MSE News: CONFIRMED - OFT gives up bank charges battle

discoass

alexjohnson wrote: »

But many of you weren't asking for that, were you? If you were, by and large, you've won - charges are falling and there is likely to be clear pressure here from government. Many of you were actually asking for a windfall gain of all charges paid, whether fair or not, having apparently obliviously racked up these charges while doing very little to stop yourselves. While I know that the claim to be standing up for the little guy makes one feel very noble, for many people (and I neither know nor wish to know about your personal circumstances) this has nothing to do with a campaign for social justice and everything to do with the hope a cheque for a few thousand pounds might land on your doorstep after firing off a few form letters. It is just hypocritical nonsense.

No its not,if u have ever been bombarded with these charges (which i doubt u have)then u would have a different view. What people were asking for was THEIR money back as they thought the charges were 2 high.
If you are on minimum wage a charge of £38 would take 6-7 hours to pay off is that fair

Morglin

musical_norwich wrote: »

This is actually very good news. I am delighted!

Why should those who knew what the bank charges were, but carried on spending money that wasn't theirs, be rewarded retrospectively for their behaviour by the courts?

This country is going to the dogs due to people spending money that wasn't theirs in the first place: banks, consumers and the government. This judgement is a first sign of a return to common sense and normality.

On the one hand this site encourages being thrifty and living within your means, on the other it believes that the thriftless should be rewarded for their irresponsibility. You can't have it both ways as the courts have said!

I think this is a good result - taxpayers own a lot of the banking industry and I don't see why we should have paid these refunds once through our taxes, and then again, because the banks would have charged for all accounts to recoup the costs.

Common sense prevails.

Lin

noh

discoass wrote: »

Take off those rose tinted glasses. If u run a very tight budget its very easy to go overdrawn,the banks system is set up in such a way that even the most prudent budgeters can get caught out and in my experience its mainly to do with the lack of speed money is transfered between banks and customers wether its a cheque or the bacs system

I don't have rose tinted glasses.
I always have run a tight budget. If proper control is kept then it is very unlikely that prudent budgeters would be caught out. If they were then they would notice immediately and take steps to avoid further charges.

Morglin

discoass wrote: »

No its not,if u have ever been bombarded with these charges (which i doubt u have)then u would have a different view. What people were asking for was THEIR money back as they thought the charges were 2 high.
If you are on minimum wage a charge of £38 would take 6-7 hours to pay off is that fair

I have paid a huge amount of charges over the years - and, in the end, it taught me to live within my means and to stop spending money that wasn't mine.

Lin

marcharrison1979

Those who feel the charges are fair and support the banks are clearly on the take or have some personal gain to be made from these charges, i personally don't have any charges to claim back myself but i come on here to support those that do becuase i understand how unjust and terrible these bankers are. You are all complete and utter !!!!z and if i were to meet any of you in the street I would kick the !!!!!! daylights out of ya, you disgust me!

BOB_A_H

neilthegooner wrote: »

Does anyone else get the impression this decision by the supreme court, the banks and the OFT was settled on some plush golf course somewhere in Berkshire?

Yes, or Gleneagles.

natweststaffmember

BOB_A_H wrote: »

neilthegooner wrote: »

Does anyone else get the impression this decision by the supreme court, the banks and the OFT was settled on some plush golf course somewhere in Berkshire?

Yes, or Gleneagles.

Bob, the comment you quoted is one of the most ridiculously stupid comment I have read so far on here. I am surprised UFO's have not been mentioned.

Premier_2

marcharrison1979 wrote: »

... You are all complete and utter !!!!z and if i were to meet any of you in the street I would kick the !!!!!! daylights out of ya, you disgust me!

Calm down dear, you'll do yourself a mischief!

That's even worse than kicking and spitting that a well known financial journalist was advocating people do on hearing the result from the Supreme Court last month. :eek:

natweststaffmember

Premier wrote: »

Calm down dear, you'll do yourself a mischief!

That's even worse than kicking and spitting that a well known financial journalist was advocating people do on hearing the result from the Supreme Court last month. :eek:

Come on, you normally give a source, cos I don't know WHO you are talking about

chris1huk

Morglin wrote: »

I think this is a good result - taxpayers own a lot of the banking industry and I don't see why we should have paid these refunds once through our taxes, and then again, because the banks would have charged for all accounts to recoup the costs.

Common sense prevails.

Lin

err.. correct me if im wrong, but it would be REFUNDING something WE already paid.. We aren't asking for money from the taxpayer