Bank Charges case upheld

deary65

Probably one of the most important and informative videos you will see in your life!! It's worth watching. The money masters in two parts, you should set aside some time if want to watch them,they are most informative and might help explain the judgment!
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-8753934454816686947&q=money+masters
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-529716659023952808&q=money+masters+part+2



Commenting on the judgment I think the judge is saying this should go to a higher court for a ruling possibly the high court or the house of lords.

WiseInvestor_2

I certainly wasn't commenting on your children, merely your decision to have a family when you feel that your income is insufficient (even though millions of others manage).

You're right, I don't know your circumstances but you're sat on the internet at 2pm on a Wednesday afternoon so you clearly have enough money for a computer and internet connection. You've probably got Jeremy Kyle on in the background on your flat screen TV too.

Why not use your time to go and speak to every bank on the High Street. Find one that suits your circumstances rather than continuing to pay fines to the one you're with now. Consumer ACTION protects consumer rights, not distorting an open market through the threat of legal action.

funkylala

WiseInvestor wrote: »

TV/DVD players in every bedroom is my guess.

LIVE TO YOUR MEANS - don't overspend if you can help it. If you can't help it, don't just do it - go and TALK TO SOMEONE about it. - if you want charity go and speak to the Samaritans.

Well I for one think you've stepped over the line there....
Patronising, generalising, inaccurate and ultimately offensive. There's many a time when you're thrown into debt that The Samaritans is a consideration. How dare you.

Are you a troll just with 427 posts???

ETA I run a business from home if you're wondering what I'm doing on here at 2pm...I prefer Steve Wright on radio 2....
You have NO idea.

You can't TALK to anyone any more, love!!....computer says noooooooooooooooooooooooo...

jen1972_2

WiseInvestor wrote: »

I certainly wasn't commenting on your children, merely your decision to have a family when you feel that your income is insufficient (even though millions of others manage).

You're right, I don't know your circumstances but you're sat on the internet at 2pm on a Wednesday afternoon so you clearly have enough money for a computer and internet connection. You've probably got Jeremy Kyle on in the background on your flat screen TV too.

Why not use your time to go and speak to every bank on the High Street. Find one that suits your circumstances rather than continuing to pay fines to the one you're with now. Consumer ACTION protects consumer rights, not distorting an open market through the threat of legal action.

Right now you have really incensed me, i have tried to put my point across without being rude. I do not have a wide screen tv for your information and yes i am on the computer at 2pm in the afternoon like yourself. But unlike yourself i do not have time to sit here all day patronising people who are not as fortunate as you. You are clearly getting a kick out of winding people up

chipbeck

I bet some of these people smoke as well wiseinvestor and probably have the occasional pint.
Probably even treat the children (they can ill afford to have) to a little something on their birthday.
Bet Christmas is a "Fun" time in your household.
Bob Cratchett sends his love.

:beer:

WiseInvestor_2

Of course the Samaritans are a consideration, but so are bank managers. This thread has 13 pages of people claiming back thousands of pounds from banks. How long has this been going on? Why have they waited until now before TAKING ACTION? Struggling with finances is no fun - I've done it and I'll never do it again - I've already said I don't own a TV and I catch the bus to work. I've also made the effort to sort my finances, which involved closing my accounts and moving banks. I refuse to sit back and let others spoonfeed me through life.

If you can't manage a bank account, don't have one.

funkylala

chipbeck wrote: »

I bet some of these people smoke as well wiseinvestor and probably have the occasional pint.
Probably even treat the children (they can ill afford to have) to a little something on their birthday.
Bet Christmas is a "Fun" time in your household.
Bob Cratchett sends his love.

:beer:

God I thought you were serious fr a second there chipbeck...
*regains composure*

funkylala

WiseInvestor wrote: »

Of course the Samaritans are a consideration, but so are bank managers.

I you can't manage a bank account, don't have one.

Bank managers do not exist. Callcentres exist.
Decisions are not made at High Street level. They have no power.

I HAVE to have a bank account as everyone who isn't paid in scheckels or goats has to nominate an account to pay their wages into.

MarkyMarkD

deary65 wrote: »

It seems that the truth recognised and given effect to by the court lies not in the substance of an unfair penalty charge, rather, it lies in the label the bank have attached to the unfair penalty charge.

Report in The Guardian
http://money.guardian.co.uk/news_/story/0,,2080480,00.html

You can see the way that this is eventually going to 'pan out'. 'Yes', the OFT will eventually say, 'banks are entitled to charge a fee for their services', and it is up to the consumer to exercise 'choice' and shop around for the best deal and that the banks should do more to make their fees more transparent.

I don't see how you derive your first statement from the press quote, which merely reiterates what has been reported elsewhere.

Whether the charges are penalty charges or not is a matter of legal contract, not a question of "the label the bank have attached to the ... charge".

The judge held in the case that the charges were NOT charges for breach of contract. He was supported in this decision by the plaintiff's agreement that they were not charges for breach of contract, because the plaintiff did not accept that he had breached the contract. As I sais before, the plaintiff dug his own grave on this point.

Once the point that they are contractual charges for services provided, rather than penalties for breach of contract, had been conceded, the issue turned on whether those charges were reasonable - and, indeed, whether they needed to be reasonable. And on this point the judge held that they didn't need to be reasonable as the various "unfair contract terms" clauses didn't apply, and even if they did have to be reasonable, they were reasonable in comparison with both other banks' charges and an estimate of the full costs of running the customer's current account.

silverspider_2

daisy_bumbleroot wrote: »

Im also wondering how much of a backhander the judge got from a rich bank like lloydstsb....

My thoughts too! I just bet the judge's best friend is his bank manager at lloydstsb - I could almost bet my money I got back from the Halifax on it :money:.

:rolleyes: