MSE News: CONFIRMED - OFT gives up bank charges battle

davidgmmafan

Double post apologies

natweststaffmember

OFT report, which one?(I can tell you which one).

natweststaffmember

rosemarie.nugent wrote: »

I have been banking for over 40 years and strongly feel that your campaign is a little short sighted. This country is in this mess as consumer credit has gone mad; If you arrange an overdraft, then fine, its arrange, but if you go overdrawn without consent you should pay heavily for it - that way it will stop you over-spending in future. - and assist those of us that have been thrifty to keep the banking costs low.

Sorry if this is not PC!

you are actually the one being taken over the bench to be honest since the thrifty are the ones being shafted for their banking.
My source is OFT 1005
http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/financial_products/oft1005c.pdf
Page 7 for you.

natweststaffmember

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/financial_products/oft1005c.pdf
The above is how PCA's are financed, PAGE 7 for those who are interested.


http://oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/personal-current-accounts/oft1154
The above is about why the OFT are not pursuing it. Any chance we can discuss that matter rather than whether agreeing to have a bank account means that you can be taken over the desk with a stapler shoved up your posterior?

davidgmmafan

The difference between the examples given of paying for things are to do with payment. I pay my mechanic either before or just after he does the work. With the bank you get a charge which some apply straight away (giving no opportunity to put it right and costing more) or later on regardless of whether or not the funds are there. This can lead to an unauthorized overdraft on an account where there was no overdraft.

So on one hand the bank has authorized the overdraft by its actions, but it is deemed unauthorized. Lets just agree to dis-agree on the amount of the charges, what about the practices involved in the way they are applied.

I accept there are people who incur charges time and again and don't learn and could avoid them if they planned better. But in the simple example of the person who cannot afford the initial charges, yes of course they should've avoided, but if they are in that situation and they cannot cover the original charge what do you propose they do?

BOB_A_H

natweststaffmember wrote: »

BOB_A_H wrote: »

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.

Shocked! A moderately facetious comment, and you insult me by classing it as "ridiculously stupid" I am insulted because you appear to take a "throwaway" comment to be worse than some of the nasty, malicious posts on this thread. ( KimYeovil etc etc ) Please elaborate on your reference to UFO's, as this is causing me some confusion.

natweststaffmember

davidgmmafan wrote: »

The difference between the examples given of paying for things are to do with payment. I pay my mechanic either before or just after he does the work. With the bank you get a charge which some apply straight away (giving no opportunity to put it right and costing more) or later on regardless of whether or not the funds are there. This can lead to an unauthorized overdraft on an account where there was no overdraft.
The OFT remain concerned about the way that one charge can lead to another one. I think there is a strong argument to state that this could be unfair contrary to good faith under UTCCR 1999, regulation 5(1) since the charges are for consideration of the request yet the charge causes the excess and to overdraft charges.
So on one hand the bank has authorized the overdraft by its actions, but it is deemed unauthorized. Lets just agree to dis-agree on the amount of the charges, what about the practices involved in the way they are applied.
The method they are applied and the lack of control by the customer gives the bank the dominant position, for example, I know from first hand experience that those who are classed as financially inept(we shall call it) do not get a telephone call since branch reports are used to generate lending and not allow a customer to have the ability to correct an excess.
I accept there are people who incur charges time and again and don't learn and could avoid them if they planned better. But in the simple example of the person who cannot afford the initial charges, yes of course they should've avoided, but if they are in that situation and they cannot cover the original charge what do you propose they do?

There should be a better way of being able to cancel a DD on the day it is due even if that means that the bank charge a modest amount to do so and that means an individual has a cut off point to do so. I think more could be done but it isn't/

natweststaffmember

BOB_A_H wrote: »

natweststaffmember wrote: »

BOB_A_H wrote: »

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.

Shocked! A moderately facetious comment, and you insult me by classing it as "ridiculously stupid" I am insulted because you appear to take a "throwaway" comment to be worse than some of the nasty, malicious posts on this thread. ( KimYeovil etc etc ) Please elaborate on your reference to UFO's, as this is causing me some confusion.

I was talking of the poster you quoted rather than yourself. The comment was ridiculous and offers nothing to the debate but irrational rantings.

The_White_Horse

i went to cinema once, and they charged 4.00 for a large pop corn. However, that corn cost them less than 2p. I think we should have a word with the OFT about this. A profit making company making a profit is just completely unacceptable. I mean, i am just saying it should be FAIR and the popcorn should be charged at 4p not 4 pounds.

also, if i have 20 quid in my account and I need to pay for something that costs 40 the bank should just give me 20 quid. no questions asked. i think maybe they should charge me a few pence for the privilege, alternatively, i could just not spend more than is in my account.

G_M

The banks encourage debt, they don't make money from people in the black.

What rubbish! We live in a free society. Individuals CHOOSE to go into debt. You're right banks encourage debt. They are businesses and their job is to make money. (though they DO also make money from non-debtors).

If a shop offers an expensive item for sale, I can choose to spend the required price, or not buy it. Same with an overdraft or credit card loan. If I choose to use it, I pay the price.

Barry was being constructive. Consumers should learn to take responsibility for their own actions rather than looking for scapegoats or someone to bail them out when they dig themselves into a financial hole.