MSE News: CONFIRMED - OFT gives up bank charges battle

davidgmmafan

The banks say the charges essentially fund free in credit banking. I don't know what benefits you are referring to but last time I checked JSA was about £40 per week. One charge plus compound interest equals massive debt which can never get repaid.

Anyway you are missing the point if the banks are telling the truth (which I highly doubt) if everyone manages thier finances perfectly then 'free' banking would disappear anyway. Therefore its not consistant to berate the people who incur these charges because if they followed your advice to the letter you would still lose your prized free banking.

KimYeovil

davidgmmafan wrote: »

The banks say the charges essentially fund free in credit banking. I don't know what benefits you are referring to but last time I checked JSA was about £40 per week. One charge plus compound interest equals massive debt which can never get repaid.

Anyway you are missing the point if the banks are telling the truth (which I highly doubt) if everyone manages thier finances perfectly then 'free' banking would disappear anyway. Therefore its not consistant to berate the people who incur these charges because if they followed your advice to the letter you would still lose your prized free banking.

Complete rot.

davidgmmafan

How so?

The banks state the case going against them would result in the loss of free banking. The CEO of Nationwide has openly admitted free banking is paid for by charges. Therefore if nobody incurs charges then nobody is paying for free banking, and it would not be sustainable.

discoass

A.Jones wrote: »

I pay taxes which pays benefits, which pays for bank charges. So I pay for it.

have you checked your address bar ,the one at the top ,should`nt it say "mail online" with statements like that :silenced:

UncleJaysus

alexjohnson wrote: »

edinburghlass, isn't this one for you?

But in for a penny, in for a pound. You want my philosophy? Here it is.

To be honest Marc I see people like you as the root of the problem so we're even. I see reclaiming as nothing but an extension of the "injured at work?" TV advert parasitic blame culture we have where no one takes any responsibility for their own actions. We have a culture where people want something for nothing, and where there are no consequences. This leads to reclaiming, at the frankly trivial end of the spectrum, and to things like my office doing a risk assessment on children coming for Christmas Eve. And it has led people to run up enormous debts they can't repay, not just through greed, not just through ignorance, but because there aren't really any consequences if they don't repay - not even an ounce of shame or regret, it sometimes seems, so why not have that big TV today?

I know what's in the contracts I sign. I know what's expected of me, and what will happen if I don't deliver. And I don't need anyone - a bank, the OFT, the government - to protect me from myself. I find the slow death of our nation's backbone every bit as sad as you apparently find my attitude. Without wanting to become a parody of myself, I see little evidence on these boards of the kind of resolve that won the war. I am troubled by that, and regret it. I do understand that people go through tough times, but I find the appropriation of those sad stories - so obviously a minority as the most cursory look at the numbers must tell anyone who's been through a primary school maths course, despite all the urgent pleas that it be not so - as a justification for what started out as a money-making wheeze to be various turns comic, ironic and pathetic.

Horses for courses, I guess.

Heh, the thing is, we're not that different. I share some of your irritation at the hand-out, something-for-nothing culture that exists today. I too watch the injured-at-work adverts through gritted teeth, taking note of how the adverts went from blatant "I got this much" punchlines to things like "and they re-sited that bus stop too" so to add a moral element designed to make it all look like people aren't actually just in it for the money... I'm with you on all of this, I really am.

But it doesn't change the fact that banks shouldn't be operating this way.

KimYeovil

martynthemoose wrote: »

Why do people who are clearly better off than others always look down on them, lets hope they never have to go without heating because they dont have £5 to put on the gas meter or have to tell their kids they cant have xmas presents this year cos mummy & daddy cant afford it.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion but to come on to a forum just to wind people up is just wrong & frankly sick _pale_

More rot. They are not better off. The idiots who are better off are those who can repeatedly pay £39 charges for months on end. Poor people do not incur the charges more than once.

And a parent who is poor never uses prepayment meters and they budget for Christmas and birthdays. That is part of their obligations as a decent human being. They should stop wasting money on charges and treat their children instead of the banks.

With parenthood comes obligations. Giving money to banks for charges is frankly sick. Using prepayment meters when you have children is frankly sick. Not budgeting so your children can be fed, kept warm and educated is frankly sick. Benefits in this country are very generous. Child tax credits for the low paid are slightly dodgier but can be negotiated with care. Their is no excuse for families with children to be incurring charges.

Grow up.

davidgmmafan

"But it doesn't change the fact that banks shouldn't be operating this way."

Totally agree wasn't there a principle in operation once over, something like acting in utmost good faith. The reason why nobody picks up on customers who are in hardship is nobody looks. If someones only income is job seekers (and I'm not suggesting this is the banks fault or that they are a charitable organisation) how exactly does whacking on hundreds of pounds worth of charges help in anyway?

The banks leaflets should read if you are in trouble please contact us urgently. This will do you no goo whatsoever but at least we can all have a good laugh.

KimYeovil

orc wrote: »

Can you please provide the research or facts that you base this "statement" on.

Sorry, but you are totally and utterly wrong on that- the statement is complete and utter nonsense.

No I'm not.

davidgmmafan

"Poor people do not incur the charges more than once."

OMG how are you not getting this one charge is all it takes.

I don't udnerstand the rest of your post, wouldn't using prepayment meters be entirely consistant with the budgetting you mentioned?

KimYeovil

UncleJaysus wrote: »

The point I was making is that your opinions of people on here, doesn't change the fact that banks rake in a reported THIRD of their income from preying on the poor and the careless. This is wrong.

Again, it is not the poor they are 'preying' on. If you can afford to blithely continue paying charges then one thing you are not is poor. Stop talking such rot.

It is insane to repeatedly suggest that somehow you are on the side of the poor.