How will reclaiming bank charges impact banking discussion

Nathan_Spleen

IvanOpinion wrote: »

:rotfl: Oh my gawd, do you believe everything you are told or only that which suits your purposes.
Ivan

If you had taken more than a cursory glance at post - presumably to ''suit your purpose'', you would have deduced that it was not me being told, but a high court judge.

The condradictions in your posts are breath-taking.

''Despite the myths banks can and do make money on accounts being run responsibly in credit ... ''

''I repeat, banks can make money on accounts being operated in credit ..''


I've really had it with you Ivan.

Toodlepip

IvanOpinion

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

If you had taken more than a cusory glance at post - presumably to ''suit your purpose'', you would have deduced that it was not me being told, but a high court judge.

You posted it as "fact" ... did you expect me to ignore it? Even before Martin jumped onthis band wagon we were discussing it ono these boards. At the time I was sub contracted to a bank and could see what was happening .. sadly the myths, urban legends and general 'blame everybody else' attitude has overtaken reality.

I've really had it with you Ivan.

Sorry you feel that way, but we all need to be able to handle those that that have differing opinions to ourselves. it doesn't make either opinion less valid, however in this case, and I repeat, there are two main things that people are ignoring
- those that will be affected th emost are those that can least afford it
- a minority of people will win a small battle that will ultimately cost everybody the war
In a few years time think back on this, think back what we had and compare. It may be better, it may be worse .. only time will tell.

ivan

Nathan_Spleen

LikeI said...Toodlepip, bye, ciao. see ya, so long, bon voyage

IvanOpinion

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

LikeI said...Toodlepip, bye, ciao. see ya, so long, bon voyage

Well stop wasting my time then do what you say and stop coming back wavey wave, tear in the eye, :wave: :wave:

Ivan

Charlton_King

The simple fact of the matter was that, rightly or wrongly (yes, the world isn't perfect, actually), we had a situation in which a fees-free current account banking system was in place for anyone who was able to operate their monthly budget responsibly.

This was subsidised by charges levied on those who couldn't or wouldn't.

For some reason best known to himself, Martin Lewis decided that this rather simple and easy-to-understand situation couldn't be allowed to continue. Either that or, in his messianic fervour, he didn't think things through.

Whatever the case, he's landed me with banking charges which I didn't have to pay before.

Perhaps he would care to explain to me why he, in effect, chose to champion the rights of the careless over those of the conscientious?

TANZARELLI

Oh dear you still really don't get it do you.

If like you say everyone kept their accounts in credit and they didn't incur charges or unlawful charges were abolished we would have the same situation. The banks would look at other ways to profit from the customer. It is only because they are being pulled up about it that we are going to see change.

If the banks acted responsibly and levied charges proportionate to their losses then I for one would not have a problem in paying charges.

The fact that they were until recently levied under liquidated damages clauses within Terms & Conditions means that they have been profitting from breaches in contract, something which is unlaful.

Only now are they stating that their charges are a fee for a service which you seem to agree these rip off charges are legitimately for, why did they do this? So they could continue to fleece customers.

I still think your being unrealistic in your opinions however you are entitled to have them.

Also for you to lay the blame at one persons door for something you are not in agreement with is also unrealistic too. If you don't agree with what martin is doing on the site then why use it?

Is this because you just like to "bleat" on about how you may have to pay a standard charge for a service that you want?

Well I will continue to "bleat" on about a disguised/cloaked/veiled/alledged (get real if you still beleive it is a service) service that in fact is really a disproportionate unlawful penalty which I don't want also.

Smasher

Has any bank said to their customers that "we are now charging you because we can no longer impose default charges"? No? Well then until there is any proof of that, it is just your opinion, and one which has not a shred of evidence.

The new charges being levied upon your paid accounts are for those "services" they say they are for. If you don't like them, you can always go elsewhere can't you?

How comfortable is the boot?

IvanOpinion

Smasher wrote: »

Has any bank said to their customers that "we are now charging you because we can no longer impose default charges"? No? Well then until there is any proof of that, it is just your opinion, and one which has not a shred of evidence.

The new charges being levied upon your paid accounts are for those "services" they say they are for. If you don't like them, you can always go elsewhere can't you?

How comfortable is the boot?

It's nice to see the selfishness shining through ... it is typical of the 'I'm all right jack, reclaim culture' .. however remember you are manufacturing the boot and you will also have to wear it ... I just hope you will be happy with the product you and other 'moneycostingexperts' are creating.

Ivan

Smasher

IvanOpinion wrote: »

It's nice to see the selfishness shining through ... it is typical of the 'I'm all right jack, reclaim culture' .. however remember you are manufacturing the boot and you will also have to wear it ... I just hope you will be happy with the product you and other 'moneycostingexperts' are creating.

Ivan

Sorry mate, but the above is completely meaningless, just like our claim that default charges were unlawful penalties. The difference is, those who reclaimed had such belief & confidence in their claims that they managed to recover the thick end of £1bn and were prepared, as ordinary people, to stand in court against mighty financial institutions & their expensive lawyers before they backed down & settled.
Call me what you like, its usually your first refuge when you're in checkmate. I'd like to see you prove that those who reclaimed are causing new charges to others. You do not have a single shred of evidence to back it up do you?

Smasher

Nope, not even a particle of a shred. I could say the same thing about bankers settling at the last minute to avoid a ruling against them. This is from the article you linked to..

There are concerns, for example, about poorer customers cross-subsidising the better off who manage their affairs wisely, although the banks have not helped their case by refusing to disclose the true cost to them of many of these services.
Furthermore, when customers pursue their complaints to court, they have tended to settle at the last moment to avoid an unfavourable legal precedent being set.

This goes against your theory somewhat. Besides, for the vast majority of claims, the charges were not described as fees for a service. Also a county court ruling sets no precedent, so if this article is really the best you can come up with to support your theory then that says all that needs to be said. The fact remains, you have no evidence to support your theory, it is purely your opinion & nothing more..