How will reclaiming bank charges impact banking discussion

Smasher

alexjohnson wrote: »

Banks have wanted to charge fees for ages, why wouldn't being "forced" into it or "fairness" be perfect excuses? Can I prove it? No - sadly my invitation to Barclays' last retail strategy meeting must have got lost in the post... But to say there isn't a "shred" of evidence is to ignore common sense.

And exactly the same thing can be said of those hundreds of thousands of claims that contended that charges were unlawful penalties. Unfortunately, no proof exists to support either.

What I'm saying is, there is overwhelming "common sense" to support the theory that banks avoided court at the last minute because they knew that the claimant would win. Unless £750m (so far) in settlements really is better commercial sense (as described in their 11th hour settlement letters), despite the mass adverse publicity it has brought them anyway.
Dismiss that theory if you like, I too can dismiss yours just as easily and on the exactly same principle.

It is a great situation for the bankers though isn't it? They can continue to wring the necks of their "customers" to fuel their relentless greed in any way they can think of, and rub their hands together whilst consumers blame each other..

arabianights

Hilarious thread to read this.

The majority of banks (and bankers) make almost no money to speak of from consumers... there's very little money at all in retail banking. And customers steal your money and then sue you for getting upset. Repeatedly in some cases!

Those guys you read about getting multi million pound bonuses and driving fezzas aged 22 aren't retail bankers... If you honestly think they are then why not apply for the job yourself?

IvanOpinion

Smasher wrote: »

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?

I don;t think you are interested in objectively looking at evidence but it is out there .. you only have to look at what happened interest rates in the credit card market.

The only thing I will say is that I think the credit crunch is going to get a lot of unwarranted blame from both sides who are probably rubbing their hands in glee now that they have something to blame. The banks are probably busy rewriting the rules to blame the credit crunch and those that have jumped on this campaign for their own purposes will try saying it was nothing to do with their campaign it was the credit crunch.

Out the other side though I hope you will be happy with your new banking system and all the mandatory unavoidable charges that it may contain. I hope that people like Martin can justify their stance to millions who may be adversely affected by this .. many of them just about making ends meet today. As I have often said, I KNOW I am not wrong on some points and I hope I am wrong on some of my conjecture ... I am happy o wait a couple of years and if I am wrong I will gladly admit it ... if however even some of what I have been saying is right I hope those that caused it will be willing to stand up and accept the blame and not hide like cowards behind 'credit crunch'.

Ivan

arabianights

IvanOpinion wrote: »

I hope those that caused it will be willing to stand up and accept the blame and not hide like cowards behind 'credit crunch'.

Ivan

Fat chance - if they would take responsibility for themselves they wouldn't have been claiming back the charges in the first place!

Smasher

IvanOpinion wrote: »

I don;t think you are interested in objectively looking at evidence but it is out there ..

Ditto.. We're in the same boat with our arguments though aren't we. No proof to back any of it up, just circumstantial & conjecture.. You refuse to accept my point of view, yet you call me allsorts & want to blame the likes of me if I don't accept yours..

IvanOpinion wrote: »

I hope that people like Martin can justify their stance to millions who may be adversely affected by this .. many of them just about making ends meet today. As I have often said, I KNOW I am not wrong on some points and I hope I am wrong on some of my conjecture ... I am happy o wait a couple of years and if I am wrong I will gladly admit it ... if however even some of what I have been saying is right I hope those that caused it will be willing to stand up and accept the blame and not hide like cowards behind 'credit crunch'.

Well I for one will never accept blame for whatever happens from here on in. I simply believed that the bank I used broke the law so I took them to court. They had every opportunity to defend themselves & prove that what they did was right & lawful but they chose to wait until the brink & settle instead.
They told me it made better commercial sense to settle, this after telling me to get lost twice before I took them to court and again after I filed the AQ which cost them another £100. They could have saved all those costs, not to mention what they were paying their lawyers, if they had repaid in the first instance. A bit irresponsible of them don't you think?

IvanOpinion

Smasher wrote: »

Ditto.. We're in the same boat with our arguments though aren't we. No proof to back any of it up, just circumstantial & conjecture.. You refuse to accept my point of view, yet you call me allsorts & want to blame the likes of me if I don't accept yours..

Not quite .. I was sub contracted to a bank and had access to confidential documents which due to non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements I can not discuss (and boy would I love to). However as I commented in my previous post I think this is now academic since the credit crunch will probably get the blame for actions that were actually decided long before we even heard of the phrase 'credit crunch'.

Well I for one will never accept blame for whatever happens from here on in. I simply believed that the bank I used broke the law so I took them to court. They had every opportunity to defend themselves & prove that what they did was right & lawful but they chose to wait until the brink & settle instead.
They told me it made better commercial sense to settle, this after telling me to get lost twice before I took them to court and again after I filed the AQ which cost them another £100. They could have saved all those costs, not to mention what they were paying their lawyers, if they had repaid in the first instance. A bit irresponsible of them don't you think?

That is each persons right and I think the banlks made a big mistake by NOT defending this earlier .. they only decided to defend it when the volume and value of such claims made it economically viable to actually put up a defence and get a single judgement (similar to many companies who will not defend against claims of (e.g.) £500 or less .. it simply costs too much).

I think the vent board will soon have some very interesting postings on it.

Ivan

Smasher

IvanOpinion wrote: »

Not quite .. I was sub contracted to a bank and had access to confidential documents which due to non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements I can not discuss (and boy would I love to).

Yeah yeah, you've posted that bit of info countless times, it really doesn't mean anything. I doubt anyone anyone called Ivan Opinion works for a bank anyway..

IvanOpinion wrote: »

That is each persons right and I think the banlks made a big mistake by NOT defending this earlier .. they only decided to defend it when the volume and value of such claims made it economically viable to actually put up a defence and get a single judgement (similar to many companies who will not defend against claims of (e.g.) £500 or less .. it simply costs too much).

Rubbish! They were already paying out in the millions a couple of years ago. They are only defending now because they have managed to (rather shabbily) fiddle the T&Cs, and not even that has quite worked out. If they wanted to defend sooner, they would have had to defend on the principle that charges were purely to cover their administration costs for breach of terms, as is the principle for the vast majority of claims made.
Given that they are now telling us that the charges are a "service" and are admitting that they make considerable revenue from them, it would follow that to defend on the original principle would have been impossible. You can't have it both ways..

Nathan_Spleen

alexjohnson wrote: »

Well this article in the Torygraph seems to sum it up nicely:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/01/10/cmbanking10.xml

Angela Knight from the BBA has said as much in several interviews.

It wouldn't pass a criminal "beyond all reasonable doubt" test but I certainly think it passes a civil "on the balance of probabilities" test. And I think it's more than a "single shred of evidence."

You cannot be serious!!!! Tell me your not serious!!!

A single article in a newspaper and a bland reference to the bank's chief spin doctor ''passes the balance of probabilities test'' ????

I've got my head in my hands.

You're a sandwich short of a picnic.

Smasher

alexjohnson wrote: »

Of course it doesn't. It shows there is a "shred of evidence" that reducing bank charges will lead to current account fees.

No it doesn't, it is just a very poorly researched article which contains factual errors.
I could happily sit here & post link after link after link to articles that suggest that the charges were unlawful penalties. Would you accept those as "evidence"?

Gotta laugh at the sheer ignorance of people who apply the "well there is no proof that they were penalties" principle to dismiss the argument of those who have claimed, yet refuse to accept the very same lack of proof exists to underpin their arguments..

Nathan_Spleen

And I think it's more than a "single shred of evidence." - AlexJohnson post #656

''Of course it doesn't. It shows there is a "shred of evidence" '' - AlexJohnson post #667