How will reclaiming bank charges impact banking discussion

Smasher

I'm really not so fragile as to be remotely affected by a bunch of text on my computer screen. I have no problem with a some colourful argument & a little sarcasm, but when someone just resorts to name calling, there isn't really much further you can go.

Anyway, moving on, I just find the suggestion that if banks are found guilty of having acted outside the law or treating customers unfairly, and go on & pick on someone else to screw in order to feed their greed, it is somehow the fault of those who stood up for themselves for being treated unfairly.
Its like blaming the guy who was being picked on last week for standing up to the school bully who is now picking on you. Its ridiculous!

Edna_Bucket_2

BigBudgie wrote: »

...I do hope that the personal insults can be set aside and the interesting debate continued.

Indeed they can - as a start I've completely set aside the abusive comments you made about Ivan Opinion in the rest of your post. :rotfl:

No seriously, what a shame that there isn't room on MSE for anyone to bear an alternative view to the "official" one without personal attacks being launched.

Just an observation - whether you think IO is right or wrong every post I've seen here in response to him seems to have an insult attached to it. Pots & kettles?

IvanOpinion

BigBudgie wrote: »

Sadly, there are far too many people in the UK who have similar opinions to "IvanOpinion" it's the "I'm alright sod everyone else philosophy". However, there are actually some arguments and points being made in this thread which will prove very educational for those new to the reclaiming process. So IvanOpinion, please keep putting up the skittles for Smasher, Nathan etc to bowl over.

Regards BUDGIE

As I have said before I am happy to wait and see what happens. Those making the claims have become so blinkered to the 'cause' that they are not interested in seeing the impact beyond their own claims. They are the ones saying 'I'm all right Jack' because as I keep pointing out it is those that just about balance the books that are likely to be affected the most (those that are doing their best and making ends meet, those on low incomes ... but that is not what people nt to hear).

Thank goodness there are people in the UK willing to explain the possible outcome (based on knowledge) otherwise the media would have the naive totally feeding from their hands (based on selfishness and emotion). By all means claim your charges and have your little victory, but at least try to consider how much that victory is going to cost you in the long term. if you learn from the lesson then you can mitigate the impact, if you don;t learn then you will get what you deserve.

BTW I was only responding like-for-like ... if people want to be sarcy with me I will be sarcy back .. if they can't take it then that is their problem.

Ivan

IvanOpinion

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

I was disputing your view that it would come from that section of society who currently incur the charges.

That is NOT what I have said, I said it may well come from those that are currently balancing the books (i.e. NOT incurring charges because they are managing their money responsibly).

And again, you have invalidated your argument by saying that new income will come from pensions, mortgages and savings.

You have failed to understand my argument therefore I have to suggest that you can not determine if I invalidated it. Can you understand the above, if not then I see no sense in responding to this. I have already stated hat I fight against elitist products but believe that is where the market will go.

But I have to say that your equation fails to take into account the backlash that will ocurr when Banks are found guilty of fleecing their customers on a mass scale. The calls for banks to be regulated as a utility, a la Crukshank, will be irresistable. It might not happen any time soon but it will happen.

There you go again using an emotional argument of 'fleecing' ... the factual argument is whether or not the charges are 'fair; or 'unfair'.

Regulation is an interesting topic and one I am undecided on, given the quality of the regulators in relation to telecoms, utilities, media etc. I wonder at times are they not just another red-tape overhead that do little other than provide a dumping spot for another load of non-jobs.

And I seriously doubt you've had access to documents on the subject of penalty charges.

You can doubt it all you like, but you would be wrong ... someone else doubted I had access to utility price change documents last October ... oddly enough look what happened in january after announcements in December.

Ivan

a11waysindebt

Banking charges are already going up...or at least my business account is in March.

This money has to be recouped from somewhere.

You need to think ahead when something like this happens and put yourself in the position of the banks.

This isn't going to go away who ever wins the case.

I see it the same way as claiming on an house insurance policy,you might claim today but the policy is going to go up.

Smasher

a11waysindebt wrote: »

This money has to be recouped from somewhere.
You need to think ahead when something like this happens and put yourself in the position of the banks.
This isn't going to go away who ever wins the case.
I see it the same way as claiming on an house insurance policy,you might claim today but the policy is going to go up.

That analogy doesn't really parallel with the situation. There is nothing unfair or unlawful or contentious in any way about a housing insurance policy, it is a perfectly legitimate service.
If charges are found to be unfair and/or unlawful, then then there is no justifiable reason to link them in any way to any other rip off scheme a bank introduces in the future.

IvanOpinion

Smasher wrote: »

That analogy doesn't really parallel with the situation. There is nothing unfair or unlawful or contentious in any way about a housing insurance policy, it is a perfectly legitimate service.
If charges are found to be unfair and/or unlawful, then then there is no justifiable reason to link them in any way to any other rip off scheme a bank introduces in the future.

You can not divorce the changes in banking from claims against banking though. (Example) A few years back I could easily find a credit card offering an interest rate of 9.9%-11.9% (that was significant drop from previous values) .. now the more likely rate is about 12.9-14.9% (there are some other deals out there) ... there was no 3% rise in interest rates. Similarly balance transfers used to be free now they seem to be about 2-3% ... is there a connection between the refunding of charges and these rises ... I doubt if you will find anybody willing to stand up and say yes, but it is one hell of a coincidence.

ivan

Nathan_Spleen

IvanOpinion wrote: »

Thank goodness there are people in the UK willing to explain the possible outcome (based on knowledge)
Ivan

I'm sure we're all eternally grateful to you for your previledged insight into ''explaining the possible outcome based on knowledge''. You only have to look at the many posts of thanks and support to realise this. Although is it noted that your position seems to have changed somewhat from the definate outcome to a possible one.

But next time I need some advice on the bigger picture, I'll ask a proffesional.

As for my ''emotional argument of 'fleecing' '' and your contention that ''the factual argument is whether or not the charges are 'fair; or 'unfair' '' I would be very happy to place a substantial wager with you that the charges will indeed be ruled unfair but I somehow suspect you'll decline.

Smasher

Sure, I have a theory too. Were banks really lying to the courts when they said that overdraft, bounced cheque, returned DD, Debit card misuse charges were to cover their costs, or is it one hell of a coincidence that they all chose to settle every claim even though they believed they were right? Did they settle because they knew they couldn't substantiate this defence, or does the think end of £1bn in settlements really make better commercial sense? Is it yet another astonishing coincidence that they all changed their T&Cs and their plea, at exactly the same time, just as the test case was announced?

We can all have a theory, and to be honest I think you're spot on with the credit card theory, but the changes are a result of the card issuers greed, not because their foul practices were outlawed. They would still have been making huge profits without these charges.
If it is against the law and/or unfair, then yes you can divorce it from any changes that might follow. It would simply have been be an unlawful/unfair practice that was stopped.

If, after that, banks go after other people to fuel their greed, then it is because the bank is relentlessly greedy, not because a bunch of people stood up for their consumer rights.

Nathan_Spleen

Smasher wrote: »

If, after that, banks go after other people to fuel their greed, then it is because the bank is relentlessly greedy, not because a bunch of people stood up for their consumer rights.

Very well put Smasher