Why dont we just all boycott the banks in the test case

Nathan_Spleen

Pickpocketing is a criminal act. An unlawful or unfair contract term isn't. Therefore your analogy is wrong.

Tozer

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

I agree but what I and Turtle were referring to was the people who PAY the charges, not people who ultimately default.

Just a question - would you support a sliding scale charging structure whereby the worst defaulters pay the highest charges?

Ultimately, those who manage their accounts within the terms thereby do not get unduly penalised.

Tozer

123oleary wrote: »

i think the only sensible point made here is that banks can set their fee and help themselves to it. the marks and spencer example - this is theft but marksies still have to follow a procedure - prove their case with the relevant authorities and then follow another procedure to secure payment, they can't just dip into your account. the banks should send you an invoice for their charges and then if you refuse to pay they should follow the same procedure as other people/organisations do

No I gave the example to counter the argument that banks are apparently the only industry that can 'dip' into a customer's account and that this is outrageous.

My argument is that the unique nature of overdrafts - where a customer dips into the bank's coffers - justifies this 'invasion'.

Tozer

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

No. Although it might feel like it, charging £35 and debiting your account as per your terms & conditions is not pickpocketing. Not technically, legally or actually.

Agreed. Think I would have more sympathy with the bank charges reclaimers if they cut down on the emotions and actually put the legal position in its rightful context. It is not criminal. The banks aren't evil. They are businesses and the test case will ultimately lead to a much clearer position than previously.

15 years ago I was charged my one and only default charge whilst a student. I raised the penalty argument then and the bank quickly refunded. This is not new stuff and I think final clarity one way or the other can only be a good thing.

Sol00

natweststaffmember wrote: »

I don't think the fact that someone on little income, who struggles to pay bills and may have a bad month should be punished simply because they're on a low wage. That is unfair!



I have just picked on this phrase. I agree with your sentiments but they are not being punished for a low wage BUT for breaching their agreement with the bank. That part of it is fair HOWEVER the cost charged specifically is unfair.
The idea of a boycott, btw is absolutely ludicrous and ridiculous beyond the pale. The banks at the OFT test case are not the only banks who charge and a look across all charges forums will undoubtedly reveal a case that is stalled in the courts from every single bank. I do think that people should have more information on Credit Unions and make an informed choice as to their preference.

I agree with you on the point a boycott wouldn't work, simply because all banks have excessive charges, so you'd simply be switching from one bank to another. As well as that, I don't think the government would let a bank go bust, as was shown with NR, so more taxpayers money would be used to bail them out.

My personal stance, like most people's, is that the charges are excessive and do not only cover the cost of the admin. My bank (RBS) doesn't even send a letter to tell me! So they don't have postage costs, or the cost of printing a letter at the very least.

I am happy to pay the actual charge which the bank would incur, which I believe to be about £2.50, certainly not £38!

I am also happy to leave it with the courts to sort out, I just wish this could be resolved quickly.

Nathan_Spleen

Tozer wrote: »

Just a question - would you support a sliding scale charging structure whereby the worst defaulters pay the highest charges?

Ultimately, those who manage their accounts within the terms thereby do not get unduly penalised.

I'm not sure what 'default' is. Anyone who goes into unauthorised overdraft can only do so with the bank's express authority - which renders the term 'unauthorised overdraft' misleading at best and totally inaccurate at worst.

Tozer

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

I'm not sure what 'default' is. Anyone who goes into unauthorised overdraft can only do so with the bank's express authority - which renders the term 'unauthorised overdraft' misleading at best and totally inaccurate at worst.

Yeah but you know what is meant by unauthorised - not approved in advance.

I could see a scheme working whereby there is a buffer zone for those that go just a few £'s over their limits incurring a token charge but those people (and there appear to be a lot) who seem to disregard any responsibility paying much higher charges

Alikay

Tozer wrote: »

Yeah but you know what is meant by unauthorised - not approved in advance.

I could see a scheme working whereby there is a buffer zone for those that go just a few £'s over their limits incurring a token charge but those people (and there appear to be a lot) who seem to disregard any responsibility paying much higher charges

Seems reasonable -I have a buffer zone on my Barclays account which is useful. I realise that some people have been hit very hard with charges through just a simple oversight, but the only 2 people I know who've run up huge charges (and probably now will reclaim them) are serial abusers of their bank accounts. They are people who have drawn large sums from the cashpoint one day, knowing that a big direct debit was going out the next, written cheques knowing there's not sufficient cash available to cover them and generally indulged themselves with wanton spending over and above their incomings. I can't say its fun watching my spending like a hawk, but since I have loads of direct debits and everything goes into and out of my current account (no cash paypacket to divide up each week!) its a necessary evil.

If people can't behave responsibly with their bank accounts maybe they shouldn't have overdraft facilities. I know when I first started work (1970's) I had to run my bank account for about 3 months before I was even allowed a cheque guarantee card let alone an overdraft!

Sol00

Alikay wrote: »

Seems reasonable -I have a buffer zone on my Barclays account which is useful. I realise that some people have been hit very hard with charges through just a simple oversight, but the only 2 people I know who've run up huge charges (and probably now will reclaim them) are serial abusers of their bank accounts. They are people who have drawn large sums from the cashpoint one day, knowing that a big direct debit was going out the next, written cheques knowing there's not sufficient cash available to cover them and generally indulged themselves with wanton spending over and above their incomings. I can't say its fun watching my spending like a hawk, but since I have loads of direct debits and everything goes into and out of my current account (no cash paypacket to divide up each week!) its a necessary evil.

If people can't behave responsibly with their bank accounts maybe they shouldn't have overdraft facilities. I know when I first started work (1970's) I had to run my bank account for about 3 months before I was even allowed a cheque guarantee card let alone an overdraft!

You made a good point and have highlighted that the banks should also take responsibility as they used to. If more banks stopped trying to give credit cards and overdrafts to people that obviously can't afford it, then people wouldn't be in as much debt. However the banks want people in debt as this makes them a profit, so I have no sympathy with the banks if people take advantage of the charges claims.

Alikay

Sol00 wrote: »

If more banks stopped trying to give credit cards and overdrafts to people that obviously can't afford it, then people wouldn't be in as much debt.

Well, I see what you're getting at, but beyond running a basic credit check HOW do the banks know who can afford what? Surely the individual knows what is coming in and out of the household better than anyone, and they should take responsibility for their actions. I'm sorry but if you're bright enough to complete a application form and validate a new card, you're smart enough to realise when your outgoings exceed your income. If you're always skint a week before payday you can't afford more credit.

Would a chipshop owner be wrong selling a fish supper to someone who'd already had dinner at home - they could get fat, have a heart attack and die? Responsibility is the price we all pay for freedom of choice, and I feel personal credit problems are an individual and social issue - banks will make money out of it because making money is their business. I expect a more "people centred" service from the NHS, schools, social services etc, but not my bank.