MSE News: CONFIRMED - OFT gives up bank charges battle

moo_cow

right, firstly, let me clarify. If I wanted to withdraw all of our money to pay my bills in one go it would not be possible due to the daily limit without prior arrangement. Right, got that?
Now I would have to go into town (another 5 mile trek) the following day to pay more bills etc. Got it? we pay all our bills monthly on or around the same time.
And can you point me to an employer who pays by cheque? Obviously you seem blinkered to the fact that we are in a recession and cannot walk in and out of jobs. I heard some numpty replies in my time but this takes the biscuit.

kittiej

I had to giggle then moo cow sorry

moo_cow

don't blame you kittiej. Wht's up with this person. You get paid monthly, want to pay your bills all in one go to get them out of the way and this seems to be wrong?

Alpine_Star

gobbo wrote: »

Possibly , but if the banks were fully nationised as per my point then the government would instruct the oft to leave it and they would

This is nonsense.

The OFT are an independent regulator and as such are not instructed by anyone. You just make this up as you go along don't you?

gobbo

Simple:-

structure your bills to pay weekly

as you don't earn over £500 a week , draw out less than £500 each week and pay your bills. - OR ring the branch to arrange a larger withdrawal amount and do it once a month.

5 miles can be walked in about 2 hours , or in a car a few minutes , hardly a chore

didn't say it would be easy but it is possible to get paid by cheque so you might have to try a bit

moo_cow wrote: »

right, firstly, let me clarify. If I wanted to withdraw all of our money to pay my bills in one go it would not be possible due to the daily limit without prior arrangement. Right, got that?
Now I would have to go into town (another 5 mile trek) the following day to pay more bills etc. Got it? we pay all our bills monthly on or around the same time.
And can you point me to an employer who pays by cheque? Obviously you seem blinkered to the fact that we are in a recession and cannot walk in and out of jobs. I heard some numpty replies in my time but this takes the biscuit.

gobbo

moo_cow wrote: »

don't blame you kittiej. Wht's up with this person. You get paid monthly, want to pay your bills all in one go to get them out of the way and this seems to be wrong?

this has been answered by noh , and admitted by moo cow , the £500 limit is only if you can't be bothered to arrange higher , so all bills can be paid in one go monthly quite easily

gobbo

Alpine_Star wrote: »

This is nonsense.

The OFT are an independent regulator and as such are not instructed by anyone. You just make this up as you go along don't you?

very funny , who do you think controls the oft ? , the government of course through legislation etc , you are the one talking nonsense

natweststaffmember

gobbo wrote: »

very funny , who do you think controls the oft ? , the government of course through legislation etc , you are the one talking nonsense

Which means that the government would have to bring in legislation to get rid of the regulator. You are talking nonsense with regards to this.

What are your proposals for a regulator?

Even though we are going way off topic here, but I can run with it.

Alpine_Star

gobbo wrote: »

very funny , who do you think controls the oft ? , the government of course through legislation etc , you are the one talking nonsense

There is not a single piece of legislation that allows Government to ''instruct'' or ''control'' the Office of Fair Trading and you won't be able to come up with one.

It is independent from Government and it's regulatory and enforcement powers are provided to it by statute. If the Government could ''instruct'' and ''control'' it then the Prime Minister wouldn't have 'called upon them' to work out a negotiated settlement in the same way he calls upon other bodies he has no control over - such as calling on Iran to cease it's nuclear programme. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/consumer_affairs/article6847201.ece

In short, you are naive and stupid. And you think we are too.

moo_cow

Simple:-

structure your bills to pay weekly: No it's inconvenient to me

as you don't earn over £500 a week , draw out less than £500 each week and pay your bills. - OR ring the branch to arrange a larger withdrawal amount and do it once a month. No it's inconvenient to me

5 miles can be walked in about 2 hours , or in a car a few minutes , hardly a chore It is a problem if you have a disibility as I do

didn't say it would be easy but it is possible to get paid by cheque so you might have to try a bit And what do I do with a cheque, oh wait now, let's see...... yes that's right BANK IT! Or do you suggest I travel further afield to go to a cheque cashing place which by the way my cousin recently did with her churchill insurance cheque when her car was written off, it cost her £90!!!! Hardly an MSE 'good idea'. You have little knowledge to back things up. Your attacks are meaningless and pointless.


This is a discussion on bank charges. My arguement is simply that I don't want to have a bank account but am forced to do so. Therefore it's about a fairer system for all. Not a useless discussion about attacking the way someone wishes to do things. Many people argue that someone should pay all their bills out of the way when paid monthly so as what is left is what you actually have. Isn't this one of the many helpful budgeting suggestions about how to avoid charges after all? This is the way I prefer to do things as I have so many outgoings. I was glad when my husbands firm changed to monthly as weekly was even more of a headache than it is now.
I, and most of us on here want a fairer and just system for all. Not a system that drags the unfortunate down as it has done with me and so many others. Remember, there are people close to suicide because of spiralling charges on top of charges when there may have been only one or two 'offences' committed in the first place.
This topic is designed to see how we can go forward, not how we can attack those in less fortunate circumstances.