MSE News: CONFIRMED - OFT gives up bank charges battle

MasterSpy

alexjohnson wrote: »

Leaving aside that if you receive benefits other than child benefit or some disability-related benefits you are more likely than not a net recipient of public money:
However, how much have you - or any other tax-payer - paid to bail out banks? £0. It is borrowed money with a better-than-even chance of a proiftable return. (But a risk of a loss.)

"Bailing" out the banks has come at the opportunity cost of not being able to spend such money (borrowed or otherwise) on other projects or avenues, along with the time lost by Parliament and institutions in the whole process. "Paid", is not always in terms of direct cash transfer.

Gorgeous_George

Personal and abusive attacks add nothing to the argument.

If you don't want to use the bank account and if you do so solely because your employer refuses to pay you in cash, simply withdraw all of your money after payday and do not use standing orders, direct debits, cheques and debit cards ever again. Better still, withdraw it by cheque 20p at a time .

GG

kittiej

There's nothing personal about banking unfortunately, it's simply business.

Yes we should all withdraw our wages on payday and leave nothing in our bank accounts, what an excellent idea lol.

sulkisu

UncleJaysus wrote: »

And lastly, here's another idea: why don't the banks simply prevent people from going into unauthorised borrowing? Ie, if a customer has an overdraft of £500 and attempts to go £550 overdrawn, the system simply doesn't let them?

.

I agree in part, although bank charges can sometimes be the cheaper option. My direct debits and standing orders are for utility bills, insurance, credit card payments etc. In the past when d/ds have been returned unpaid, I have usually been charged by the company attempting to collect the payment. Barclaycard charged me £50 (25 late payment fee and 25 returned d/d fee), as opposed to the £25 that Halifax (my bank at the time) would have charged me for exceeding my overdraft limit for two days. When I was a student, I had 2 d/d to BT returned. As a result, my line was disconnected and had to pay £125 to reconnect. It was my own fault so I'm not complaining, but in these two instances bank charges for exceeding my overdraft, would have been cheaper. The AA charged me £30 when my contents insurance premium was refused and took away my facility to pay monthly - which really b******red me up.

In Sainsbury's yesterday, the shopper in front had her debit card refused. I don't know why, but assuming it was because she had exceeded her limit unintentionally, I do wonder if she would have preferred to have had the card accepted albeit incurring a charge, or have it declined and deal with the embarassment. Me, I would rather have paid a fee (even a high one) than die of embarassment. I know I know, "pride comes before a fall".

Whatever the final outcome, (although it does look like ithe reclaiming camaign is all over now that OFT have backed out) and without pointing the finger at either side of the debate, I for one will be glad when the issue has been decided one way or the other. I think this has been one of the most (if not the most) divisive issue on this forum.

orc_2

mustrum_ridcully wrote: »

................... 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).

The 30% of bank customers who incur bank charges fund "free banking" for the other 70% who don't incur charges. Generally those who incur bank charges do so because they already have financial problems ranging from changed circumstances- no job, death of partner, sickness, general finance issues etc.


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

Glad you think that way. You should read some of the real life stories and the misery it causes. The pain, shame, the fear, the heartache, the break up of families, ............deaths (I'm not kidding), etc.

Even the judge at the SC case said it was like Robin Hood in reverse!!!!!!

knowga

I must say I am completely disappointed with this decision by the OFT. Why give up? If the OFT can't protect us - who can? And as for all the "happy with the decision" posts...In my experience of having an £11 Direct debit get declined and having a £35 charge for unpaid DD AND a £25 charge for going overdrawn...to me, these posters are calling this "fair and just". I'm sorry but it is NOT fair and just. And to be able to get charges of similar nature paid back to me, from over a number of years, are of REAL importance. Thats what MSE has been campaigning to do, and is trying to continue to do...the MSE has my full support...Unfortunately, the group created to do this, the OFT, isn't performing its role to the consumer. Why give up if they thought it was unfair in the first place? They should explore another route and this time have it clear and precise so as not to have any ambiguity on the result.

chris1huk

mustrum_ridcully wrote: »

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!

People should pay for their own banking, not be subsidised by those that can least afford it..
Why should the poor people pay for the rich people to bank for free?
charge per direct debit/transaction.. pay for what you use, dont expect others to pay it for you.
Those that go overdrawn pay their "fees" through interest

[Deleted User]

martynthemoose wrote: »

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.

Hi there Martyn The Moose... nice name... sorry couldn't resist :rotfl:

kittiej

But where did the borrowed money come from?

Ah it's so nice now the thread has calmed down a bit, it's interesting to find out the opinions of others

david.l_4

For all you people who are defending the banks saying "oh you shouldn't of spent money you never had"

well when the banks spent other peoples money you do realise if the goverment never bailed them out you would of lost all your money you had in them!!