Bank Charges OFT Test Case Discussion

Smasher

johnny_storm wrote: »

No the subject is on running your account in an intelligent way to avoid bank charges, and people who can do this being penalised because it has become "unfair" to charge people who cant. Sorry you find that nonsensical.

So, you consider yourself to be one of the "intelligent ones"then do you?

Ok, I will try to explain in a little more intelligent way, as best a stupid dumbo can at least. Please feel free to pick on my typos aswell if you can't keep up.

If these stupid dumbo's have been paying for your banking by paying these charges, then shouldn't you be encouraging them to continue? Isn't that what you want? You could then still have free banking. Why are you moaning about them instead of thanking them for providing you with free banking for all these years?

Do you believe that these charges are what was funding free banking? If you do, then you are defeating your own point.

johnny_storm

No no no.

My point is that people should bear the consequences of their actions. People who cant manage their money will be penalised with fees, thats what every single person agreed to when they opened an account.

Maybe some people didnt read those conditions, fair enough, we dont all read things like that. I know I havent read mine lately. BUT the first time I was penalised, I would have read them then, and I would have made damn sure I didnt fall foul of them again.

To have for years, continued to be charged again and again to the tune of thousands of pounds is stupidity in my book. Perhaps there are some who genuinely dont buy luxuries or have been ill, but I would bet that most are just careless or spend their money on tat keeping up with the neigbours.

In todays blame culture, it is now not the stupid individuals fault, no, its the banks fault. You nasty bank for keeping charging these people, just like you told them again and again you would.

You are clumsy, you spill hot coffee down yourself, its McDonalds fault for serving too hot coffee, the list is endless in blame Britain.

shamrock7

The sun always shines on the righteous!

legoman

johnny_storm wrote: »

I made the point at work, that you may order a pizza from pizza hut, it may be £10. It make only cost to 50p to make. You cant argue after years and years of buying pizza that the charges were unfair and you want them back.

is that 50p to make including paying the staff to make it, paying for the equipment to cook it, paying for the utilities to to supply the equipment to cook it and clean the equipment after preparing making and cooking it, paying for the box to put it in and paying for the company to design, make and supply the box to put it in paying for the lighting and heating not forgetting rent of the building it's made in?

or is £9.99 justified for all of those services that come with the making of the 50p pizza?

just a thought, you know, a pizza isn't made from thin air in the middle of nothing... if it was then i guess even 50p would be steep.

johnny_storm

Wow I can see that example went over your head. Lets say a pizza costs £3 then it doesnt really matter.

The argument was that the cost to the bank is nothing like what they charge people who go over the limit. My example was meant to illustrate that if you dont think the service or product is worth the premium then dont use it.

Dont avail yourself of it for years and then decide its unfair and try to claim it back.

Banks are not there to give you money, you have no right to their services. They are a business like any other.

Smasher

Your example is irrelevant anyway johnny. The vast majority of claims were over an issue of law. Bank charges are not services, you don't get a service or a product. Although bankers have dressed them up to present them as services in an attempt to get around the law, we were always told that they were to cover their costs. I took my bank to task and gave them an opportunity to prove it. They couldn't..

mystic_trev

BigAl94 wrote: »

Martin Lewis is about to become one of the most unpopular people in UK for helping to ensure that ALL bank account holders have to pay an annual fee to replace the lost income that the banks rightly derived from people who were incapable of running their accounts properly

I'm afraid you might be right. What could be even worse for a lot of people is that they will be charged on a scale based on their Credit scores, so the worse off will end up having to pay the highest Bank charges. I hope it dosen't happen, but it certainly looks like the end of the road for free banking.:mad:

Smasher

Well if what you say is true, then free banking never existed in the first place..

Dylanwing

but it certainly looks like the end of the road for free banking.:mad:<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

Please explain why somebody else should be charged way above the actual cost of running their account so that you don't have to pay.

Orford

but it certainly looks like the end of the road for free banking

About time too. Then people with 'free' banking might just start to appreciate how much it costs to administer a bank account and realise how bl**dy lucky they've been for the last 30 years and how the poorest 20% of society have been susidising the other 80%'s 'free' banking.

And yes, I'm one of the 80% and have never had a bank charge in 32 years