operate.

- Banks can only charge consumers based on a interest rate directly proportional to the amount borrowed and the length of time borrowed. No 'fees' or 'charges' for anything. They are nothing other than hidden interest anyway. That should apply to *all* loans, mortgages and overdrafts.

- Banks must clear all transactions instantly - no three day waits for money. There is no reason why they can't do this other than feet dragging.

- 'Utility' banks must be as insulated as possible from 'casino' banks - as a condition of receiving protection under the depositors protection scheme.

And if the current lot won't enact the legislation necessary to sort out the banks, then the other lot should be pressed to make the necessary commitment, including a timescale, in their manifesto.

I suggest that we now need to change tactics and target the politicial parties. There is an election coming and we should use that to get this sorted.

NeilW

NeilW

DAYTIMETVH8R wrote: »

I mean come on, you can have a bank account for nothing, zilch, £0.

You've fallen for the Bank's FUD. The bank makes its money from those in credit by lending out their deposits again using the fractional system. For that it charges an interest rate.

The difference between the rate lent and the rate paid to the current account holder, less costs is how a bank makes its money. Moreover it is precisely how a bank should make its money.

Banks make much more money from credit customers than overdraft customers - something like £4 billion pounds of revenue from credit customers and £2 billion from overdraft charges. And that neatly finishes off Martin's 'new' argument, because in reality it is the credit customers that are subsidising the overdraft customers...

NeilW

Felicity101

JHC wrote: »

In some places, such as France and Hong Kong, unauthorised overdrafts on current accounts are not allowed at all - they are regarded as a form of stealing.

Stealing. Really? Well, I consider the banks getting themselves in difficuly, and being bailed out by the government, using taxpayers' money as another form of 'stealing'.

I would like to charge them for that - except it would run into millions.....

Felicity101

And I wasn't going to mention the enormous bonuses that the bank workers got for making a complete pig's ear out of everything. I do my job well but I don't get a bonus...

simon_templar_2

Banks and bankers pay tax also. Perhaps the tax they pay was actually the part used to 'bail' them out and not tax paid by others?

Sol00

james10999 wrote: »

I'd much prefer to continue with the same system as we have now. If this got changed, we would move towards a more structured fee processed banking system. At the moment, the bank get's their money from the numpties who go overdrawn all the time. I'm happy for this and to keep my banking free!

If this got changed it would be a fair, transparent system where people knew what they'd be paying for their accounts at the time of account opening. Perhaps the 'numpties' are those that feel those at the bottom of the income bracket should fund those that can afford their accounts. :rolleyes:

Smasher

simon_templar wrote: »

Banks and bankers pay tax also. Perhaps the tax they pay was actually the part used to 'bail' them out and not tax paid by others?

Wouldn't it be nice if we could all use the tax we've paid to bail ourselves out when we get in trouble. If that were available to all, bank charges wouldn't really be an issue in the first place would it?

simon_templar_2

Tax paid goes into a big pot and pays for all sorts. I dont understand the frothing at the mouth about banks. What about the NHS? Tax payer money funds that yet most people have to pay for prescriptions? Where are the jumping up and downers about that?

Smasher

Nice, justify one pointless statement by making another..

simon_templar_2

Not my fault people cant organise themselves not to incur bank charges. The paranoia brigade banging on about tax payer money are deluded and ill informed.