MSE News: CONFIRMED - OFT gives up bank charges battle

kittiej

The Halifax sent me a lettert saying they won't charge more than a fiver for going OD, but they do charge a daily amount for being OD which I think is fair because you only pay on what you use.

My Coop account charges £9.50 a month for benefits which include a £200 OD facility, not sure what they charge if you go over this though, and they have the 3 strikes and you're out.

OH is still with Barclays and they are still taking loads if you go OD.

it can be a bit of a minefield with who charges what, we need clarity and I don't think we have got there yet.

Not sure if there will ever be a perfect bank account, but I prefer the Halifax system from the knowledge I have (which is limited as you can see)

marcharrison1979

UncleJaysus wrote: »

With Rage Against the Machine's recent chart victory fresh in memory, perhaps we could set up something similar for banking. After all, if the little guy can influence the pop charts, then maybe such banding together could be used to create an even more meaningful message?

I'm just thinking off the top of my head here, but maybe we could get anyone who's with one of the big banks (those involved in the test case) to sign up and pledge to leave their bank and take their money, wages, cards etc to a smaller bank on a day or time period to be decided.

If enough people joined this, then the chosen day/week/month where everyone emptied and closed their accounts could mean chaos for the banks.

Brilliant Idea! i was just thinking the same thing. I've got an account with Halifax but i'm moving to alliance & Leicester. I'd happily remove all of my wage the day it lands in my account, if we get 500,000 people doing the same maybe we could bring one of the banks too their knees? 500k x 1.5k = 750 Million! i'd love to see the big banks completely destroyed and all of the scum bags who work for them and support them pocketless and out on the streets. Anyone else fancy joining us? let's get a facebook page started!

The_White_Horse

UncleJaysus wrote: »

or like saying to someone who's house has been burgled "well, you shouldn't have gone away at Christmas - everyone knows burglaries go up at Christmas".

To be fair, it is more like going away at xmas and leaving the door wide open, lights on, tv on, and all your jewellery on the kitchen table!!!

UncleJaysus

alexjohnson wrote: »

And they don't make any attempt to. Attitude has nothing to do with it.

I'd welcome some argument but the frothy-at-the-mouth outrage is now as boring as it is hypocritical.

Right...

The point I was making is that your opinions of people on here, doesn't change the fact that banks rake in a reported THIRD of their income from preying on the poor and the careless. This is wrong.

Banks, going forward, should scrap the entire system of unauthorised ovedrafts by taking away the ability for people to go over their limits.

To all of you who say "but then they'll need to charge to recoup their money", I say:

No. They will charge because they don't want a dip in profits. The decision to charge anything in place of the unauthorised charges is ENTIRELY up to them. They don't have to - they can survive without that money.

kittiej

Taxiphil, that's wot I said earlier but it must have been deleted or something.

I think I must have hit a raw nerve with someone somewhere, but I was a bit more specific lol.

Shine the light, let the light shine? whatever. Never was one to swear that much.

UncleJaysus

The_White_Horse wrote: »

To be fair, it is more like going away at xmas and leaving the door wide open, lights on, tv on, and all your jewellery on the kitchen table!!!

OK, but the fact remains that anyone who goes in and takes things is still committing a crime. So regardless of the stupidity of the individual, the burgler should still be punished yes?

EXACTLY!

The_White_Horse

but why is it wrong for the poor to support the rich? lets face it, the banks don't want the poor - they just have to take them on really. the banks want rich people, with lots of savings, lots in their current a/c and lots of large borrowing.

the poor should support this. afterall, if they didn't pay these meagre fees levied on them, which are mostly avoidable, they would probably have to go to a special bank with hefty fees and large interest rates on loans. The poor always get the raw end of the deal. that is because they are poor. If they don't like it, they should become rich. not sit around all day wacthing jeremy kyle buying rubbish they don't need.

really, it think the poor should subsidise my weekly Tesco shop.

kittiej

LOl at White Horse.

You really should do your shopping elsewhere though, Mr W's at least.

We need to come up with something constructive, workable and fair. Maybe we could pressure the banks into offering a service we actually want and not just use iyswim.

Maybe 'the dream' of reclaiming might be over, but that doesn't mean we cannot continue to do something constructive.

UncleJaysus

The_White_Horse wrote: »

but why is it wrong for the poor to support the rich? lets face it, the banks don't want the poor - they just have to take them on really. the banks want rich people, with lots of savings, lots in their current a/c and lots of large borrowing.

the poor should support this. afterall, if they didn't pay these meagre fees levied on them, which are mostly avoidable, they would probably have to go to a special bank with hefty fees and large interest rates on loans. The poor always get the raw end of the deal. that is because they are poor. If they don't like it, they should become rich. not sit around all day wacthing jeremy kyle buying rubbish they don't need.

really, it think the poor should subsidise my weekly Tesco shop.

I don't really need to think up a response to this at all, do I?

In one fell swoop you've stuffed more narrow-minded twaddle into a forum post than anyone else I've ever seen. Ever. And as anyone who regularly uses forums can appreciate, that's up against some pretty stiff competition.

Seriously, you are, without a shadow of a doubt, a horrendous example of a human being. Well done you.

KimYeovil

UncleJaysus wrote: »

Irrelevant.

The point remains: banks shouldn't be able to rip off the poor, regardless of the attitudes of people on here.

The banks do not "rip off" the poor. Only rich people pay charges. A poor person does not have a spare £19.95 or £35 to pay. Therefore they do not allow themselves to incur charges.

What is wrong with poor customers being given a break and being supported by richer customers? You are completely contradicting yourself. Your contempt of the poor is an embarrassment to your avowed allegiance.