Bank Charges Test Case Article discussion

PhiltheBear

alexjohnson wrote: »

Barclays have also increased overdraft interest rates, removed (admittedly tokenistic) credit interest, and are expected to maintain their profit margins. All as widely predicted.
..... What a hollow victory.

It's not a victory at all. It's Barclays mounting a PR exercise to cover an overall increase in their charges. For example, they admit that giving their customers interest on current accounts at their current rate averages out to 2p per customer!!! It costs them more to police it than it's worth - so they dropped it. Most people won't notice.

They are also offering a 5 day period where a buffer zone of £250 overdraft kicks in - but it will cost £22 each time it happens. Go over the £250 and its £8 per day for each item that pushes you over - whether or not they pay it - up to a maximum of £40 per day. That's on top of the £22.

The increase in overdraft rates is about 2.5% per annum.

The hilarious bit is Barclays claiming that this was 'planned before the current Court case'. Yes, indeed. And my dog is a kipper.

krisskross

PhiltheBear wrote: »

It's not a victory at all. It's Barclays mounting a PR exercise to cover an overall increase in their charges. For example, they admit that giving their customers interest on current accounts at their current rate averages out to 2p per customer!!! It costs them more to police it than it's worth - so they dropped it. Most people won't notice.

They are also offering a 5 day period where a buffer zone of £250 overdraft kicks in - but it will cost £22 each time it happens. Go over the £250 and its £8 per day for each item that pushes you over - whether or not they pay it - up to a maximum of £40 per day. That's on top of the £22.

The increase in overdraft rates is about 2.5% per annum.

The hilarious bit is Barclays claiming that this was 'planned before the current Court case'. Yes, indeed. And my dog is a kipper.

I think a lot of people are going to find they are no better off at all or even worse off if they still do not ensure the money is in their account to cover what they want paid out. the only difference will be that the T&Cs are tied up as tight as possible to ensure further claim recharging is not possible.

The reclaimers will no doubt at the end of it all feel they have 'won' but it will be somewhat of a phyrric victory I feel.

rumourhasit

I recently began the process of reclaiming my bank charges, after reading on this site that the test court case had ruled the charges to be unfair I thought it was a perfect time to get the ball rolling. However I have today received a letter from the Halifax saying that they were suspending all claims until a court case between the banks and the Office of Fair Trading had been resolved. Is this not what was resolved before as reported on this site? my bank are now saying it could take many months before the claims are even begun to be processed!! Im confused!!!!!!!!!! please help!!!

CLAWS_3

Hi mate,

I have just started the ball rolling from my end too. From what I can understand the investigation is still pending. The idea however is to get yourself into the queue as early as possible via getting Martins letter across to your bank.

This way when a decision is reached the quicker your enquiry will be picked up and progressed.

I think thats the case so far. If anyone can concur on that?

rumourhasit

thanks mate,

i get the impression from reading the rest of the site that last yr the banks issued a deadline for claims to be processed before the court proceedings started. any claims made after that date are put on hold. i'm now in "stage 3" of the process, i.e. had have asked them for a settlement or I will take action against them, I dont know whether to start action because from what i have read the case will just get stayed now anyway. so is it just a case of waiting until this second verdict is reached? i read that the initial verdict was just giving the OFT the authority to challenge the fairness of the banks and their charges

rumourhasit

hey everyone, i thought ask the question because there seems to be a lot of experts on this forum which is proving to be a big help, and you guys will have a better idea than me on this.... but how long, realistically, can we all expect our claims to be put on hold while this OFT vs banks case goes on?? are we talking months?? years??

lindilou39

rumourhasit wrote: »

hey everyone, i thought ask the question because there seems to be a lot of experts on this forum which is proving to be a big help, and you guys will have a better idea than me on this.... but how long, realistically, can we all expect our claims to be put on hold while this OFT vs banks case goes on?? are we talking months?? years??

Well, good question, but according to one ex banker now writing for Motley Fool, we,re likely to be waiting till 2010. Although having said that, it was anounced on Radio 1 newsbeat that Barclays have indeed reduced their charges to £8.00 but will be applying an account fee to their customers.

alane5181

understand as to why the banks charge, but its the amount they charge that i do not understand. Having lost a job due to ill health 17 years ago, i went from £26.000 to £7.000. The bills were still the same, so i approached the bank to advise of the situation. Franckly they did not want to know!
6yrs ago i again lost my job again due to ill health. I now live on £84 a week.
The D.s.s. failed to pay me for 6weeks, i again contacted the bank (as advised by the D.s.s. while they sorted it out ) the bank told me its my problem and contact the D.s.s.!!!? so while this was being sorted out i had nearly £250 in charges. I had direct debits / standing orders canx.
So i did not hesitate in reclaiming my charges, although my claim is on hold, im holding on for the result.
So to the people who think its our own fault for getting in to debt, think again, its not all of us on large regular wages we can rely on . Now i have to live on £84 a week and classed as disabled .

PhiltheBear

alexjohnson wrote: »

You are mistaking the absence of a discount for a penalty. They look the same but they're ot the same.

So, it's a 'discount' if you pay the amount you owe and not a penalty? If you pay by any other means than direct debit - it's a surcharge. As far as I'm concerned that's a penalty. They aren't reducing your payment - they are charging EXTRA. Which bit of that don't you understand?

Why not post it? And indeed when I last looked pensioners had to eat, get cash, and like to see their families from time to time. There's nothing special about paying bills. They're also the group least likely to be comfortable with direct debits anyway.

Have you posted cash? Funnily enough the Post Office don't like it and won't accept it under registered or recorded delivery.

It isn't greed - they are rewarding you for helping to keep their costs down. And almost all companies will choose certainty with less money than risk and more money most of the time.

So explain to me - in words of one syllable - how it is that I can pay a bill directly into a utility company's account using internet banking, which costs them nothing at all, and they will still charge me a surplus for doing so? I can even pay them earlier than their deadline, which would give them some interest. You can't. Except by acknowledging that it's simple greed.

No, they want them so they can collect on time, know with a much greater degree of certainty that they're going to get the money at all, and save on processing by having everythign automated. Is this unfair?

Yes, when it discriminates against the poorer members of society. If it were a level playing field where everyone had the same facilities available and was able to use them you might have an argument. But there is a large swathe of our population that don't have these abilities.

That might be a fringe benefit but with the exception of people like credit card companies for whom the product is money, it really isn;t the primary motivation. But why do you object to this? For those of us who can manage current accounts, that means lower prices and less hassle. But it means more time making sure the money's where it needs to be. For those who just want to pay the bill when it comes in, they'll pay a bit more but suffer no bounced direct debit charges etc. and have that extra comfort. That's not a bad choice either. You want it both ways though. I don't see why that's fair.

Pay a bit more? I don't see a charge of £5 or thereabouts as a 'bit'. And you want it both ways when you claim that getting extra interest is a 'fringe benefit' and yet previously said 'almost all companies will choose .... more money most of the time'.

PhiltheBear

alexjohnson wrote: »

For what it's worth JSA / Income Support is £60.50 and people make that work.

Written like the sort of idiot that's never tried it. Go on Alex - try and live on £60.50 a week. That's all your food, clothing, utilities, travel. It's easy to be glib when you haven't experienced it. And the DSS make horrendous errors. I had this back last year when they screwed up paying me. Not MY fault. Not my bank's fault. But the fact is that the bank then applied penalty charges of £39 every time - 5 times in 2 weeks. The DSS won't pay those charges. So my bank, in order to subsidise your 'free' banking' took nearly £200 that I was supposed to have for food, heating etc.

I'm glad you think that's fair. And I really look forward to the day it happens to you.