MSE News: Guest Comment - Bank charges fight still alive

davidgmmafan

Consumerist wrote: »

Well, it is THEIR money.

We, the public, have been forced into using the banking system, whether we like it or not, by government (e.g. benefit payments) and employers (e.g. salaries) alike. This has been to save them money, not us; why should we pay to have access to our incomes. Other services, I accept, we should pay for on a fair and equitable basis rather than the brunt being borne by the less affluent in society.

Legally I don't believe it is the account holders money. As far as I am aware you agree to loan the bank the money and they agree to repay it on demand, like an overdraft except this is the other way round. That's why they have government guarantees as people would otherwise feel much more uneasy than they already do about having money in the banks.

I have long thought it wrong that the banks have BLATANTLY changed their story and it has barely recieved any coverage so bravo to MSE for highlighting this.

Oh and regarding the whole end of free banking lie I'm sure I saw it mentioned somewhere that PPI is the latest scapegoat. Have you noticed that WHATEVER the issue is if it goes against the banks it may lead to the end of free banking?

*MF*

*MF* wrote: »

The ICB in fact mention the Supreme Court decision over charges, and they too are now being presented with the necessary evidence - indeed via the evidence being presented the arguments are being developed further, into the areas of free if in credit banking etc.

The evidence is in part being drawn from a blog on this whole subject - for more details see this earlier MSE post:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=37346388&postcount=2

Per that extract from the post above ... the reason I mentioned further issues relates to the discussion here on whose money it is when you deposit it in a bank.

For everyone's info:

The case law which grants legal ownership of money deposited in a bank to the bank, and establishes that the depositor simply becomes an ordinary creditor - started with Carr v Carr 1811, and has been additionally confirmed in Davaynes v Noble 1816, Sims v Bond 1833, Foley v Hill and Others 1848.

If you also read the Supreme Court judgement on the OFT case, you will also find their Lordships also confirming the position.

The second you deposit "your" money in a bank - it ceases to be "your" money, and that fact plus the system of fractional reserve banking, plus irresponsible bankers, plus inneffective regulation, devised by some poorly educated politicians, all lie at the heart of why we had a banking crisis.

Nor is that banking crisis over. It has moved to a sovereign debt crisis which if not resolved, say in Greece, will re-emerge as an even more severe banking crisis.

MIKE770

davidgmmafan wrote: »

Legally I don't believe it is the account holders money. As far as I am aware you agree to loan the bank the money and they agree to repay it on demand, like an overdraft except this is the other way round. That's why they have government guarantees as people would otherwise feel much more uneasy than they already do about having money in the banks.

I have long thought it wrong that the banks have BLATANTLY changed their story and it has barely recieved any coverage so bravo to MSE for highlighting this.

Oh and regarding the whole end of free banking lie I'm sure I saw it mentioned somewhere that PPI is the latest scapegoat. Have you noticed that WHATEVER the issue is if it goes against the banks it may lead to the end of free banking?

Money is deposited into an account, the bank borrows the said sum & loans it overnight for a profit, we get nothing, hence they reap the rewards: Banks & BBA are not to believed on any score, that is my opinion anyway!:A:beer::( So much double talk from them!

leclerc

vikingaero wrote: »

As someone who works for a European bank, I find the UK concept of free banking to be wrongThe correct term is free if in credit banking as that is the model the UK has used since 1985., especially if it's subsidised by the often poorer sectors of society. All customers should pay a monthly fee for use of a banks services. Customers often bleat that the money held by a bank is THEIR money and don't want costs to withdraw it - yet the costs of this provision are huge.

The poorer customers subsidising the wealthier ones is not exactly the case as 2006 figures in the PCA report of 2010 stated that interest forgone on credit balances made up a higher figure of profit(for want of another word). That was when interest rates were a lot higher, of course, than they were today. The likelihood is that whilst more affluent customers may not notice that they are being fleeced, more vulnerable customers are most certainly aware of that being the case. Many customers do pay a fee for their account monthly with the "useless" packaged account sold by staff who are likely to get it for free as part of their employment package. Most staff who leave will have the packaged account removed as they wouldn't pay for an account.
Mike Dailly, has continued to look for a route with regards to the bank charges campaign and good luck to him. However, I doubt that for many people hit by thousands and thousands of pounds in charges will ever see them again because I don't think he will have the route to historic charges(but I guess we have to wait and see what happens).

Only thing I would add is that the supreme court judgement stated the fee was for "consideration" of whether to pay or not pay a judgement. The fact that the fee may contribute to the whole package of accounts at a bank is not necessarily important in one individuals own case.
Good luck Mike and hopefully we will see what August brings.....

MIKE770

leclerc wrote: »

The poorer customers subsidising the wealthier ones is not exactly the case as 2006 figures in the PCA report of 2010 stated that interest forgone on credit balances made up a higher figure of profit(for want of another word). That was when interest rates were a lot higher, of course, than they were today. The likelihood is that whilst more affluent customers may not notice that they are being fleeced, more vulnerable customers are most certainly aware of that being the case. Many customers do pay a fee for their account monthly with the "useless" packaged account sold by staff who are likely to get it for free as part of their employment package. Most staff who leave will have the packaged account removed as they wouldn't pay for an account.
Mike Dailly, has continued to look for a route with regards to the bank charges campaign and good luck to him. However, I doubt that for many people hit by thousands and thousands of pounds in charges will ever see them again because I don't think he will have the route to historic charges(but I guess we have to wait and see what happens).

Only thing I would add is that the supreme court judgement stated the fee was for "consideration" of whether to pay or not pay a judgement. The fact that the fee may contribute to the whole package of accounts at a bank is not necessarily important in one individuals own case.
Good luck Mike and hopefully we will see what August brings.....

YES!! good luck MIKE roll on August.:T

G'Meister

I am glad to hear the fight is still on, good luck Mike.

In the meantime if the future is a different charging structure, is there a mainstream UK bank offering the "European style" charging structure? I would rather pay for my account than know I am taking "free banking" subsidized by people less fortunate than myself.

EDIT: I just found a new startup called https://www.BankSimple.com (they were mentioned on Mashable). Looks like the US are going to be one step ahead of us as far as fair banking goes.

leereni

Read most of the above posts however, can somebody please just tell me if we've got a chance of claiming back charges as per what we were trying to do 2 years ago, or, will it mean banks changing charging systems again?

thanks

marshallka

Consumerist wrote: »

What does a solicitor look like?

There are 450 stock photos here lol

http://www.fotosearch.com/photos-images/solicitor.html

JasX

urgh, personally I'm quite happy to enjoy free banking subsidised by those unable to stay out of their overdraft generally (thinking of those NOT in this site) because they have to have the latest iPod / Plasma TV with little idea of what poor value paying for things on credit actually represents.

why should they not suffer due to their own collective stupidity :j

(and yes I'm aware there will be a significant minority of current exceptions, but I expect most around this forum are aiming to be debt free someday and will enjoy the greener grass on the other side when they get there :A)

proeleche

JasX wrote: »

urgh, personally I'm quite happy to enjoy free banking subsidised by those unable to stay out of their overdraft generally (thinking of those NOT in this site) because they have to have the latest iPod / Plasma TV with little idea of what poor value paying for things on credit actually represents.

why should they not suffer due to their own collective stupidity :j

(and yes I'm aware there will be a significant minority of current exceptions, but I expect most around this forum are aiming to be debt free someday and will enjoy the greener grass on the other side when they get there :A)

Ignorance...