MSE News: Guest Comment - Bank charges fight still alive

JasX

proeleche wrote: »

Ignorance...

Don't worry, I'm sure if you ask around someone will explain it to you :A

proeleche

JasX wrote: »

Don't worry, I'm sure if you ask around someone will explain it to you :A

You can't say that it's fair when:

- someone loses their job;
- when someone becomes sick;
- the rising cost of living/ inflation, but people's wages and/or benefits are not increasing at the same rate.

There are many reasons why people get stung with these fees and I would agree with other posters that is generally the worst off in society as opposed to your assertion that it's those who want 'the latest ipod/plasma TV.'

I, like you, enjoy my free in-credit banking; but I would really like to see a bank that is completely open about its cost (DDs, SOs, FPs etc). Although it may end up costing me something, our banks have to embrace the continental way of banking and stop penalising those in society who can least afford it.

Consumerist

omcornwall wrote: »

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

My understanding of the current situation is that "fairness" is the criterion by which claims for refunding charges is judged.

If you explain to a bank that you are in financial difficulties and the bank disregards your situation and continues to charge interest and other fees then the FOS may regard that as unfair treatment and make an award on that basis.

The general principle of charges made by banks was deemed, by the supreme court judgement, to be part of the package you agree to when opening an account.

That's my understanding of the situation, anyway.

Hanky_Panky

proeleche wrote: »

I would agree with other posters that is generally the worst off in society as opposed to your assertion that it's those who want 'the latest ipod/plasma TV.'

This is a common misconception amongst the reclaim brigade and I can assure you from first hand experience it is simply untrue.
Certainly there are a number of low income families that fall into the trap but the overriding majority incur the charges through their own mismanagement/carelessness/must have the latest thingy ! But hey ! It makes a much better headline to assume that they are all very low income families, struggling to survive when nasty bank takes what little income they have in charges.

proeleche wrote: »

I, like you, enjoy my free in-credit banking; but I would really like to see a bank that is completely open about its cost (DDs, SOs, FPs etc). Although it may end up costing me something, our banks have to embrace the continental way of banking and stop penalising those in society who can least afford it.

They always have been completely open about the charges, even publishing them.

Consumerist

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

They always have been completely open about the charges, even publishing them.

It was my understanding that the reason banks would not defend claims for refunds of their charges in open court was that they refused to disclose their actual costs incurred by overdrafts, late payments etc.

Have I missed something?

Hanky_Panky

Consumerist wrote: »

Have I missed something?

Their tariff of charges perhaps ?

Consumerist

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

Their tariff of charges perhaps ?

It's not their tariff that's germane to the the discussion but their costs. Where are their costs published?

Hanky_Panky

Consumerist wrote: »

It's not their tariff that's germane to the the discussion but their costs. Where are their costs published?

It's the cost for the transactions listed if they fail - simples !

Consumerist

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

It's the cost for the transactions listed if they fail - simples !

But what is this cost? (not the charge but the cost). Where is this cost published?

Edit
For the avoidance of misunderstanding, the question is: How much (on average, if you like) does it actually cost the bank if, for example, a direct debit fails. Where is this specific information published?

Alpine_Star

JasX wrote: »

urgh, personally I'm quite happy to enjoy free banking subsidised by those unable to stay out of their overdraft

This is a common misconception.

The OFT PCA market study found that 50% of revenues for personal current accounts is derived from those who stay in credit (by way of net interest income). Only 30% of PCA revenue is derived those who incur unauthorised overdraft charges.

So it's actually people like you who are paying the lion's share of the nation's banking.