MSE News: Pre-Budget Report: Action promised on unfair bank charges

Premier_2

Consumerist wrote: »

On the contrary, I think it is you who doesn't understand the point of this site.

There is a difference between saving money at the expense of rich fat-cat companies (e.g. banks) who employ every low trick in the book to separate us from our hard-earned cash and saving money at the expense of the less fortunate who happen to have made a minor infringement of complicated terms & conditions.
.

Where do you think any company gets it's revenue from?

Including those that this site aims itself at?

MoneySavingExpert.com® is dedicated to saving you money on anything & everything by finding the best deals and beating the system...

At the moment, you too can benefit from free banking by beating the system ... admittedly at the expense of others but when isn't that the case?

With the situation you think would be better, you wont be able to "beat the system" and could be forced into paying £500 a year for something that us real moneysavingexperts do currently enjoy for free

BigBudgie

I for one do not think there is any problem for those that are clever or fortunate enough to manipulate the system and enjoy free or even profit making banking for themselves. Those that are able to do so are moneysavingexperts.

But let's get one thing straight, those who are not enjoying such a situation are not really actually paying charges and unauthorised overdraught interest to subsidise so called free banking for others. That perception is just a pure invention of the Banks and one that they used to fool the Supreme Court.

Banks do not really rely on bank charges to fund the running of personal current accounts. All Bank Customers, if they leave money in their current account throughout the month, pay a price by way of interest foregone.

There is more than sufficient money generated by the banks from utilisation and investment of Consumers credit balances together with interest charged on authorised overdrafts to fund the operation of the Personal current account systems and generate a very healthy profit for the Banks. Bank charges for failed transactions and unauthorised overdraughts are purely adding additional profits for the Banks, making them excessive profits overall from the running of a personal current account system.

Consumers have always been under the impression that unauthorised overdraught charges or failed transaction charges are penalties. Just because the Banks invented a method to dress them up as service charges doesnt actually mean that they are. 'Once a greedy thief always a greedy thief'.

Those Consumers that are currently enjoying either free or profit making banking for themselves should beware. The ability of the Banks to lie and cheat knows no bounds and there is now a real danger, following the Supreme Court judgment, that the Banks will attempt to further unjustly enrich themselves, not just at the expense of the poorer, less financially astute Consumer but also at the expense of the moneysavingexperts. After all, if the Supreme Court are to be believed there is apparantly nothing to stop the banks from imposing additional service charges by way of transaction charges, atm charges and or monthly account service fees on top of the existing unauthorised overdraft fees.

It might be that the days of the moneysavingexpert are numbered, certainly in so far as so called free banking is concerned.

The only way to prevent this happening is to correct the unfairness of the present charging systems and ensure that real independant regulation is set in place to prevent and or limit the power and control of the Banks over the Consumer. That can still be achieved via the UTCCR1999 route or by common law means and as a result of the Supreme Court judgment the so called moneysaving experts should now be rallying alongside those Campaigners who have been fighting for this for the last few years.

Budgie

Susie56

A BUSINESSMAN who had his credit card debts made unenforceable has waded into the consumer credit debate.
A dozen test cases were heard last week in Manchester to establish what obligations lenders have when trying to press for repayment of unsecured debt.
Banks were trying to claim they should be exempt from certain parts of the Consumer Credit Act, such as providing a copy of terms and conditions.
But Paul Collins, 47, says banks should not be given an easier time. He was harassed by debt collectors chasing a £2,700 balance on his credit card, money which he had used to give cash flow to his flooring business, which had hit hard times. Mr Collins received daily phone calls and letters asking him to pay up, which, although perfectly legal, put him and his family through trauma. They also threatened to repossess his home.
He successfully saw off the credit card company after challenging the debt with MSB Solicitors, who are also handling one of the 12 cases in Manchester.
Mr Collins, who was receiving cancer treatment at the time, told LDP Legal: “They were aware of my condition and at no time was I allowed to make a small payment to keep things going. They were relentless.
“You’ve got to experience it to realise how much pressure they put you under.
“I hope that they don’t win. God forbid they do. In my mind, if that actually happened, it would be economic meltdown because there’s so many people in debt you would see people on the streets.”
Mr Collins had his debts declared unenforceable in June. He was represented by MSB’s head of consumer credit, Joanna Connolly.
Of the cases in Manchester, Paul Bibby, MSB’s managing partner said: “This is not about people trying to evade paying money that is owed, it is about making sure lenders, large, sophisticated financial institutions organisations, comply with legislation laid down by Parliament for the protection of the consumer.
“The financial penalty laid down by Parliament for their failure to comply with the legislation is that the lenders with the legislation lose the right to enforce the agreement.”
Mr Bibby also said he is optimistic his firm’s case – Carey v HSBC – will succeed. A judgment is expected before Christmas.

Consumerist

natweststaffmember wrote: »

I don't understand your post . . .

That doesn't really matter. If you have something to say on the subject of free banking and /or bank charges then let's hear it (well, read it).
.

Consumerist

Premier wrote: »

. . . you wont be able to "beat the system"

But if the the system was fair to everybody, there would be no need to beat it and Martin Lewis would, I'm sure, be the first to say "Job Done" when the injustices of the present system have been rooted out and put to death.

Regrettably, people like yourself seem only interested in saving money at the expense of the less fortunate. Your only concern seems to be that you might lose your free banking if others no longer have to pay for it.
.

Consumerist

BigBudgie wrote: »

That can still be achieved via the UTCCR1999 route . . .

It might be helpful if you explained that UTCCR 1999 refers to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

I think that, perhaps, it may be the route currently being investigated by legal opinion which is being sought by Martin Lewis.

There will always be consumer issues with wrongs to put right. I don't think the days are numbered on this site unless we let the anarchists who post here talk us out of standing up for ourselves.
.

Alpine_Star

Consumerist wrote: »

That doesn't really matter. If you have something to say on the subject of free banking and /or bank charges then let's hear it (well, read it).
.

These are called 'discussion' threads and in the event someone politely asks another to clarify their point, the usual approach is to respond accordingly. It is not to say ''it doesn't really matter'' and in the following sentence invalidate that by asking the same person to clarify their view.

Consumerist

Alpine_Star wrote: »

These are called 'discussion' threads . . .

Thank you. I consider myself chastised.
.

natweststaffmember

Consumerist wrote: »

That doesn't really matter. If you have something to say on the subject of free banking and /or bank charges then let's hear it (well, read it).
.

I'd love to but I don't understand your viewpoint because of the confusion of the post. I think my opinion is pretty obvious since they are all over the reclaims board. If you are saying your view doesn't matter then so be it.

Consumerist

natweststaffmember wrote: »

. . but I don't understand your viewpoint because of the confusion of the post.

Fortunately, the reclaiming of bank charges has not been a financial issue for me so I regret that I have not felt the need for your extensive thoughts on the issue.

I too was somewhat confused by what you say one half of you was saying to the other half of you about something I had neither said nor even implied, so far as I am aware.

It really does not matter whether or not unjust bank charges are "keeping" free banking.

What matters is that some people appear to be convinced of it, whether it is true or not, and argue tooth and nail for the continuation of the status quo in case they have to pay an equitable proportion of the cost of running and making a handsome profit from the banking system. They really do not seem to care that under the present system, minor infrigements of terms and conditions are giving rise to disproportionate charges. They seem to want anyone else to pay for the sevices they receive irrespective the hardship caused to those who foot the bill.

My understanding of the ethos of this site was to get revenge against the banks, who have been taking us for a ride; to put us wise to their dirty little tricks and to equip us to get back at them using those dirty little tricks against them.

Martin Lewis: "The banks are not your friend, they are your enemy"

I make no apology for speaking out against those grubby, greedy, Thatcherite anarchists who think this site supports the perpetuation of an unjust system just in case they might have to pay for the services they use.

I trust I am now quite clear.
.