A Bankers View, Open Letter To Martin Lewis And His Followers On Bank Charges.

Smasher

Sure, if not impossible! All we are doing now is waiting to see if the OFT will stick to their original findings and fight the case on that principle, or bend the rules for the banks and screw the consumer.
We all know that banks are only trying to disguise their penalties as services purely for the purposes of this test case, it is as obvious as a dogs gonads, but will the OFT remain true to their word? That is all is yet to be proven.

NovaBlack_2

Phaelok wrote: »

Its like me going to the same supermarket every Friday for 10 years where I know all the staff. If I was 5p short to pay for a particular item would they let me get away with it? NO! You either have the full money to pay for the goods or you don't. The same is true of the bank.

The example of a hotdog at a cinema comes to mind. £4+ ish for what? a hotdog in a bun with ketchup? Outrage! Whats the cost involved for making that? Should I write to the OFT to claim back the money I've invested in hotdogs? You either buy it or you don't. With bank's you either accept the responsibility involved by setting up regular payments or a standard account which dosent have such facilities.

Ok firstly... i worked in a supermarket for ages and we always let people off 5 pence here n there, and the same has happened to me as a customer.

As far as the hotdog thing goes you are WAY oversimplifying things in your poor analogy. For a start, even going with what you put forward, I CHOOSE to hand the cash over. At the last second i can say 'sorry actually i only have £3.50 in my account , im sorry i wont make the transaction'. Do banks ask you if you want to go 5p overdrawn b4 they charge you? NO. its automatic (and alot less obvious and apparent as handing over loose change at a till).

Smasher

To make any kind of analogy, you are assuming that it is a legitimate service that the bankers are providing by allowing you to exceed your overdraft.
So to agree that a bank is entitled to make such charges you must also agree that a) A contractual penalty charge should be allowed as long as you call it a service or b) A company should be entitled to force any service they like on their customers & charge what they like for it without giving them the choice as to whether they want it or not.

defender_of_the_weak

Will Martin et albe highlighting to the court that the banks are lying in their defences. Nationwide quite clearly state in their own correspondence that accounts can be in default due to 'a breach of the terms and conditions' and yet their defence describes this as a 'service'.

Notwithstanding the oft finding listed above I think this should be pointed out as often as possible

inmypocketnottheirs

Banker Girl, where are you? You started it all!

Smasher

defender_of_the_weak wrote: »

Will Martin et albe highlighting to the court that the banks are lying in their defences. Nationwide quite clearly state in their own correspondence that accounts can be in default due to 'a breach of the terms and conditions' and yet their defence describes this as a 'service'.

Notwithstanding the oft finding listed above I think this should be pointed out as often as possible

Firstly, there is no provision as yet for Martin or any other consumer group to be involved in the proceedings. Unfortunately the OFT are not interested in what the consumer has to say.
Check the current T&C's for your Nationwide account. Most banks recently changed them to describe the charges as a service so their defence is actually in line with their T&Cs. However, if you still have your old T&Cs which say that the charges are to cover their costs as a result of your breach of T&Cs, this will help you in court regardless of the outcome of the test case.

rog2

inmypocketnottheirs wrote: »

Banker Girl, where are you? You started it all!

You can not, in all seriousness, really expect Banker Girl to put in another appearance, impnt?
This thread bears all the hallmarks of a 'hit and run' TRoll - it was either posted by someone who knew that the whole subject was bound to provoke 'in-fighting' (which, to a certain degree, she has succeeded) or by someone who is extremely naive.
The only positive thing is that it has brought out a few true feelings about the way we are being 'ripped off' at every opportunity by the financial industry. :mad: :mad:

smitchy73

She's back on a thread just below this!! I think it's titled 'lloyds' lookos like this is where she works too, as she refers often to 'ours'.

BANKER_GIRL

I am here, interested and enlightened by peoples views.

The fact is I live with my partner and we do not have the internet, this is because we know whilst paying out mortgage currently and keeping up with expenses that are essential we know we can not afford it (thus do not go overdrawn), i come home to my parents once a week on a tuesday and use the internet then, and thus will be when you hear from me. I am no troll, i was simply trying to implement a debate such as this and it has turned out perfectly. It is great for people to hear both sides of the coin, particular thanks to Tootsie Roll for her fantastic stats, figures and comments. I felt i should get the ball rolling, and see where it went...

Aly

whitewing

I think if you spend a little more time on this site you will find that you can pay your mortgage, have internet and not have bank charges!