MSE News: CONFIRMED - OFT gives up bank charges battle

kittiej

I think there is nothing fair about being forced to use banks for personal finances and then being charged for it. I don't have fees to reclaim but I do have to pay for the accounts I have, especially if I want debit cards, OD etc whether I use it or not.

I am stuck with having to have wages and benefits paid into the bank, I have no option with this so banks are laughing.

They are laughing so much they are still insisting on paying out bankers bonuses and I am sick of it.

Take take take should be the banking motto. They seem to listen to noone. Even after I, as a taxpayer have contributed to bailing them out.

If the banks had lost then they would have seriously been on their knees so i just think it's all politics.

If the courts won't do the right thing then I really hope the little man in the street will collectively show the banks who's boss, just like in the Northern Rock case.

BOB_A_H

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 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, one 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!


Ok Mr Wise Guy, answer me this. You state that people knew what the charges were, and that somehow they are seeking reward. If as you suggest, everything was fair and above board with these charges, why now are the banks changing the cost and structure of their charges?
An act of charity on the banks behalf? Thing again, only this time come up with a sernsible argument.

LordLee

I just cannot help thinking that some dodgy deals were done between government, courts and banks. The government is helping the banks with handouts and cutting bonuses... they would not want to see banks having to shed out millions in reclaimed bank charges. I reckon there's more to this than meets the eye.

david.l_4

lordlee i love your post i know what you mean it just doent make sence really how the oft could feel so confident about winning then 2 courts back them up then the supreme court say the case was Fatally Flawed


Sorry if the supreme cort is right then i think they need to be giving a Mr Andrew justice smith and others the chop as obviously the judges before must not be doing there job properly!!!!!!

MasterSpy

I have enjoyed watching the discussion about Banking Charges on this website. However, I thought I would point out that according to the judgement handed down (supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/uksc_2009_0070_judgmentV3.pdf), the issue depended "on the correct interpretation (in its European context) and application of Regulation 6(2) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 SI 1999/2083."

If you check then we then see that: "The 1999 Regulations were made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 in order to transpose into national law Council Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts."

The "victory" of the Banks in the case is therefore down to EU law – which obviously completely goes against the grain of expectations. As for the "Supreme" court, all it was doing was interpreting the diktats of our Government in Brussels. But, as always, in none of the main stream media accounts does one see any reference to this. For example, The Times (timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/article6931315.ece) railed some time ago that the "decision is bad for consumers and competition" but it does not tell us why it was made. Furthermore, Money Mail assistant editor James Coney lamented (thisismoney.co.uk/savings-and-banking/bank-charges/article.html?in_article_id=494866&in_page_id=507), "If OFT can't decide bank charges are unfair, who can?" The answer, of course, is "the EU".

fermi

From one of the OFT docs online....

Why isn't the OFT taking an unfair relationships case?

The OFT has considered the possibility of pursuing a case under the Enterprise Act based on the unfair relationship provisions of the Consumer Credit Act (CCA) 1974 (a collective challenge).

The OFT’s initial assessment is that there are not good grounds for concluding that a collective challenge alleging breach of these provisions arising from the use of the Relevant Terms generally would have good prospects of success. This partly reflects an assessment of the wider repercussions of reasoning underlying the Judgment. This reasoning will inevitably be influential in guiding the deliberations of any UK court before which the OFT might bring enforcement action based on the concept of fairness.

An individual challenge might succeed where a collective challenge would not since a case would need to focus on the individual circumstances of each creditor-debtor relationship – including matters relating to the individual debtor.

As such, the OFT has no current intention to start an unfair relationships investigation.

martynthemoose

withabix wrote: »

So you think that it's unfair for the balance of opinion to be allowed on forums?

Perhaps the posts moaning that this decision is unfair should be banned??

No I think that people who come on here to gloat about a decision they know nothing about, hiding behind a username, so not having the guts to give their real name should be sacked from their job as they are clearly not at home wasting the firms resources springs to mind.

These posts are not forming an opinion they are just winding up people who in most cases have no money so are powerless to do anything about it.

Banks offer no choice as they all abide by the same rules. I myself have suffered massive hardship & have been told by RBS that I am not in hardship even though I have council tax arrears & no money to pay my creditors bills.

I admit I used to be bad at managing my finances & as a result I have gone to the Co-operative bank & got a basic account. Since then I have been charged only 3 times, all of which the bank kindly returned to me in the last 4 years.

When I was with RBS not once was I asked if I would like to move to an account without a debit card & a checque book. They were quite happy to keep me in the laughably named Royalties account charging me every time I went over my overdraft limit by about £2. When I started to get really hard up for money they took away my overdraft & got me to take out a loan for the £2500 overdraft which they "after a review" decided I couldnt afford.

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_

Richard_Tovey

It appears to me that the banks are unwilling to pay back the excessive charges because they have already gone into the big fat bonuses to the over paid managers of the banks, a simple matter of i'm alright Jack stuff you lot, we have got our big house expensive holidays in the Caribean and flashy car while the rest of you have to contend with what little money you have left after your money is frittered away, keeping banks going that have paid out loads of big bonuses to there managers who got the bank in the mess to start with. Bonuses are meant to reward good work not a perk of the job and the managers have not done a good job looking after OUR money.

kittiej

Sorry my fault, that should have been benefit in the singular lol it's just that I have 2 children and they are awarded an amount of CB each.

Borrowed money from where?

mustrum_ridcully

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 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, one 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!

Well said :T

People would do well to remember that the OFT is funded by the taxpayer and were using taxpayers money to fund this court battle. That includes money from taxpayers who have never been overdrawn in their lives (including authorised overdrafts).

If the OFT had won, we'd probably have seen the end of "free" banking so taxpayers money would have been spent to make everyone worse off in the long term (include those who can't manage their finances). Beware the law of unintended consequences!

Yes I have been charged an unauthorised overdraft fee, albeit many years ago and it jolly well did me good!