MSE News: Conservative/Lib Dem government brings bank charges hope 12 May 2010 at 12:58PM in Reclaim bank & credit card charges 13 replies 1.9K views

Former_MSE_Guy

This is the discussion thread for the following MSE News Story:

"Deputy PM Nick Clegg has previously said banks should pay back excessive fees for exceeding your overdraft limit ..."

Read the full story:

Conservative/Lib Dem government brings bank charges hope

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

Don't be silly. Being 'Responsible' - the new governmental catchphrase - means you shouldn't have spent the money in the first place. Remember the absence of sympathy when people were getting repossessed in the 1990s? The old comment of 'people should live within their means' will be coming back, after all, that's the gist of the economic policy now.

Whether or not I agree with the policy, the point is that anything said out of government is now set aside in favour of the anti recession plan and this would be in direct conflict with the macro economic policy and ethos.

chillxxx

Nick Clegg may feel they are excessive, however unless he forces to the OFT to take action against the banks they just remain his public thoughts.

Gloomy_Past_Bright_Future

I think declaring something like this is giving people false hope about their financial situation and that they may soon have money coming in.

We've got our first look at the text of the coalition agreement between the Lib Dems and Tories. A few headlines for you. There is a commitment to a "significantly accelerated" reduction in the fiscal deficit. There will be cuts to the child trust fund and tax credits.

I think people need to begin to look at their finances to be ready for tough times especially with the cut in tax credits.

Also with the Uks credit rating likely to drop thus interest rates to our country likely to increase do you really think the BoE can afford to keep rates at 0.5%?

dunstonh

He may not like them but a retrospective change is looking unlikely. There may be future legislation on future charge levels but its unlikely that anything will be backdated.

Now that Nick Clegg has a little power, he may begin to realise that you cant say what the voters want to hear all the time and that unpopular decisions have to be made.

Premier_2

Gloomy_Past_Bright_Future wrote: »

...We've got our first look at the text of the coalition agreement between the Lib Dems and Tories. A few headlines for you. There is a commitment to a "significantly accelerated" reduction in the fiscal deficit. There will be cuts to the child trust fund and tax credits....

I believe that is exactly where people should be looking now, not at old election manfestos.

Remember, the people of this nation decided that no one party should have overall control of this country. Essentially that meant that the people rejected each party's manifesto.

What we now have is a coalition agreement, an agreement cobbled together from the remnants of the earlier manifesto's where some common ground could be agreed. Much of what was said prior to the election has had to be compromised or quietly forgotten about altogether.
It is only what has been agreed within the coalition agreement that you can be sure any active progress will be made.

I don't believe there is any mention in that agreement on introducing legislation on bank charges ... and even if there is, it would be very strange indeed for such legislation to become effective retrospectively.


Edit: Here is the full text from that coalition agreement relating to banking reform:

4. Banking Reform
The parties agree that reform to the banking system is essential to avoid a repeat of Labour's financial crisis, to promote a competitive economy, to sustain the recovery and to protect and sustain jobs.

We agree that a banking levy will be introduced. We will seek a detailed agreement on implementation.

We agree to bring forward detailed proposals for robust action to tackle unacceptable bonuses in the financial services sector; in developing these proposals, we will ensure they are effective in reducing risk.

We agree to bring forward detailed proposals to foster diversity, promote mutuals and create a more competitive banking industry.

We agree that ensuring the flow of credit to viable SMEs is essential for supporting growth and should be a core priority for a new government, and we will work together to develop effective proposals to do so. This will include consideration of both a major loan guarantee scheme and the use of net lending targets for the nationalised banks.

The parties wish to reduce systemic risk in the banking system and will establish an independent commission to investigate the complex issue of separating retail and investment banking in a sustainable way; while recognising that this would take time to get right, the commission will be given an initial time frame of one year to report.

The parties agree that the regulatory system needs reform to avoid a repeat of Labour's financial crisis. We agree to bring forward proposals to give the Bank of England control of macro-prudential regulation and oversight of micro-prudential regulation.

The parties also agree to rule out joining the European Single Currency during the duration of this agreement.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8677933.stm

Sceptic001

I am pleased to see that transfer of banking regulation back to the Bank of England has survived the LibCon merger.

If the FSA had spent a bit more time looking at the banks' reckless investment behaviour and a bit less time nitpicking on terms and conditions for retail customers perhaps we would not now be in this mess.

davidgmmafan

"Being 'Responsible' - the new governmental catchphrase - means you shouldn't have spent the money in the first place."

ARGH this point has been done to death, the highest charge I can recall seeing(£38 or £39 I forget which, levied by Natwest) was for an UNPAID direct debit or standing order. Talk of spending money you don't have is meaningless. And even if someone does authorize a payment thier account cannot cover, in most cases, it is the bank which decides whether or not to pay it. The customer has NO SAY in this.

The banks have dropped the charges yet insist they've done nothing wrong. The customers were 100% correct when they said the banks were massively profiterring from these charges whilst at the same time insisting they were purely to cover thier costs.

As a rule I dis-agree with retrospective legislation but in this instance I would whole-heartedly support it. £5 is a resonable figure, if there's some proof otherwise from the banks as to thier costs I'm all ears...

Oh and, to the bank supporters, you do know the FOS said the banks were essentially ignoring legitimate hardship claims throughout the period in which the FSA Waiver was in place... And the FSA has commented recently that banks don't respond to customers concerns and complaints. I have experience this, even if you ask a yes or no question you won't get an answer...

Paulgonnabedebtfree

I can't see retrospective payments being made. The rulings have been made in courts and (theoretically anyway) the courts are meant to be independent of the state. Of course I'm sure that much horse trading does go on behind the scenes but I imagine these are more about getting governments out of the mire rather than helping people who have been pooed on by their banks.

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

davidgmmafan wrote: »

"Being 'Responsible' - the new governmental catchphrase - means you shouldn't have spent the money in the first place."

ARGH this point has been done to death, the highest charge I can recall seeing(£38 or £39 I forget which, levied by Natwest) was for an UNPAID direct debit or standing order. Talk of spending money you don't have is meaningless. And even if someone does authorize a payment thier account cannot cover, in most cases, it is the bank which decides whether or not to pay it. The customer has NO SAY in this.

The banks have dropped the charges yet insist they've done nothing wrong. The customers were 100% correct when they said the banks were massively profiterring from these charges whilst at the same time insisting they were purely to cover thier costs.

As a rule I dis-agree with retrospective legislation but in this instance I would whole-heartedly support it. £5 is a resonable figure, if there's some proof otherwise from the banks as to thier costs I'm all ears...

Oh and, to the bank supporters, you do know the FOS said the banks were essentially ignoring legitimate hardship claims throughout the period in which the FSA Waiver was in place... And the FSA has commented recently that banks don't respond to customers concerns and complaints. I have experience this, even if you ask a yes or no question you won't get an answer...

Tell me this all you like, it makes no difference to me, as you're shouting the odds at someone who doesn't agree with the practices of the banking system. But I believe that the guys in power think it, and as they are the ones who decide what happens, it could be a long, long wait for the money.

Premier_2

davidgmmafan wrote: »

... And even if someone does authorize a payment thier account cannot cover, in most cases, it is the bank which decides whether or not to pay it. The customer has NO SAY in this...

The customer already had their say by authorising the payment

Of course the bank has the option to not pay it if the customer does not have the funds available to honour it.