Why Reclaim Bank Charges

hicskis

It won't be interesting because it will be slow and the banks will win. The end game if the OFT does not come back on board will be Personal Accounts in the UK with monthly management fees or keep your account in substantial credit at no interest and no fees. They have these across the board in Canada and it sucks.

The Office of Fair Trading is supposed to be on the side of consumers - without them where does that leave us?

natweststaffmember

hicskis wrote: »

It won't be interesting because it will be slow and the banks will win. The end game if the OFT does not come back on board will be Personal Accounts in the UK with monthly management fees or keep your account in substantial credit at no interest and no fees. They have these across the board in Canada and it sucks.

The Office of Fair Trading is supposed to be on the side of consumers - without them where does that leave us?

Which is why they are looking at the way it currently works and to make changes to it. Historic charges are no longer in their remit and the OFT cannot represent one claimant over everyone else.

hicskis

Thanks for that natweststaffmember - let's just hope that change when it finally comes - will be for the better.

Cleany

hicskis wrote: »

Did i say that? But if you want proof you have to look no further than our Member's of Parliament...(expenses and all that).

i didnt ask for proof of the existance of corruption at all, i asked for proof that there was corruption involved in the court ruling

hicskis wrote: »

It won't be interesting because it will be slow and the banks will win. The end game if the OFT does not come back on board will be Personal Accounts in the UK with monthly management fees or keep your account in substantial credit at no interest and no fees. They have these across the board in Canada and it sucks.

well exactly is that where we want to end up? this campaign will not result in anything good.

hicskis wrote: »

The Office of Fair Trading is supposed to be on the side of consumers - without them where does that leave us?

the office of fair trading website says:

The OFT's mission is to make markets work well for consumers.

Not intefering in markets for the sake of some consumers at the expense of others.

People can believe that the only reason that the campaign failed is that the impotence of the OFT prevented justice being done. But the facts are that the supreme court ruled in favour of the banks.

hicskis

By Cleany:
But the facts are that the supreme court ruled in favour of the banks.

On a point of Law. The OFT could have taken it to Europe and had the ruling overturned again but they didn't. They've chosen to change the way things are done over time. The banks want fee based bank accounts because that is guaranteed revenue and that was the way it was headed - we & the OFT don't - unlike charges which are fickle and subject to people like you and me going overdrawn.

The arguement that the account has to be subsidised is daft - purely because the banks make so much money from all their core activities that they don't need this extra revenue.

This topic was about - why claim bank charges?

It 's because they are unfair - they are grossly disproportionate for the breach occurred, are levied in a devious manner, and hurt those the most that cannot afford them.

On the counterside the banks can easily introduce systems that stop people going overdrawn - refuse payments etc - but they don't.

There are arguments on both sides, the banks are very powerful and have lots of money - and it is those with the power and lots of money that write the rules my friend.

This is why we are fighting - for justice to be done.

esmerellda

hicskis wrote: »

It won't be interesting because it will be slow and the banks will win. The end game if the OFT does not come back on board will be Personal Accounts in the UK with monthly management fees or keep your account in substantial credit at no interest and no fees. They have these across the board in Canada and it sucks.

The Office of Fair Trading is supposed to be on the side of consumers - without them where does that leave us?

I do think the OFT are on the side of consumers with the future of banking. I've met with them a couple of times now and they are very receptive to what consumers want.They are by definition a bit detached from what actually happens on the ground level and have relied on statistics from orgainisations like citizens advice, which? and of course consumer direct to work out what people want and have issues with, but they are now putting a lot more effort into communicating with the people who are on the ground level, face to face (or post to post) with consumers on a daily basis and I think this is showing in the way they are trying (against the odds in many ways) to improve things for consumers. http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/personal-current-accounts/OFT1123.pdf I don;t know how many people have read this report, but it is very interesting, and is due to be updated middle of March.

Hisckis - I have just added in a small para about the CRA issue as dicussed on your Is it Unfair? thread to our final submission to the OFT on PCA markets. It is only a little bit tho as they actually wanted it on Monday and I'm rather behind.

hicskis

Thanks esmerellda

Cleany

hicskis wrote: »

On a point of Law. The OFT could have taken it to Europe and had the ruling overturned again but they didn't. They've chosen to change the way things are done over time. The banks want fee based bank accounts because that is guaranteed revenue and that was the way it was headed - we & the OFT don't - unlike charges which are fickle and subject to people like you and me going overdrawn.

The arguement that the account has to be subsidised is daft - purely because the banks make so much money from all their core activities that they don't need this extra revenue.

I don't think that's right. The banks don't have to run their current accounts at a loss just because they make money somewhere else.

hicskis wrote: »

This topic was about - why claim bank charges?

It 's because they are unfair - they are grossly disproportionate for the breach occurred, are levied in a devious manner, and hurt those the most that cannot afford them.

I don't think they are unfair or disproportionate.

I accept that they may be seen as being levied "in a devious manner", but I wouldn't describe it like that.

To say that they hurt those that cannot afford them is a manipulative and deceptive statement. You are appealing to a sense of social justice, while ignoring that fact that these charges are a result of a breach of agreement in the first place, and also ignoring the effects this happening on a large scale.

It's this kind of disproportionate argument, ignoring the responsibilities of the customer, that convinces me that it was a good thing that the campaign has failed up to now.

hicskis wrote: »

On the counterside the banks can easily introduce systems that stop people going overdrawn - refuse payments etc - but they don't.

I don't think so. Lack of liquidity costs money somewhere, the responsibliity should lie with those that can do something about it, i.e. those that owe the money and caused it in the first place, i.e. the customer that can't meet their financial obligations.

hicskis wrote: »

There are arguments on both sides, the banks are very powerful and have lots of money - and it is those with the power and lots of money that write the rules my friend.

Again it's the simplistic argument casting the banks as the evil baddies, and the customers as innocents. That's simply not correct.

hicskis wrote: »

This is why we are fighting - for justice to be done.

Justice? Or a squabble for cash with no regard to the consequences?

hicskis

By Cleany:
"I don't think so. Lack of liquidity costs money somewhere, the responsibliity should lie with those that can do something about it, i.e. those that owe the money and caused it in the first place, i.e. the customer that can't meet their financial obligations."

The problem with your argument lies right here - the bank's would be the ones that caused it in the first place by lending the money in the first place for the profit that they want to make.

But i would agree that people need to manage themselves better - the problem is they don't.

natweststaffmember

Cleany, you will never see someone else's argument so can you just leave this thread alone cos to be honest, you are boring everyone off this thread, and unfortunately, other posters come along when what they should do is shut up, leave this thread to go and hopefully you will go. Hicskis, just leave Cleany alone cos they are here just to argue about nothing.
Cleany, appreciate your view but I'm bored now so can you just give your final speech on how fair bank charges are, how stupid campaigners are and how much we are all wearing rose tinted glasses and we can move on and actually help people?