Bank Charges Test Case Article discussion

pingchris

natweststaffmember wrote: »

No one is going to do that so what is your thinking behind the question?

i was just wondering what would happen

FrankyG_2

It keeps going on about the charges for going overdrawn on your account.I have a basic cach acc which means I can only draw out what is in my bank.No money is taken out when a direct debit bounces I just get a letter saying that there is not enough money in my acc.My waes go into my bank every week without fail,has done for 25 years.The money is taken out the next time the dd goes in.How come I get charged £35 for two letters one to myself and one to who the dd was sent from.I cannot go overdrawn never have done so could someone please tell me how they charge me for being overdrawn.

PhiltheBear

lawscot wrote: »

<snip>.... The Supreme Court has said no they can't but only on that very narrow ground while pointing out at the same time that their decision might not have been the same had the OFT proceeded to ask if they could intervene on another different ground. (perhaps a small side swipe at the OFT legal team?)

I think the Law Lords were making the point that the OFT team had screwed up and that they should have looked at a much wider picture. There are remarks in the Judgement that indicate a certain amount of frustration with that - and very clear pointers as to where the OFT might go next. It is certainly clear that the OFT wouldn't take any input from consumer groups before they launched their action - perhaps they will do in future. But I have the feeling that the OFT may just fold up their beds and walk away.

You have got a choice - draw out wages, etc., as they go in, in cash, then go and pay cash for bills etc.,

In many cases you don't have a choice - unless you are prepared to pay heavily for it. A simple example is your gas bill. Pay by direct debit - or they'll charge you an extra £5. £5 is a lot of money out of a benefit or a pension. Most services are now geared to you paying by direct debits. Whether you agree with it or not - all these things cause major problems for those on low incomes - and the bank charges were just straightforward theft. (See Lawscot's post above)

it was a cert that if this judgement had gone the claimants way, we would have all had to pay for basic banking.

I'm afraid that simply isn't true. It was simply spin put out by the banks. It's quite simple. Any one bank that doesn't charge will see a massive increase in business i.e. a huge influx of funds. They can use those funds to generate profit whilst not paying out anything on a current account. So, you can guarantee that at least one bank won't raise charges (maybe 'Virgin bank' if it gets a licence ). If one bank holds out - the others will do likewise. They won't want to lose all that 'free' cash they can play with.

Some banks offer 'paid' account at present. The take up is abysmal - because the average consumer simply won't play. There is also the fact that if ALL the banks tried to impose charges they'd be up in front of the European Court for forming a cartel.

What they will, probably, do is to introduce other charges that are 'small' and under the radar. Like the bank will charge you £1 if you withdraw money - no matter how you do it. They are already planning to phase out cheque books. But this is just extra greed. The decision wouldn't have affected it. The whole system needs changing - but there is no political will to change it (hint - most political parties need the banks to provide overdrafts for the party funding, so they daren't upset them).

BR54

I don't understand something. All these people who manage their finances exceptionally well and do not get charges seem to repeat themselves when the question of reclaiming charges comes up, and they feel they will be charged for having an account. Phrases like ' why should I pay for banking, just because you canot mangae your account|?

As I understand now from the SC ruling, the people who pay charges are SUBSIDISING the ones who have 'free' banking. So we are in fact paying for their banking, BUT YET they are not happy if they had to pay for ours?
Two faced springs to mind!

Twinkly

Morglin wrote: »

You have got a choice - draw out wages, etc., as they go in, in cash, then go and pay cash for bills etc.,

You won't be charged, and you can handle your finances as you like.;)

That's what millions of pensionsers do every week.

Lin

You did not understand my post.

If wages must first of all be paid into a bank account before people can access their own money - and in many firms this is the case - this is prime example of how choice has been slowly eroded. Accessing your own money in the first place is simply the starting point.

Regarding pensioners who work, my mother is paid in cash each week by her employer. Therefore it can be done and should be a more widespread practice. At the very least people should be given a choice.

Those that receive benefits or pensions dependant on government issue and control were not given any choice to retain payment by girocheque/pension book. Since the mass closure of post offices all over the country there has been little choice at all but for such pensioners to use a bank or withdraw cash from ATM machines.

I reiterate that "Irrespective of the charges issue consumers are often given little or absolutely no choice but to have a bank account ". This lack of choice can cause many problems for many people - not all of them financial.

The issue of automatic deduction of bank charges has spectacularly highlighted just how far this lack of choice affects thousands of people. I think it is time for an nationwide overhaul of how this particular aspect of the economy is run.

Twinkly

BR54 wrote: »

I don't understand something. All these people who manage their finances exceptionally well and do not get charges seem to repeat themselves when the question of reclaiming charges comes up, and they feel they will be charged for having an account. Phrases like ' why should I pay for banking, just because you canot mangae your account|?

As I understand now from the SC ruling, the people who pay charges are SUBSIDISING the ones who have 'free' banking. So we are in fact paying for their banking, BUT YET they are not happy if they had to pay for ours?
Two faced springs to mind!

Yep, bizarre isn't it that those accusing people reclaiming charges as thieves and fraudsters admit they are perfectly happy to stick their hands in other people's pockets.

Frankly, you can only pity such people for they have well and truly fallen for the con and spin banks threw around to divide and conquer account holders.

Now, if the bankers can just keep the lie going a bit longer and prolong the squabbling perhaps none of us will not notice yet more secret loans for millions in taxpayers money being shovelled into their trouser pockets as "bonuses". :rolleyes:

HO87

chunkyman wrote: »

At last someone in authority has seen some sense. If people do not want to pay the charges that banks make for UNAUTHORIZED overdrafts the they have two choices 1. don't go into overdraft or 2. change to a cheaper bank.

I don't see why I and millions like me should pay for these people to be so fickle with their money - they should grow up and look after their money.

I have been through some very bad times financially in the past but have never gone into the area of these charges.

In the past I have refrained from responding to similar posts to yours CM but feel I really must now say something. I'm afraid, much like all the others, you've taken the Banks' bait hook line and sinker. If you remain in credit (the implication of what you're saying) you do not in anyway contribute to the banking of others who don't or can't. Similarly, your interest rates are not in anyway undermined by the costs the banks allegedly incur in managing "less efficient" accounts. They are determined by market forces. The banks apply the minimum interest rate they believe the market will bear and maximises their margin.
What for example was my colleague to do when having spent 6 weeks working exclusively for one client was made to wait an extra 14 days for payment, was refused an extension of his overdraft limit (which was surprisingly low) by the bank and by the time the cheque was finally processed he lost almost half the value in charges and returned DD penalties? Of course the same thing happened the later that month as a result and he has been fighting to get out of what finally ran up to near on £4,000 of debt as a result of one client paying him late since the beginning of the summer.
He wasn't being fickle with his money and has always considered that he was "money savvy". As others have said I think you should count yourself lucky you've not been in as bad a situation as that rather ranting against others who, through no fault of their own very often, have been.

icar36

I have been wondering if at anytime, past or present, has anyone from the MSE or any other consumer group requested details of breakdown of charges from banks under the Freedom of Information Act 2005?

Knowing that...

If you own a UK company the Freedom of Information Act will affect you to some degree. Every company is regulated, taxed or licensed by public authorities and many have public sector contracts.

Under the FOIA, unless the information they hold on you is legally exempt, it could be open to the public and your competitors.
And some companies carrying out public functions will eventually be covered by the Act, so will have to open their files to anyone who asks.

***Check the Freedom of Information Act guide for more info!***

When it comes to exemptions, it would only come down to s.41 - Commercial Information.

"It could be difficult to draw the line between the protection of legitimate commercial interests and the public’s right to know how its money is spent. However, the FOIA makes a presumption in favour of disclosure, so, in theory, if the balance is a very fine one, the Information Commissioner, the Information Tribunal and the courts should come down in favour of disclosure. Experience from other countries with Freedom of Information Act legislation suggests they do".

Even if nothing can be argued over the adequacy of the price applied by banks, I don't think that the public opinion would be 'amused' by how charges are arrived at...

natweststaffmember

icar36 wrote: »

I have been wondering if at anytime, past or present, has anyone from the MSE or any other consumer group requested details of breakdown of charges from banks under the Freedom of Information Act 2005?

Knowing that...

If you own a UK company the Freedom of Information Act will affect you to some degree. Every company is regulated, taxed or licensed by public authorities and many have public sector contracts.

Under the FOIA, unless the information they hold on you is legally exempt, it could be open to the public and your competitors.
And some companies carrying out public functions will eventually be covered by the Act, so will have to open their files to anyone who asks.

***Check the Freedom of Information Act guide for more info!***

When it comes to exemptions, it would only come down to s.41 - Commercial Information.

"It could be difficult to draw the line between the protection of legitimate commercial interests and the public’s right to know how its money is spent. However, the FOIA makes a presumption in favour of disclosure, so, in theory, if the balance is a very fine one, the Information Commissioner, the Information Tribunal and the courts should come down in favour of disclosure. Experience from other countries with Freedom of Information Act legislation suggests they do".

Even if nothing can be argued over the adequacy of the price applied by banks, I don't think that the public opinion would be 'amused' by how charges are arrived at...

Freedom of Information Act DOES NOT cover private limited companies and so they are exempt from it. What you are possibly looking at is if they have contracts with County Councils, Central government, NHS, or public bodies. Bank Charges are not covered under that mantra.

icar36

Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley are 100% Government owned!