MSE News: CONFIRMED - OFT gives up bank charges battle

BOB_A_H

moo_cow wrote: »

With Rage Against the Machine's recent chart victory fresh in memory, perhaps we could set up something similar for banking. After all, if the little guy can influence the pop charts, then maybe such banding together could be used to create an even more meaningful message?

I'm just thinking off the top of my head here, but maybe we could get anyone who's with one of the big banks (those involved in the test case) to sign up and pledge to leave their bank and take their money, wages, cards etc to a smaller bank on a day or time period to be decided.

If enough people joined this, then the chosen day/week/month where everyone emptied and closed their accounts could mean chaos for the banks.



See now, that's the spirit!!!! Exactly what we should do. Remember the poll tax uproar? It's the only way to get the message across. If we don't stick up for us then who else is going to do it. And it's certainly a peaceful demonstration. No one could say otherwise. I'm with Unclejaysus on this one.

I agree with this principal wholeheartedly. I was going to suggest this but you beat me to it. Slightly annoyed at being so slow, but only slightly!
Does it need to be a small bank, as many towns and villages will not have local branches. As such, any bank would do. We all agree on one and away we go.

kittiej

OK which is the most shameless bank in Britain?

esmerellda

As of May 2009 1.2 million had made complaints about unfair charges (FACT) this will have risen since then obviously but I dont have more recent figures to hand. 12 million incurred an average of £240 charges in 2006. (FACT) 54 million active accounts in 2006.

alexjohnson wrote: »

I don't doubt that this can happen. I do doubt this number. But let's take it at face value: say 400,000. With 40m current accounts that is still 0.1%. You can't run policy - what the OFT does, to keep on topic - for 0.1% of account holders. If we're still taking that at face value, should banks and benefit agencies be a bit more sympathetic? Sure. But do we throw out the whole system? That seems an odd conclusion to reach.

davidgmmafan

"I think her point was that if you are getting charges of £35 - more than a third of your food budget - that must focus the mind extremely quickly such that you take steps to ensure you are not wasting your money in this way. It's common sense that you would bend over backwards to ensure you stopped paying such a big chunk of your income. At risk of being provocative, if people aren't working, then the one thing you do have is time - time to make sure the money aprt of what is a stressful situation is taken care of. I'm sure she wasn't trying to be offensive.

In addition, it seems very improbable that some someone for whom £35 was such a great deal of money would, at the same time, be able to rack up claims of thousands of pounds like many reclaimers seem to have."

Your last paragraph betrays how simplistic your argument is. As you say for this person £35 is a lot of money. They incur a charge once which they cannot cover.

They can telephone the bank, call in, speak to the complaints team. The bank WILL continue to apply further charges knowing they could not afford the original £35. Add in the compound interest. Even if that person finds work in say six months they may be fighting a losing battle.

It doesn't take a genius to look at an account and say 'hmm this persons only income is JSA (not much more than a bank charge), there's no way they can cover this'.

End result that persons credit file is ruined pretty much regardless of what happens down the road. The bank then gives up on the debt which, barring the original £35, they created. THIS is what is so bad about bank charges, the amount, the structure, and the lack of clarity. Nobody ever explained to me if I incurred a bank charge I would be paying for the bloke down the streets banking. Yet if I take out a product with commission the structure of this IS explained to me.

And don't use the direct debit guarantee, success on this is mixed depending on the bank. Many people will accept what the bank staff say because they have the mistaken impression that banks are trustworthy.

Tozer

Spiggle wrote: »

...and ignore him please.

I just wanted to say a couple of things which sadly aren't very positive.

Firstly, how come I had a letter dated 21st December 2009 this morning from Barclays telling me that "We are .. not upholding your complaint and will not be refunding the bank charges you have complained about." when as far as I'm aware the news from OFT was only announced today? Sort of rhetorical question really as its all to do with back room dealings.

Secondly, I'd love to truly believe that we 'little' people could unite as a force against these people but you only have to look at the ignored millions that marched against the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan (and the slaughter of tens of thousands mostly civilian and including allied miltary forces) compared to the actual decisions taken to go to war as reported at the current Inquiry to know that we sadly have no effect.

Thirdly and finally, I came to my senses last month and realised there is no such thing as loyalty in the finance industry (I can remember having conversations with people who were the Manager of the local bank branch) and after 23 years am in the process of switching from Barclays (where I paid £16 per month to use my account and interest when using my agreed OD facility) to Alliance & Leicester.

Just think of the difference that could be made to millions of lives if the bail out funds or the billions spent on killing people in Iraq and Afghanistan had been invested in supporting the people that live in Britain now (proper housing, insulation, energy efficient housing/improvements, local combined heat and power, even public transport) and the benefits that would be gained for those who will live here in the future. But we have democracy and we love it ... don't we?

What a total insult to the British troops who have fought and are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is not a case of "billions spent on killing people". It is spending a huge amount of money buying equipment for our armed forces to fight a war.

If you don't like it, vote for a change. But our troops are not "killing people" in the gung-ho manner you imply.

davidgmmafan

OK which is the most shameless bank in Britain?

Halifax for shamelessly arguing that its new charges are about simplicity when that is not the issue. People understand them fine, and they understand they are getting screwed.

BOB_A_H

kittiej wrote: »

OK which is the most shameless bank in Britain?

That is the 64,000 dollar question ( half of it made up of charges )
They all seem to be much as much to me, so everybody banking with one and ditching the rest should not really be an issue.

orc_2

Do you understand the figures now?

alexjohnson wrote: »

I do doubt this number.

Wrong assumption. Numbers given to you above. I take it you are surprised by the numbers.

You can't run policy - what the OFT does, to keep on topic - for 0.1% of account holders.

It's the law which is the topic under discussion. That is what the SC case was about, not an aspect of policy.

Can you please admit some of your facts were wrong?

Gorgeous_George

alexjohnson wrote: »

I don't doubt that this can happen. I do doubt this number. But let's take it at face value: say 400,000. With 40m current accounts that is still 0.1%. You can't run policy - what the OFT does, to keep on topic - for 0.1% of account holders. If we're still taking that at face value, should banks and benefit agencies be a bit more sympathetic? Sure. But do we throw out the whole system? That seems an odd conclusion to reach.

I make it 1% but I am prepared to bow down to your superior knowledge.

Which bank do you work for?



GG

kittiej

So shall we go in alphabetical order then?