MSE News: CONFIRMED - OFT gives up bank charges battle

davidgmmafan

"Wouldn't it be fairer if the banks charged the customer a fee (I will leave the powers that be to decide this), if that then takes the customer over the authorized overdraft, an automatic freeze should be put on the account until the account is back in credit. This freeze would stop any pending DD's, effectively stop the customer having a bank account, but more importantly stop any further charges on the account. This way the customer is charged a fee, but does not face the prospect of going further into an uncontrolable debt."

A good idea but surplus to requirements, all that's needed is the 'service charges' the banks levy to be sent on an invoice like many other services provided by many other companies. This avoids the debt spiral.

I would hope even the most committed bank supported would be able to see that the bank appointing itself priority creditor over and above any others is not fair.

To put that in perspective I believe the only other way to do this is through the courts, or in bankruptcy the taxman is prioritzed above any other debts.

Alpine_Star

rickbonar wrote: »

Are you kidding?:rotfl:
It’s little like the reading Lisbon Treaty or indeed any transcripts from any politically sensitive case such de Menezees -Utterly pointless... See below.

I could have told anyone what the outcome would be even before the first court session had taken place!

Really it’s naïve of anyone NOT to read between the lines and words and verbiage of rhetoric.

So to summarise: you've not read any of the words but prefer to base your opinion excusively on ones that are not there. With no evidence whatsoever and only your imagination to go on, who's really naive here?

oldwiring

davidgmmafan wrote: »

... in bankruptcy the taxman is prioritzed above any other debts.

True under the 1986 Insolvency Act, bur not since passing of Enterprise Act 2002 it seems

Secondly there are preferential creditors, which at the moment comprise the Inland Revenue for certain elements of tax debt particularly PAYE, H M Custom & Excise for Value Added Tax and certain employees' rights. However, shortly both the Inland Revenue and H M Customs & Excise will cease to have the status of preferential creditors. Preferential creditors have the right to have their debts paid before ordinary creditors from assets of the company that are not secured.
http://www.crossmans.co.uk/services/insolvency/
Section 9.
And
2. What category of debt is no longer considered preferential?
Amounts due to the Inland Revenue in respect of income tax and National Insurance contributions in the 12 months prior to the insolvency, and amounts due to HM Customs and Excise including VAT in the 6 months prior to the insolvency. Other categories of preferential debt will remain preferential
http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/faq/faqeactp.htm

Chrysalis

natweststaffmember wrote: »

Who was at the top of the conspiracy chain?
Who paid who?
How much?
Have you read any of the transcripts or any of the judgements from the case before making this post or read the EC directive or UTCCR 1999?

I smelt something fishy when all the active cases at the time were put on hold, that made no real sense to me and it seemed the purpose to serve was to help the banks.

From the transcripts I have read it is clear they could have quite easily took an alternative view and ruled against the banks, the ruling was far from clear and was more of a matter of opinion than anything else.

I also agree with the poster there was zero chance of the banks losing, imagine a scenario where the banks having just been bailed out have to then refund billions of pounds to their customers. Absolutely not even worth comprehending for the people in power.

gobbo

Yes you are right , £35 for 50p is silly . I believe that the starter accounts that some banks have are designed to do something like you suggest , maybe its a matter of changing to the right sort of account. I believe that these ccounts were devised for the people that didn't previously have a bank account , but are available to others if they want one.

MoneyMiser wrote: »

There seems to be a lot of arguments going on here with a lot of name calling and nit-picking. This really is not in the nature of this forum.

I am sure everyone will agree that the charges are unfair. £35 for going overdrawn by 50p is excessive in anyone's book. What people want from both sides of the argument is a fairer system.

Yes, those who go overdrawn should face a penalty. What people have to remember is that we are customers of the banks, therefore the customer should not be exploited. The problem with charges is that they snowball very quickly putting the customer under extreme pressure and the debt continues to build. This pressure then leads the customers to concentrate on one thing, getting themselves back below their overdraft, forgetting about everything else, rent, bills, even direct debits that are due to come out!! Next thing they know there are charges on charges on charges, within the space of one month, they have accrued £200+ in charges. The banks, instead of trying to help the customer get out of debt, are quite happy putting you further and further into debt. Is this fair? I thought it was only those dodgy loan sharks that did this?

Wouldn't it be fairer if the banks charged the customer a fee (I will leave the powers that be to decide this), if that then takes the customer over the authorized overdraft, an automatic freeze should be put on the account until the account is back in credit. This freeze would stop any pending DD's, effectively stop the customer having a bank account, but more importantly stop any further charges on the account. This way the customer is charged a fee, but does not face the prospect of going further into an uncontrolable debt.

Surely this way people on both sides of the argument are happy, as those going overdrawn are getting charged, and the people getting charged are not getting themselves into massive amounts of debt.

What you think?

MM

gobbo

Alpine_Star wrote: »

If you had a ''sound knowledge'' of regulation then you wouldn't tell us - as fact - that the Government ''controls'' and can ''instruct'' the Office of Fair Trading and then cringingly and transparently back-peddle to have us believe you meant they could ''just change the law'', somehow confusing Government with Parliament and statute with law.

Is there anything you won't do to publicly humiliate yourself?

I think you may have a problem understanding things , who do you think it is that makes the laws - the government of course when it has a majority. I suggest you stop nit picking and get YOUR facts straight. aAs for humiliation just look to yourself as you obviously havn't a clue what you are talking about otherwise you wouldn't come out with such piffle.

Alpine_Star

The Government make laws you say? http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws.cfm

gobbo

Glad you agree with me finally , the link you quote should be read by yourself then you will understand how governments make laws through parliament.

Alpine_Star wrote: »

The Government make laws you say? http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws.cfm

Alpine_Star

gobbo wrote: »

Glad you agree with me finally , the link you quote should be read by yourself then you will understand how governments make laws through parliament.

No. Parliament makes laws through both houses of Parliament by way of Acts of Parliament - and not acts of Government.

I'd be very happy to agree with you if you would kindly do me the courtesy of quoting the text from the link I provided that says how ''Government makes laws through Parliament.''

Would that be too much to ask?

gobbo

Ok to explain it to you

bills are proposed , most of those that stand a chance of being passed are proposed by the government .

Bills go to the house of commons and house of lords to be debated

if passed by both houses they become an act

The law is then brought into force

If the government has a majority then it is rare that governmanet bills are rejected as they use a 3 line whip to force their bills through parliament ( hence the often quoted " elected dictatorship" )

Hope that this simplified explanation now means that you understand it.

Alpine_Star wrote: »

I'd be very happy to agree with you if you would kindly do me the courtesy of quoting the text from the link I provided that says how ''Government makes laws through Parliament.''

Would that be too much to ask?