MSE News: Is bank charges reclaiming back? Martin Lewis thinks it could be

Gtc1

colsten wrote: »

The charges might be considered too high, but both method and reason is clearly described in the T&Cs / charges document freely available online and in print.

a customer can close their bank account any time they like, provided they have settled any overdraft on the account. As a customer, you don't even have to give notice or reason.

Not true in my experience at all.

Sorry.

I've not seen a bank yet justify the reasoning behind changing the contract in Terms and Conditions.

If someone, and remember we are talking about vulnerable people here, gets made redundant or gets into difficulty then they absolutely cannot escape the entrapment.

It's hardly fair, balanced and definitely isn't dead.

With all due respect, in my day job I deal with people who are suicudal about the circumstances they find themselves in, some of them are in the position due to no fault of their own.

Who are the banks to dictate penalising, based on imposed variations of contract and let's face it, banks can stop you going over the overdraft, they simply allow you because they make money from it.

pollypenny

Am I the only one who couldn't make sense of this thread title?

Try 'Is it time to reclaim bank charges again?'

Hanky_Panky

I like others wish the 'big gob in chief' would keep his big gob shut. After his last folly where he pushed a hell of a lot MORE people into bank charges and raised more money for the banks I'm amazed he hasn't been harangued as much as the banks have.

And as some other poster said 'we are talking about vulnerable people here' - some are yes but the majority certainly are not, get out from under your rock.

BMN

Gtc1 wrote: »

...let's face it, banks can stop you going over the overdraft, they simply allow you because they make money from it.

That's not even true. In some circumstances (like certain card transactions) the banks don't even have an opportunity to stop you from going overdrawn.

And even when they are in a position to it comes down to risk. They don't just allow a customer to go overdrawn because it would make the bank money.

Thrugelmir

Gtc1 wrote: »

I think that's pretty unfair, alluding to the fact this guy has misrepresented the facts with no basis.

I wonder if you'd care to explain?

The interview I heard was to say the least "opinionated". Little about the circumstances of the case. More a personal rant about the banks.

Thrugelmir

Gtc1 wrote: »

Not true in my experience at all.

Sorry.

I've not seen a bank yet justify the reasoning behind changing the contract in Terms and Conditions.

If someone, and remember we are talking about vulnerable people here, gets made redundant or gets into difficulty then they absolutely cannot escape the entrapment.

It's hardly fair, balanced and definitely isn't dead.

With all due respect, in my day job I deal with people who are suicudal about the circumstances they find themselves in, some of them are in the position due to no fault of their own.

Who are the banks to dictate penalising, based on imposed variations of contract and let's face it, banks can stop you going over the overdraft, they simply allow you because they make money from it.

Then let's move to a continental charging structure. Flat fee on the account every month. That way the cost of providing services is shared equitably between everyone. Not the majority subsiding the few.

PeacefulWaters

Martin Lewis has banged on about financial education being provided by the state. His site actually has some useful tools and tips but he much prefers to go down the reclaim route.

Rather than focusing on claiming back this that and the other he could do far more good by promoting individual responsibility, saving before spending, anticipating the unexpected and never going overdrawn.

He'd do far more good for society as a whole that way.

colsten

High time he struck some referral deals with the personal finance management tool providers, and then market the hell out of that new revenue stream for MSE/MSM. A win-win-win - MSE/MSM happy, software providers happy, and MSE disciples a lot more aware of their finances, and a lot more likely to be able to stay out of debt.

Alpine_Star

colsten wrote: »

The charges might be considered too high, but both method and reason is clearly described in the T&Cs / charges document freely available online and in print.

That's how counsel for Lloyds spun it. Alas the court concuded otherwise.


''There is nothing in either Exhibit CHAS or any of the
other documentation to which I was referred, including,
importantly, the wording of Conditions 15. 4 or 15.6, which
would enable the Court to see the "reason for and the method
of the variation" of the contract price as required by
Paragraph 24 of the ECJ's decision in Hatosag.''

Alpine_Star

colsten wrote: »

a customer can close their bank account any time they like, provided they have settled any overdraft on the account. As a customer, you don't even have to give notice or reason.

Indeed but the ECJ case law that the judge was bound by essentially ruled that the right to withdraw from a contract should be unqualified.