Bank Charges OFT Test Case Discussion

chasancrai

borgbaiter wrote: »

hi

whether you have an agreed overdraft or not a bank will still invent one for charges and add charge after charge at their will. you have no choice in this.
i used to get charges the olny way out was i was fortunate to have a house i could remortgage to pay off the outstanding debt accrued. i realise many dont have this option and i see no way out for these people. i have great sympathy for them and feel the government should too and make some sort of contingency payment in relation to disputed bank charges. they can find upto 100 billion to bail out banks i wonder how much they can find for those in genuine need..... so far it seems to be nothing not even lip service to the problem.


Borgbaiter

You are really financially savyy - nice to see you are proud of your charges!

Why should I or anyone else pay becasue you are totally inept at managing your finances

dollydoodah

krunchieuk wrote: »

I'm guessing your job was easy to get then, no spelling skills required on the application then....:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

I don't agree with chasancrai in the slightest but I think you have a bit of a cheek to laugh about what is obviously just a typo. If I was being pedantic, I could have a good :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: about your grammar.

ems2

fischer79 wrote: »

The fact that people are poor is an issue for the government to resolve not banks.

This and another comment in same vein really get to me, why is it the govermenets fault. When i go through 'poor' stages of my life i take full responsiblity to sort it out and for being that way. dont fob things off on the government, everyone should take responsibility for their own actions.

In regards to the bank charges; last month I adjusted my phone DD to come out the day after i get paid to make it easier for me to manage my monthly budget. The company took it out one week before I was due to be paid. I didn't notice for 6 days(when I received a bank letter) as having no money I didnt spend any and didn't check my balance, stupid I know :rolleyes: . For being £14.65 over my managable overdraft limit i was charged £110!!!!. Through no fault of my own and sticking to my budget i get £110 less to spend next month. Making a normally £200 monthly grocery bill £90, I am not looking forward to baked beans on toast for the next month:mad:

[Deleted User]

I had an account with RBS, BT started to take their direct debt out on a different date than they had done in the past and this resulted in me being charged. I claimed these charges back because I felt this was unfair. The day my refunded charges were placed into my account more charges went out even though I hadn't gone over my limit. When I enquired this, my account had been changed to one that charged fees. I had not been informed of this change and was understandably annoyed. I closed my account then and there and am still awaiting the reinbursment of those new charges. The judgment is excellent news I will be writing to the bank again asking that as the judgment has been made could I now be reinbursed.

MABLE

I look forward to Martin campaigning on my behalf when the fees issue has been resolved. I have been with the same bank for 25 years and never once breached the t+c's. My reward will no doubt be having to pay a monthly fee for the privledge of having a bulk standard account.

Also I do not believe for one minute these people who are claiming these fees back will have learnt their lesson. Always the others persons fault.

TAKE RESPONSIBILITY

eva16006159

chasancrai I think you are playing devils advocate because there is no way, unless you dont really understand what is going on, that you can beleive that bank charges are fair. It is not about poor people or better off people, although it is more likely poorer people will incur charges, its about banks operating in a way that is unfair to ALL consumers. The fact that some people get stuck in a debt spiral is the banks fault because of these charges.

If you have an issue with this then you are an ignorent idiot who has no social conscience.

eva16006159

MABLE wrote: »

I look forward to Martin campaigning on my behalf when the fees issue has been resolved. I have been with the same bank for 25 years and never once breached the t+c's. My reward will no doubt be having to pay a monthly fee for the privledge of having a bulk standard account.

Also I do not believe for one minute these people who are claiming these fees back will have learnt their lesson. Always the others persons fault.

TAKE RESPONSIBILITY

Your an Idiot. If the banks do implement charges for banking it will be a gimmick to trick selfish people like you with no social conscience on to their side.

borgbaiter

chasancrai wrote: »

You are really financially savyy - nice to see you are proud of your charges!

Why should I or anyone else pay becasue you are totally inept at managing your finances

why dont you shut up you moron

walk a mile in someones shoes before you deem yourself worthy to judge them

life has a way of making desitions for you

i wish life would teach you all i know

now shut up

PhiltheBear

I'm not a lawyer and I've only read the judgement quickly but it appears to me that the Judge made a clear differentiation between a situation in which a charge was levied when an overdraft was allowed and when it wasn't. That is, in the case where a payment was bounced by the bank it wasn't providing a service and was, therefore, unable to charge.

As I understand it all the 'Basic' accounts provided by banks bounce payments so that you can't go overdrawn and still charge you. If my reading of the judgement is correct (and I'm fairly confident) then it would mean that anyone in that situation could reclaim ALL of the charges made in such circumstances. The relevant ruling is at 372 in the judgement. If there are any lawyers about, could they comment?

borgbaiter

hi again

light bulb moment

there subject to unfairness says the judge.... but he hasnt said there unfair.... he also says there in plain intelligible language..... he also says there not penalty charges....


forgive me if im wrong but this seems like a loss to me not a victory

the ultimate spin

ok there subject to unfair terms yes

but if there in plain intelligible language then they dont have to be reasonable

if the arnt subject to common law then they dont have to relate to cost

so in my opinion banks have won because they can charge what they say, if its in plain inteligible language. which is what judge says it is. reasonable only enters into it if it isnt in plain inteligible language.

the common law argument has also gone so were all screwed.


anyone with a reasoned argument let me know im wrong