blonde poker forum

Wednesday 25 November 2009, 945 am, Supreme Court Decision.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/reclaim/2009/11/bank-charges-result-next-week

Hopefully this will force the banks to pay out and they won't drag it all through the courts in an Appeal. Or if that happens, the politicians will try to curry voter favour by forcing them to payout. All 3 big party leaders have posted replies to moneysavingexpert, Tories saying they would force banks to repay all charges automatically. Wiiiiii!

Surprisingly for such a good site they seem to talk about the new £12 charges like they're in some way legitimate, or rubber stamped by the FSO or OFT. The law says the charges have to be proportional to costs (of default). Costs the bank about £2.50 if you default. £12 is not £2.50.
Also, experts keep coming on TV saying you can claim back 6 years in England and 5 years in Scotland, which I believe is bullshit also. You're claiming via the FSO in the first instance, which is not constrained by these statuatory limitations, right?

Myself, waiting for £870 (credit card, complained to FSO), £400 bank (on hold, awaiting Wednesday's judgement).

Maybe a big pay day for most of us next week!

dont think banks should refund anything.

just my opinion obv...

cos I signed an agreement with them agreeing to the charges? Yer probably. But they are loaded and we are not. It was just greedy.

i see charges as a punishment otherwise people could abuse the facility, not as a way to pass on the actual cost of going overdrawn.

if you dont pay for parking you get a ticket, if you break the speed limit you are charged, if you go overdrawn past your agreed limit you are charged.

most banks let you off with one mistake, but people go overdrawn all the time and I think banks have the rigth to charge for it.

just my two cents...

What do I need to do to get bank charges refunded? I could be a millionaire after all!

Two Questions :

Do you work for Natwest?

and

Have you been looking at my account?

Pretty good point though. I disagree though. Not cos you're wrong but cos I want my money back lol.

If you break the speed limit/parking restriction there's a pretty good set of processes you can go through to argue your case, this doesn't really exist in such a way with banks, at the moment. Go 42p overdrawn, the bank goes £60 fine, pay it. 'But but'. 'Just pay it'. Maybe this is what the above case was seeking to protect people from. I don't know enough about it to go into it deeper though.

-------------------------

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19992083.htm

INDICATIVE AND NON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF TERMS WHICH MAY BE REGARDED AS UNFAIR


     1. Terms which have the object or effect of-

      (a) excluding or limiting the legal liability of a seller or supplier in the event of the death of a consumer or personal injury to the latter resulting from an act or omission of that seller or supplier;

      (b) inappropriately excluding or limiting the legal rights of the consumer vis-à-vis the seller or supplier or another party in the event of total or partial non-performance or inadequate performance by the seller or supplier of any of the contractual obligations, including the option of offsetting a debt owed to the seller or supplier against any claim which the consumer may have against him;

      (c) making an agreement binding on the consumer whereas provision of services by the seller or supplier is subject to a condition whose realisation depends on his own will alone;

      (d) permitting the seller or supplier to retain sums paid by the consumer where the latter decides not to conclude or perform the contract, without providing for the consumer to receive compensation of an equivalent amount from the seller or supplier where the latter is the party cancelling the contract;

      (e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;

      (f) authorising the seller or supplier to dissolve the contract on a discretionary basis where the same facility is not granted to the consumer, or permitting the seller or supplier to retain the sums paid for services not yet supplied by him where it is the seller or supplier himself who dissolves the contract;

      (g) enabling the seller or supplier to terminate a contract of indeterminate duration without reasonable notice except where there are serious grounds for doing so;

      (h) automatically extending a contract of fixed duration where the consumer does not indicate otherwise, when the deadline fixed for the consumer to express his desire not to extend the contract is unreasonably early;

      (i) irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which he had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract;

      (j) enabling the seller or supplier to alter the terms of the contract unilaterally without a valid reason which is specified in the contract;

      (k) enabling the seller or supplier to alter unilaterally without a valid reason any characteristics of the product or service to be provided;

      (l) providing for the price of goods to be determined at the time of delivery or allowing a seller of goods or supplier of services to increase their price without in both cases giving the consumer the corresponding right to cancel the contract if the final price is too high in relation to the price agreed when the contract was concluded;

      (m) giving the seller or supplier the right to determine whether the goods or services supplied are in conformity with the contract, or giving him the exclusive right to interpret any term of the contract;

      (n) limiting the seller's or supplier's obligation to respect commitments undertaken by his agents or making his commitments subject to compliance with a particular formality;

      (o) obliging the consumer to fulfil all his obligations where the seller or supplier does not perform his;

      (p) giving the seller or supplier the possibility of transferring his rights and obligations under the contract, where this may serve to reduce the guarantees for the consumer, without the latter's agreement;

      (q) excluding or hindering the consumer's right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy, particularly by requiring the consumer to take disputes exclusively to arbitration not covered by legal provisions, unduly restricting the evidence available to him or imposing on him a burden of proof which, according to the applicable law, should lie with another party to the contract.

Well, I totted up my charges and it looked okish.


Then I used the site interest calculator at 8%. Holy crap!!!!!!! 8% on a 2001 £35 debt is a LOT!


Saw some guy who totted all his stuff up for his credit card then claimed it back from his bank, plus interest at 29%, the level on his credit card. And won! lmao.


You need to go to http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/bank-charges and follow the excellent guides.

Bank charges repayments are on hold (pending above, etc) (unless you are in hardship)

Credit card charges are not.

I get interest too? Zomg, hopefully the best result comes through for the bank charges, thanks.

totally agree about the 42p ones, but i know that these are rare and most proper banks let that ride.  obv you will come back with halifax/natwest etc, but as i say proper banks wont be stupid about pennies.

I'm with BOS, 'A friend for Life' :) :)

Thankfully they have seen the error of their ways and have simplified things for us dumbass customers with a £1/day overdraft rate.

42p overdrawn = £30/month. lol. wp wp

HBOS won't let this ride. Do others let it ride?

yeah halifax are part of the group and have done the same thing.  cheaper to see a lonn shark at 1000% interst.

halifax are hbos 

You do know that you can't go overdrawn without permission don't you ?

The bank either lets you go overdrawn or charges you to cause it.

If you have several accounts with one company the can use the power to offset (transfer money to cover defeicits). Funny how they don't when it means they can charge you but as soon as it looks like you are shutting down they suddenly remember how.


Contract law is a 2 way street. Funny how te banks use it when it suits them and ignore it when it doesn't.

Sandy

its your job to manage your accounts not the banks.

If someone told you they were going to give you a severe beating and indeed you were put in hospital would you not prosecute because you knew about it ?

Nobody is saying the banks shouldn't get redress but they are/were profiteering. The law says you can't and the banks knew this.

So you say charges are fair because everyone knew of them. The laws have been around as long enough and the banks are big enough to have legal advisor's. In general the public will not use legal advice when entering a contract as they believe, wrongly, that big companies will be correct.

Sandy

lol, nice example. 

have been with my bank for about 20 years and  cheques being bounced on me quite  a few times

could this be worth investigating?

haven't clicked on link am too tired fro anything heavy  ;sleep;

knob, you ever been £2.50 overdrawn and got charged £30. The prices are patently over charged for what is an essential service given that you have to have a bank account in todays world if your a normal citizen. give me my money!!!!

I for 1 hope that the banks do win.

For someone who looks after my bank account and does not and has not got charges in the past, I dont want to be the one who has to start paying a monthly fee for my bank account, because this is what will happen..

I'm not sure what its like now, but when I lived in spain, all banks charged a monthly fee to run your bank account.

this will bring about the end of free banking for those of us that keep our accounts in the black

it indeed will be, charges for so much pish will be introduced everywhere no doubt

wtf, who doesn't have a plus account these days?  ;)

i've been 55p over drawn and been charged that i almost hooked the guy in the bank lol.

Glad I'm not alone!

Free banking will be a thing of the past soon, we are one of the only countries to supply a banking service for free.

In the countries that are charged for accounts would the interest paid on deposits be higher by any chance ?

Sandy

This is a good example. No one's saying mis managing your account should go unpunished but the punishment should fit the crime

wow as easy as this

[insert your name
and address]

[insert date]

[insert name and
address of bank]

Dear Sir or Madam,

Account number: [insert account number]

I am writing to request a fully comprehensive list of all the default charges for direct debit, unauthorised overdrafts and standing orders I have paid since 27 July 2001.

Please find enclosed a cheque for the maximum statutory charge of £10. If you are unable to provide this data, I will accept a copy of my statements; I understand that statements on their own are not covered by the Data Protection Act 1998, yet I’m not requesting the statements per se, but the charges, which I’m entitled to by law.

I look forward to your response within 40 days, as [insert name of bank] is obliged to reply under the Data Protection Act. If not I shall seek remedy from the Information Commissioner.
Yours faithfully,

[insert your signature]

[insert your name (printed)]

Yes, it looks daunting to begin with, but Money Saving Expert have done a hell of a lot of work and it's just a case of following their step by step process and filling in the blanks. Obv the bank knows where you've got your template from and are very sad cos they know that you have the whole process laid out in front of you when they start their little crappy process.

Killing free banking one step at a time!!  ;mexicanwave; ;letsparty; ;letsparty;


Dunno about the bounced cheque charges, maybe that's not covered by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Credit Contracts Act, cos it's not really..credit. Unsure, worth checking.

This Data Protection Access Request targets your charges specifically and you'll probably get a big pile of photocopied statements, like I did. But the Bank holds a hell of a lot of other interesting stuff that you can demand at the same time, under the same request. I would include the phrase 'Please also supply me with all other information you hold on me to which the Data Protection Act applies'.
Also include a cheque for £10. The non-rubber kind ;)

http://www.ico.gov.uk/ESDWebPages/search.asp

For HBOS customers:

Data classes are:

    Personal Details
    Family, Lifestyle and Social Circumstances
    Employment Details
    Financial Details
    Goods or Services Provided

    AUDIO/ VIDEO RECORDS

That'll be cctv and phone records then too. Wiii! How do they manage to monitor all this information and yet still provide a free service? It's a miracle!!!

Dont think so and wont be here.
HSBC have already mucked about with their interest payments and they are the finest bank about.

I got my charges back about 3 years ago before anyone knew about it.

Im surprised the banks have tried so hard to fight this as they will get the money back pretty quick whatever happens.

£25 per year for a standard account isnt far away

LMAO #1, at all the people sticking up for the morally corrupt banks that screwed this country and pretty much the rest of the world.

LMAO #2, at all the people sticking up for the morally corrupt banks who we as the tax payer are going to be subsidising for the next few years.

I personally think that penalties are a necessity but as the law states these should fair and just.

Screw the banks they deserve what they get.

wp excellent, more reasons for the tax payer to have to subsidise them

FYP

Possibly one of the most backwards post of the year.

You do realise that the banks as such did nothing wrong?

so pissed off because of idiots that cant keep there bank accounts in the black and keep going overdrawn i am going to have to pay £10 a month

The problem I see with modern banking is the personal touch is not there.  If an unemployed person toes overdrawn it's a huge amount to them andbtye way banks schedule and apply charges often leads to more charges with higher interest rates for the term you are over your limit .  Once upon a time you could have a quiet word with the bank manager and they would understand and help, these days a computer tells a printer "overdrawn" and out pops a £60 fine in the post to those that can not afford it .

Refund and restructure the charges system

Some people have been charged because a direct debit comes off early and their pay goes in the next day or so. If they were managing their finances but had no spare capital then that initial charge could be enough to start a huge spiral.

Not all cases of charges are because of a customer error.

It is a bit much for the banks to complain about customers not managing finances properly though given how much they had to get from the treasury to stay in business.

Sandy

How about all the banks that didn't need help from the government can charge what they like, and all the banks that did have to pay all the charges back, give us great rates of interest, lend small businesses as much as they like and give first time buyers mortgages?

All we hear now is 'we bailed them out and now they won't lend us money/charge us stupid amounts'

Its ridic.

The competition commission would love that idea !!

Most of the lending talked about is small business and cashflow is pretty vital to existence for them. Many have had overdrafts and loans called in for no fault of their own and as a result the unemployment figures have gone up. Still it's not all bad for the banks since the unemployed can't pay their mortgage and they can add a few charges and get a few cheap houses.

Sandy

in cases like that its already possible to get the charges refunded, but only if the direct debit was taken out earlier than scheduled

Apart from breaking the law? These guys employ the very best lawyers. They knowingly ripped off customers and knew they were breaking the law in doing so. When you try to claw back charges, they defy you with 'You signed up to an agreement blah blah' but when you go to the Ombudsman or the Courts, in almost all cases (hundreds of thousands of them), the bank goes 'uhhhh ok now you mention it, you can have all your money back'. Why? Cos they know they took it illegally and the court would judge as such.

[X] Peeps would be better off if they kept their monies in the black and without default
[X] Most peeps could do this if they tried
[X] Peeps should read and try to keep to the contracts they sign with large institutions

[ ] Because they fail on the above the banks can operate above the law.

The law's the law.

Sorry my post was a fail.

I was referring to why they needed to be bailed out etc
It was nothing to do with the day do day banking side of things that we deal with.

They obviously cant operate above the law and that interpretation will be decided shortly.

How about the greedy people who spent money they didn't have sucked up their medicine instead of whining like little bitches?

+ 1 Awsome, just awsome... I am now ready to face this sunday.. thanks Andrew

AndrewT for mgod

FML. I've got it all wrong. The banks lent money responsibly and charge fair fees when customers go overdrawn.

I don't mind reasonable debate but if you can't see that the banks are pretty much responsible for the current mess the UK is in then I suppose you also think Gordon is the best PM since Winston.

Still LMAO

since when was this thread about the current mess the uk is in..

Thread title - Not about current economic climate, its about charges, and some people on here dont agree with them getting returned, its pretty much a reasonable debate

+1billion - except in exceptional circumstances, or when a payment has been taken out of an account in error nobody should go over their agreed limit.  The banks should be able to charge w/ever they like for idiots who do this.  I am with Ironside on this one if I have to face a monthly/yearly fee for having a bank account due to idiots who cant handle money.  I hate banks and their attitude to customers in general however on this one I am with them, Mon the banks.

The bank allows people to go past their limit. They do not need to honour a direct debit or payment (except cheque guarantees).

The banks wanted people to incur charges as they were making billions of pounds in doing so.

If you have no funds they say no to a payment. Oh hang on if they say no they can only charge a failed charge but if they aloow it they can charge daily plus interest until you add in more funds which you probably don't have or it would have been there to start with.

No better than loan sharks.

Sandy

This is pure comedy.

I don't have an overdraft and it's been longer than I care to remember since I've last been charged a penalty for being overdrawn/bounced check or dd.
As a free thinking unselfish man I still think that penalties should be in proportion to the crime/overdraft etc. etc.

Each to their own I suppose.

not really you can ask when setting up an account not to allow you to go over your limit but you wont gte a debit card or a cheque book and they only allow DDs to come out of your account if they are under the amount of your GTD card although the GTD has nothing to do with your DD they will honour all payments upto your GTD untill they withdraw the card from you

But their not are they, the whole thing is caused by people and businesses not being able to understand their own finances and living in a way that meant that small changes sent them busto. The banks didnt prevent it but they arent responsible for people saying I earn £13k, ill get myself £30ks worth of credit card and loan debt and moan that the banks let me!

Lol

I suppose you also think that Fred Goodwin should give his pension back?

that may all be true but the banks don't make people set up direct debits that they can't afford.

it's not like credit was ever hard to get during the period that most of these charges are from. if people really wanted to live beyond their means it was easy enough for absolutely anyone to go out and get a loan/cc rather than going into unauthorised debt and then bitching about being charged an amount that they knew they'd be charged before they did it

Loan sharks don't force people to agree to terms that will leave the greedy bastards saddled with disproportionate interest on debts they will have difficulty paying off. For this reason loan sharking should be allowed and any whining bitches who think otherwise should stfu. imo.

What? Did you miss the empty tickbox?

I agree that people should be responsible when borrowing money whether for business or personal gain but I also believe that it is the responsibilty of the Banks to lend money responsibly and not offer deals which entice people to borrow more than they can afford to payback.

I think Fred the Shred should keep his pension. RBS are big boys and they knew what they were signing.

I'm in two minds on the banking charges debate. On one hand its a bit harsh to get hit with £30 in charges for going overdraw once in a while by a tenner, however I had almost no sympathy for people who are permanently incurring charges.

On the banks vs small businesses, small business owners must take some responsibility. Lots of business owners (if not the majority) strip every penny out of the business from day one and never go without in order to build up a cash reserve.

On whose fault is it that the banks are in trouble, well thats simple 1st - the banks, 2nd the regulators and 3rd the government.

The misses has a debit card, pays the bills with it,and will spend whats left till computer says no.

Debit cards take whats left in the account so in theory you can only spend what you have,she has occured charges
in 10 of the last 12 months by going od for as little as £3.90.

Somehow she has purchased goods and the transactions have not been registered until 2 weeks later or so,and now the bank has been charging her £30 a time in the last year alone.Havent gone through her records for longer than this yet.

Was under the impression this could not happen with a debit card as all unpaid funds were held anyway?

So when is a limit not a limit ?

Sandy

When you sign a piece of paper that says the bank at their discretion may let you utilise an unauthorized overdraft but there will be fees for this?

Would that be the same piece of paper that allows them to offset which they won't do because there isn't a charge for it ?

Sandy

cba with this thread anymore, so many idiotic posts i dont know where to begin...

I just want to get money lol. Get money good, lose money bad.

well you getting money will mean that most of us will lose money

infact in the long run so will you

Tott up your losses and I'll play you for it hu. You run good so will probably get it back. If you lose you can write to the poker ombudsman.

i run so bad, but HU i fancy my chances

bB9 i'll play you for £5k which is what i will lose over my life time

5 different versions pf poker you can choose them

Deal!!!

NL HE
2-7 triple draw
A5 triple draw
OH8
Razz Limit SuperTurbo

Got a feeling you may do well out of this lol. Can I have boldie/ScotlandStu as my coach? They know teh pokerz. You can have Crow

TF for that. We finally agree on something. Was beggining to think it was personal.lol

HU matches at bashes i am 22 wins for 5 loses but that did include a 5-0 win over tikay
mind you i did lose 2 games of 1 card 2 card HU HE where i got one card and my oppo got 2 so glad you didnt choose that game

http://blogs.birminghampost.net/business/2009/11/its-payback-time-mr-banker.html#more

Sandy

T-10

So many things wrong in this but it is not good for my blood pressure to argue.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8376906.stm

Despite the banks "winning" their share prices have not moved suggesting that it was not much of a win at all.

Bugger... anyone got any razor blades?  :'(

It's not over mate. Yet to read the judgement in full but the Supreme Court Judge did just say that it was possible for the OFT to pursue the fairness investigation by other means. The OFT have been working independently of this judgement to prepare further action against the banks. There is also the possibilty of an Appeal to the European Court.

This judgement today does not affect Credit Card Charge Reclaiming.

Am I right in thinking it doesn't affect loan insurance (PPI?) either?

amazing. i am truly astonished at this verdict. prior to the moratorium being put on any action in 2007, the banks were basically paying out these claims without too much of a fight. i know scores of people who got 4 figure sums back from a variety of banks for the effort of writing a few letters, and following the procedures on the moneysavingexpert website. This suggests to me that the banks fully expected to lose. but of course since then the whole economic climate has changed considerably. and the banks are now largely owned by the UK taxpayer, which has to have been a factor in this decision.

interesting quote from the bbc

"In a three-day appeal in the House of Lords in June, the banks argued they would receive a "deluge of litigation" if the decision was made against them."

did they banks really use this as a defence ? I must try this next time i get stopped for speeding. I will explain to the court that to fine me would result in a deluge of similar cases being tried in the courts. incredible.

great news for people who don't cry like babies

Even better news for people who dont cry like babies who also got their claim paid in 2006  :D ;)

:)up

you as well ?

We got the nice surprise as we came back home after a tough 2 weeks in the carribbean. Opened a letter from RBS to find a cheque for nearly 4 grand and a letter saying this is being paid provided you dont make any more claims.

just about paid for another holiday :)

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8376906.stm  (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8376906.stm)

 :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

I'm just happy the correct decision has been made.

I also believe the decision was unanimous, which if I'm not mistaken means there is no further route for appeal?

Maybe people will start taking responsibility for managing there own finances now?

Jees Laz you must have abused your account! Lol

Mine was almost 4 figures not quite.

When I just left colleget and HSBC said heres an overdraft for double what you earn a month I couldnt help myself.

Claiming it back was quite entertaining.

We completely disagree, you have no right to ask for this, but we will offer you 60%

Not thanks

We have done nothing wrong, you have no rights to claim this we will see you in court....
unless you accept 70%

No thanks, bet I can beat you to the court proceedings.

We have received a court notice and will be defending the case

Er heres 110% of what you asked for now just go away.

LOL

 ;applause; ;applause; :)up :)up ;applause; ;sark;




PPIs still good to go, btw.

LOL

Is all quite surprising, those payouts. Maybe the banks are really surprised by today's ruling too, that's why they were paying out. In hardship cases, they were paying out too..........

...........unless they knew that there was more to come after this and the OFT had other routes planned.

I don't think the politicians can do anything else now though, retrospectively? The tories were talking of mass payouts, but they have to follow the laws that were in place and the interpretation of them.

At least we may have put a (temporary) hold on all the whining and bitching and moaning, it was really giving me indigestion with my porridge.

I think it is because the original cases could have gone to court and so it was cheaper than to defend each one individually.
Obviously they only had to pay the claims until they received the stay on all cases while it was sorted.

not really. i was trying to run a business at the time, and the great irony is that the business accounts were at the same bank. online banking wasnt as sophisticated then, and unless you could get down to the bank, to transfer money from business to personal would take three days.

so your personal account would go 20 quid overdrawn, and there would be 4 grand in your business account. thanks very much, 30 quid charge.

this went on for about 3-4 years, and it only took 2-3 charges per month for it to mount up.

luckily i was an avid hoarder of documents, and proceeded to sit one night and go through them all...3870 quid.

+1. The BBC covered this in the morning, using some semi mong lady harping on about £1500 overdraft charges she occured over a 2 year period. She was a fuking idiot and couldn't control her money or her life. People who continally go over their limits deserve huge fines!!

and maybe the banks will be persuaded to put a fair charging model in place that isnt solely designed to increase their profits at a cost to people who can least afford it.

and maybe people will realise that banks are purely there to sell them stuff they dont need and treat them with the utter contempt that they deserve.

But if you are spending money thats not yours why should the banks let them ?

is everything in your world so black and white ?

is there no room for any mitigation ? perhaps you would like to explain why they deserve huge fines, using the broad brush strokes of generalisation that you seem to be so comfortable with.

If someone makes a single mistake and breaks their overdraft limit is it safe to say if you ring them up and explain the situation they will drop the charges or negotiate them? if someone continually abuses their account and uses the banks money why should they avoid fines? its easy to agree to higher overdraft limit, sadly this takes a little commonsense and forsight for most people so they take the easy route and blame the banks? I don't get it.

The fair ruling, the charges should stand 100%......and I hate banks as well

oftent these cases arent as simple as that. it is not a simple case of someone spending 20 quid too much and then getting charged 30 quid for it. It is more often, when there is already a very tight budget in place, the uncontrollable spiral that this creates. the people that suffer from it are the ones who can least afford it.

so you get charged 30 quid for the bank returning a 20 quid direct debit. you are now 30 quid overdrawn
then, a couple of weeks later you get hit with another charge, for every day you are overdrawn without permission. say 20 quid a day for a maximum of 3 days (rbs charged in this way)
(note that your idea that you are spending the banks money is nonsense. the bank are now actually spending your money for you)

you are now 90 quid overdrawn. your small salary goes in, but you are now 90 quid behind your budget. so you phone up the  bank - 'hi, im a bit short can i have a 100 quid overdraft ?'

' sorry, your profile is not the type we want to lend money to. bye'.
(translates as - we can give you an od and charge you 5 quid for it, or we can refuse, and continue to rake in 60 quid per month).

so this continues..month after month...all because of one mistake/oversight/whatever. perhaps you can suggest a solution to this ?

its not so easy if you are one of the estimated 25% of people in this country who have no access to mainstream credit products.

I agree its not great for some people on a really tight budget, often difficult to break the cycle of debt and paying bills but its not the banks fault. It many of these people went to the citizens advice bureau or other free debt advice groups I am sure they would give them some great help on finding a solution.

But it all comes down to people spending more then they have, that's a fact no one can deny. If it is not the banks money they are spending when they go over their limits then who's is it exactly?

It could acrtually be anyones as banks have to clear down their borrowings at then end of every day i believe.

i have already explained why it isnt as simple as saying 'people spending more than they have'. and if you have ever been in debt its always not so simple to look for advice. its a bit like telling someone with depression to 'give themselves a shake'. Yes, with the correct help people can get out of the spiral of debt, but kicking them when they are down doesnt help.

also the idea that 'we are stealing from the banks' is a myth which the banks are happy to perpetuate.

[X] Laz pwns bank charges debate

Still don't make it fair to charge someone £40 for going £15 overdrawn,then charging £20 or summit crazy like that for them sending you a letter telling you you went overdrawn,sure seems fair.At the time everyone was claiming it back succesfully i was gutted i'd never been overdrawn before lol,that sure still is the case

So it is the banks duty is to allow people (who continually break the rules they signed up to) free money whenever they want it without any consequences? because they are in a difficult situation? I am not sure that is what banks are there for. Maybe they shouldnt charge them a thing and just close their accounts.

Not over keen on the depression comparison tbh. More often than not people make decisions in life that lead to dept, mental health problems is an illness.

How about charging in proportion to how much the person went overdrawn ?? 100%+ interest is robbery imo

The basis of the Supreme Court judgement today was that in going overdrawn and incurring charges people were specifically following the rules they had signed up to. We give you an account, you go overdrawn by this much, we charge you this amount: that is the contract.

I am sorry but telling me dept is not often an easy, managable or a cut and dry situation for alot of people using banks does not equate to a valid counter argument on banks charges. So it seems do the people who decide the law.

by using the phrase 'more often than not' suggests that you do agree that in some cases debt can be caused by external factors outwith the control of person (unemployment, injury, etc etc). Therefore any arbitrary system which punitively fines people for going over a pre-defined spending limit (a limit which is set by the organisation doing the fining, for added irony) is by its very definition unfair.

and also there is often a strong correlation between depression and debt. one can often lead to the other.

It's a valid riposte to the assertion that bank charges are largely run up by people who can easily manage their accounts to stop them repeatedly going into the deep-red and repeatedly incurring charges.

If you go overdrawn of course you should pay a charge....but a fair reasonable charge.

If you "borrow"£2 for 3 days for example,should you be charged £35 for that?....sod it lets charge them £135, then the ******s wont do it again!

The Banks knew it was a screw em money making scheme, that was taking the p***,because they paid out millions before the court case and are going down the fair and reasonable path now.

Can the banks ask for the money back they wrongly paid out in the cases already gone through?

On a serious note, I agree that the people who go overdrawn then the charge comes out so get charged again is wrong. It used to be the case that the bank manager could refund an amount of previous charges and some of the ones coming up to stop this cycle.

Unfortunatly places like money saving expert came along and backed the banks into a corner where they refund nothing because of the vast amounts paid out to people so they could go on holiday!!

It's extortion, to charge incredible amounts of interest on small discrepancies, legalised loan sharking. This has happened to many people, go £5 over drawn, £35 charge, £25 letter and £5 per day charge while remaining overdrawn. This ends up costing you £200ish in a month, a lot of this country earn less than a grand a month take home, enter spiral that the banks just keep fucking you month after month with no compassion. I thought we lived in a civilised soceity.

The bank has it well within it's power to provide accounts that do not allow you to go overdrawn via spending or DD etc, why don't they provide these? because they don't make any money out of them.

in the bad old days if i wrote a cheque and had no money. it bounced. boing boing....

then someone at a bank had the brilliant thought that instead of bouncing it (and charging them), lets pay it (and charge them). Then we can charge them twice. genius !


i dont want anyone to think i am advocating that people eschew their responsibilities with regards to financial matters. Believe me, i have helped quite a few people close to me come to terms with their debts and finances (some of them would make your hair turn gray). The last thing people in this situation need is further punishment.

these charges prey on the weakest in society, and all to benefit the people who run the banks by way of bonuses.

A friend of mine was charged £194 for going 92 pence overdrawn... It started at £60ish fine on the "x-amount charge + £5 per day" and slowly built up. She didn't know what to do and by the time she spoke to somebody it was £194. The bank eventually reduced it but she had to do a lot of fighting for it.

thats quite funny. poor wee banks being backed intoa  corner by that bully on MSE. its so unfair that anyone should try to upset the applecart of them legally extorting people. they dont even throw us a few crumbs down from the table anymore.

(tugging forelock)

Lol

Martin Lewis of MSE fame is an arse

The banks werent backed into a corner, its all comercial desicions on a huge scale.
They would have had little interest in the outcome of this case as either way they WILL get as much money as they want.

Beavers friend who got charged £194 for going 92 pence overdrawn, why would you bank with a bank like this?
Everyone stating RBS's daily charges, why on earth would you bank with a bank that does this.

Debt and depression may go hand in hand, and unexpeceted charges and situations may not be easy to manage, but if you are really going to struggle with the charges etc then why would you not change your account to not allow unauthroised borrowing?

Banks do a lot more good than bad, and the route of bank charges is the actions of people, they can be easily avoided.

wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

Laz I agree with all you say.
Unfortunately there are many selfish people on here
who can't see beyond their own noses who have the attitude of I'm alright screw everybody else.
The world is made up of many types of people and some of these people need help. Is it ok for banks to fuck these people over, because that's exactly what they are doing.

Bit harsh imo.

Obv the banks take the piss with the charges and they have been put in line by people causing a fuss etc. But you can always move banks and put your money with one that really does not charge you vast amounts and treats you like human beings.

I been in dept and its shit, the last thing I would have needed was being stung by bank charges, but I realise it is down to the individual to manage their fianances to avoid such circumstances. Nothing selfish about that.

People have to realise most of this country is full of people in huge dept from their own making.

I take offence at this Bob

My main point on this entire thread is that no one was forced to spend money they didnt have.
I did it myself, it was easy, it didnt matter, I didnt really need to keep an eye on my money and at the time i paid my price.

I just find the whole oo oo the banks are screwing us a bit of a joke, maybe its because owning part of a business I am constantly on the end of being screwed by employees and customers I have a different view to things than many.

Just because its different doesnt mean its wrong.

I take offence to this too.

Sometimes unselfish people can't see beyond their own noses too you know.

In my experience, from 6 to 7 years ago when I was a phone monkey for one of the big 4 banks, the vast majority of customers incurring charges were self inflicted and repeat offenders. Friday & Saturday nights were unreal, the amount of people calling to have their overdraft extended or credit card limit increased, usually from the pub, was crazy. Most people accepted the charges and were well used to it.
Whenever there were customers in genuine difficulties a meeting was arranged with their branch to review their finances.

I would consider the bank to be the most conservative & prudent of all the UK banks and almost certainly a responsible lender whose charges were by no means the worst. I couldn't say the same for some of the others.   

 ;applause; LOLOL

If you worked for HSBC then you may well have spoken to me on a number of occasions!

http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/uksc_2009_0070_judgmentV2.pdf

"It is therefore appropriate to spell out at the outset that the Court does not have the task of
deciding whether the system of charging personal current account customers adopted by
United Kingdom banks is fair."

The judgement does contain a reference to a different section of the law and that it is felt the OFT should have used that to bring about the case and still may.

Sandy

No offence meant. ;)

Stu I don't mean to offend anybody.

I'm usually the quiet type who likes browsing this forum but I felt that I needed to speak up about this.

I too am self employed and have been for 20+ years and yes customers and employees are a pain in the arse.

I'm lucky enough not to incurr unecessary charges with my bank by managing my account and finances.

I am also in agreement that there are people who do not help themselves and deserve to get charged penalties. Where we do disagree is the amount of these charges.

A banking facility is and should be a right for all to use. The problem is is that banks abuse this and screw the little man irrespective of previous banking history between the customer and the bank.

Anyway rant over. It'll soon be yesterdays news.

No problems Bob, I know how some of my posts come across.

I do agree about the repeat charges caused by charges.

Maybe I'm a little biased because I have never been anything but happy with HSBC.

Banks weren't gonna lose this imo just because of the current climate. Would have knocked them for 6 had the charges issue gone in favour of the customer

But the Supreme court has helped claims against the banks.

Sandy

Clearly these charges are excessive. I personally believe some sort of political influence has been used to rule in favour of the banking industry.

It's far from the success for the banks that is being reported.

Lady Hale even suggests that there is a cartel going on that perhaps should be investigated

 "Or is the real problem that we do not have a real choice because the
suppliers all offer much the same product and do not compete on some of their terms?
This is the situation here. But it is not clear to me whether the proper solution is to find
some way of forcing the suppliers to compete with one another in the terms they offer or
whether the solution is to condemn one particular model of charging for those services.
Fortunately, however, that is for Parliament and not for this Court."

Also check paragraph 80 to see what part of consumer law to use when claiming back charges.

Sandy

great post

http://blogs.birminghampost.net/business/2009/11/bank-charges-case-the-devils-i.html

http://blogs.birminghampost.net/business/2009/11/bank-charges-case-the-devils-i-1.html

Sandy

Edit: the following post has been edited to subtly disguise signs of bitchy whining

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/reclaim/2009/11/bank-charges-the-phoenix-from-the-flames

New opportunity

However, the OFT now has the option to relaunch a challenge on different grounds. The Supreme Court has even suggested it uses grounds under Regulation 5, was part of its original argument before the case got to the UK's highest court.

That states the level of fees has to be agreed between both parties in good faith and they must not cause "a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer".

The Supreme Court states in its summary of the case: "The charges might still be open to assessment by the OFT on other grounds under Regulation 5."

And Jonathan Richards, a partner at law firm Eversheds, adds: "There may be other aspects of terms and conditions which can be challenged. It could be argued that the clock has been turned back."

The OFT says it will announce its next step in December.

Martin Lewis, MoneySavingExpert.com creator, says: "Just had a peek at the blondepoker, they don't have whine like a bunch of wounded bitches over there, fml!"

[ ] WP OFT

When a judge is pointing out, in a ruling, avenues that you should have explored in the first place, you know someone deserves the sack. There was only about £5Billion resting on it...

Bring it Martin you tool.
You dont even know how to get the best deals.
I hate you.

 ;nana;

i hate martin lewis also, would love to give him a slap!! 

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a3/Martyn-lewis-journalist.jpg)

I always found him a decent news reader especially his news bulletins of Dianas' murder death. :)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8425766.stm

@@@@@@

The OFT also revealed it had decided against launching a different legal attack on bank charges.

It had considered using the Consumer Credit Act, but had concluded it would have little chance of success if it attempted to argue in court that under that law the banks had established an "unfair relationship" with their customers.

"This partly reflects an assessment of the wider repercussions of [the] reasoning underlying the judgement," the OFT said.

"This reasoning will inevitably be influential in guiding the deliberations of any UK court before which the OFT might bring enforcement action based on the concept of fairness."

However the OFT said an individual might have greater chance of success with such an argument "since a case would need to focus on the individual circumstances of each creditor-debtor relationship - including matters relating to the individual debtor".

@@@@@@@

To date, banks have been very reluctant to take matters to court, maybe this will still hold.