MSE News: CONFIRMED - OFT gives up bank charges battle

discoass

oldwiring wrote: »

Some what irrelevant unless you intend to go over or cannot control yourself not to exceed it, isn't it?;)

the argument was about unathorised OD ,and if u didnt like it move,to which i was pointing out that all banks charge roughly the same for unathorised OD`s so it was relevant to the initial argument

oldwiring

BOB_A_H wrote: »

Yawn yawn

But glad to know you've been up all night to work on your finances:D

orc_2

gobbo wrote: »

its you that is wrong , the statement poor people don't pay bank charges is generally correct as they have accounts like solo and electron that don't let you overdraw so therefore no charges , its the ones who take the mickey that get charges

I'm wrong- sorry, what have I got wrong?

I did not make a statement as you infer.

Who are "we" and "they"?

Can you please answer the questions I put to you, if you don't mind.

orc_2

orc wrote: »

I'm wrong- sorry, what have I got wrong?

I did not make a statement as you infer.

Who are "we" and "they"?

Can you please answer the questions I put to you, if you don't mind.

Once challenged, the infrequent poster runs and hides.:rolleyes:

Interesting that he registered way back in 2005, which was at the start of the reclaim campaign, and has made so few posts, only to reappear after the SC and OFT decision.

He does however seem to be an expert on £10 freeview boxes and Belgian chocs from Lidl. Not interested in bank charges until recently.

oldwiring

discoass wrote: »

the argument was about unathorised OD ,and if u didnt like it move,to which i was pointing out that all banks charge roughly the same for unathorised OD`s so it was relevant to the initial argument

May be!
But! If that bank packages a £xxx free overdraft it needs to recover the costs elsewhere, perhaps by having fewer referral items, perhaps by higher charges for exceeded limits. If someone goes over with a good free in case of need facilty, he deserves to be charged at a high rate.

davidgmmafan

"No, you still do not have an approved overdraft facility. It's more like a recognition that to bounce an item may be of substantial embarrassment to the customer."

I was referring not to the initial payment but the charge which, when applied, creates an unauthorized overdraft. I don't buy the embarrassment argument how exactly does the computer determine this?

There are extremes on both sides of the debate but the main thing I keep coming back to is the lack of honesty from the bank. If the banks were honest they'd just say well we could do something about charges, but we really want that £2.6 billion a year.

BOB_A_H

gobbo wrote: »

put some money away in good times to use in bad times , don't expect others to pay for your lack of foresight

You are indeed privileged. Your theory works on the principal that everbody has had "good times" Your argument is fundamentally flawed on this basis alone.
Tell me what you do if you have never had "good times"

MikeyH

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.

I agree with you that it is highly likely that the campaign for fairer charges is to be ultimately succesful in that charges will now fall to more reasonable levels.

The refund issue was slightly different in that it was based on the belief that these may have been unlawful penalty charges. Had that been found to be the case, it would only be right that they should all be refunded as no business should benefit from unlawful actions.

The fairness argument is yet a different one again, and its quite reasonable that we should try to get those organisations with which we must do business in order to transact in the modern world world to charge us fairly for the services they provide.

Unfortunately, those who are either unable to, or choose to fail to do the mental excercise of seperating these strands appear to be mixing them all up and getting themselves extremely irate about it all.

orc_2

oldwiring wrote: »

But! If that bank packages a £xxx free overdraft it needs to recover the costs elsewhere,

Overdrafts are not free, no-one expects them to be

perhaps by having fewer referral items,

perhaps losing me here

perhaps by higher charges for exceeded limits.

perhaps lost me

If someone goes over with a good free in case of need facilty, he deserves to be charged at a high rate.

Yep, completely lost, what is a good free in case of need facility?

Having extereme difficulty following you on this one.

BOB_A_H

gobbo wrote: »

no we are the ones speaking on the side of reason and resposibility not the everything now and sod the consequences brigade

"We are the ones speaking on the side of reason and responsibility"
Would that be a fact, or YOUR oppinion?
Somewhat arrogant to assume that you are correct, and the majority of people on this site are wrong is it not?
Do you feel a sense of duty to come on this site and educate the average "thicko"