How will reclaiming bank charges impact banking discussion

jonesMUFCforever

Phoenixx73 wrote: »

MY question is... is there a viable alternative to highstreet banks? an alternative that dosnt have shareholders to make rich and would have no interest in fleecing its customers?

In my opinion no. Who would want to start a business to lose money?

agnes_2

Banks are not losing money, as the half yearly figures show, even with the milliions they have paid back to claimants, the main banks showed increased profits. I have taken my claim to court and entered an application to uplift the stay, (placed on more than 600 cases in the same County Court, same date and time.) I spent one more than twos in front of the Judge together with the banks solicitor, the uplift of the stays refused until the result of the OFT case of course, but I have never experienced any rebuff from the bank, my account remains at present, I have now chosen to leave them because of their disregard for such old and loyal customers.

Edna_Bucket_2

Phoenixx73 wrote: »

MY question is... is there a viable alternative to highstreet banks? an alternative that dosnt have shareholders to make rich and would have no interest in fleecing its customers?

Would that be the cuddly friendly Nationwide Building Society, who make all those wonderfully funny commercials about how "different" they are have no shareholders?

Ah, but that'll also be the hatchet faced Nationwide mob trundling into the hearing accused of fleecing their customers too along with all the rest...and we'd better not mention the fat cat Board with their jumbo sized bonuses.:rolleyes:

siowenson

The banks are trying to threaten us with mandatory charges for the use of our accounts if the OFT win the test case.
I think these charges will amount to pennies per month for 2 reasons:

1. The competition between the banks will drive the prices down,

2. The banks only take money from a percentage of us through bank charges (say 40%). It has taken us years to do something about it because we are in the minority. If the banks were to charge everybody then there would be an uproar straight away.

Saying that, they will just blame number 2 on the people who incurred the charges.

TANZARELLI

IvanOpinion wrote:

The media likes to get its hands on mass appeal stories and exaggerate them to appeal to what people want to hear while hiding much of the reality

Pretty much the same as "This is the end of free banking as we know it" oh no its the end of the world stories which they are running now to stir up the nation LMAO.

As I have posted before if this means that the minority of people who have been carrying you all for years get a fairer system then so be it.

It doesn't mean its the end of the world it means its fairer.

exil

Agnes wrote: »

Banks are not losing money, as the half yearly figures show, even with the milliions they have paid back to claimants, the main banks showed increased profits. I have taken my claim to court and entered an application to uplift the stay, (placed on more than 600 cases in the same County Court, same date and time.) I spent one more than twos in front of the Judge together with the banks solicitor, the uplift of the stays refused until the result of the OFT case of course, but I have never experienced any rebuff from the bank, my account remains at present, I have now chosen to leave them because of their disregard for such old and loyal customers.

Sure, they make lots of money - but not from people with small accounts that remain in credit. These accounts actually lose money. So, if banks can no longer cross-subsidise them with the money from bank charges, then free banking will no longer be available unless you keep, say, £1,500 in credit or pay £1,500 a month into your account.

Perhaps that will be a more "transparent" system - but the losers will be those who have done their level best to remain in the black by a few quid at the end of the month. They will now pay charges for every transaction - enough, perhaps, to now ensure they go into the red....

DickDastardly_2

I watched this campaign initially on the TV and I saw the second (I think) episode of the new series of Martin's programme and this issue was featured, so correct me if I am wrong.....

But, wasn't the point of this campaign initially to reclaim unfair charges levied for silly things like letters to say you're overdrawn at £30 a pop??

I ask because now it would seem that people are ebing encourage to claim for all charges for being overdrawn? If this is correct, then I am not entirely sure that it is right.

When someone signed up for a bank account, charges for overdrafts which are unsecured, unauthorised borrowing are made clear. If you then spend more than you have and continually go overdrawn, isn't it right that the bank should be able to charge you for this? It is after all their money that you're spending without permission! I grant you that charging for letters and silly admin fees is wrong, as it is evident that a letter doesn't cost £35, but to charge for the overdraft seems pretty fair to me?

I am curious because if the current campaing is indeed to reclaim all charges then I think that aside from the dissapointment involved if this doesn't happen, it may also spell the end of 'free' banking for the rest of the country that doesn't habitually go overdrawn. I dont think the banks as a business will swallow being told by the courts that they must lend money through overdrafts without being able to charge for it, so I can see them saying okay then NO overdraft facilities avaialble to anyone then and no more free banking, i.e. standard transactions will incur fees or there will be an annual fee to have a bank account.

Is this a campaign too far Martin??

borgbaiter

hi

the system of being charged on a transaction basis sounds eminently more fair than robbing the poor to pay the rest.

The banks didnt have to allow unauthorised overdrafts, they did so as a revinue stream. They have always had the option of simply refusing payment were there are insuficient funds available.


Borgbaiter

DaisyFlower

I agree with you totally OP.

£30 for a computer generated letter is a bit OOT and the figure should be reduced. However fees for going over drawn etc are quite clearly stated in the T&C's - if you dont like them either bank elsewhere or dont go overdrawn.

I truly hope the banks win their case otherwise all those who handle their money well will be penalised for those who dont as it will almost certainly bring an end to free banking.

In todays culture people seem to blame everybody but themselves - banks are there to make money - they are a business and thats what businesses do. If you spend money you havent got, be it a card purchase or a direct debit, then why should you not get charged? Its not your money so charging is not unfair.

As for "the system of being charged on a transaction basis sounds eminently more fair than robbing the poor to pay the rest" - wont the "supposed poor" be penalised even further if there are charges per transaction as people on small budget tend to make small individual purchases rather than bulk shop etc.

I agree with the majority of Martins comments but the bank charges I dont - what next, force supermarkets to sell at cost as they shouldnt make a profit either?

Smasher

Its only those who have never suffered the downward spiral of debt caused by bank charges and have never experienced the disgusting underhand & bullying tactics used by banks who post such views.

The point about agreeing to your T&Cs is fair enough, but what if those T&Cs say they can come & break your legs aswell. If you agree to it, does that make it legal & acceptable?
How about landlord making the guy who pays his rent late pay everyone else's rent. Sound fair?

By all means businesses should make a profit, but penalty charges are against the law. So far, banks have paid out over £600m last year alone to avoid this being examined in court and have such little confidence in their ability to prove that their costs are as much as £38 that they have all been rewriting their T&Cs to present them as service fees.