Banks win Supreme Court Ruling

What sib says.

Charging 30 quid for going 5 pounds overdrawn is just ridiculous.

Well, there are limits. Sib will advise!

You know the rules.

Of course I agree with that as well. But I have had a bit of experience with the banks recently (not with my own affairs, i hasten to add) which have left me with a sour taste in the mouth.

One case, LPA receivers seeking to recover £25,000 in rents, the banks legal costs were quoted in court as £400,000 - £500,000. Alright, there was a bigger fight behind it, but nevertheless. And the idea was for it to go unmentioned, so the sums would simply be added to the mortgatge as per the contract.

On a much smaller scale, a credit card dispute, one of these CCA disputes. A good case, probably going to win. A solicitor writes saying the matter is in dispute, please send correspondence to us.

The bank phones the client every day for over a month, up to eight times a day. When in court, under the Protection from Harrassment Act, the banks answer was (and it was a serious answer), "our systems don't allow us to take the individual customer out of our automated debt collection scheme". I have seen this more than once.

Well thats alright then. If it were Mad Nick, the local friendly money lender, his feet would not have touched the floor.

The banks behaviour is out of control in my opinion, and I am sad that this opportunity to give them a kicking didn't come off. Alright, there are a lot of people who got into debt irresponsibly, but the major banks are not well placed to give us lectures on that right now.

^ That's wrong but also irrelevant to today's ruling.

Orioles, what about the consequences of NOT borrowing, and NOT being overdrawn, but being charged a fortune for 'asking'?

It is irrelevant, I know. But let me make two points. One, it would have been nice to see the banks get their wings clipped.

And two, and not everyone agrees with me on this but plenty do, the higher courts do get influenced by wider policy implications beyond the law. I strongly suspect that the amount of money getting taken from the banks at the moment, with mis-selling claims and consumer credit claims, had an influence, together with the wider problems the banks are having. They should not have been relevant and won't be in any judgment, but I bet they came into the thinking.

But those costs wouldn't be maintained, or that conduct pass unpunished, surely. I never worked in this area "I just 'it 'im, Mr Orioles after he 'it me" but I have dealt with banks in business. I always took the view that everything was negotiable ... and it was!

I suspect the policy implications of the judgment are of most relevance.

Again, well saidSib

sib - On a much smaller scale, a credit card dispute, one of these CCA disputes. A good case, probably going to win. A solicitor writes saying the matter is in dispute, please send correspondence to us.

The bank phones the client every day for over a month, up to eight times a day. When in court, under the Protection from Harrassment Act, the banks answer was (and it was a serious answer), "our systems don't allow us to take the individual customer out of our automated debt collection scheme". I have seen this more than once.

Well thats alright then. If it were Mad Nick, the local friendly money lender, his feet would not have touched the floor.

The banks behaviour is out of control in my opinion, and I am sad that this opportunity to give them a kicking didn't come off. Alright, there are a lot of people who got into debt irresponsibly, but the major banks are not well placed to give us lectures on that right now.

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

ah yes, telephone harrassment by banks. how ironic that when i complained about unsolicited calls from foreign call centres, the gentleman at HSBC said in his letter 'i have no wish to speak u at all and would request that u respect my wishes'. but i cant stop harrassment from the bank? (btw, apparently my comment that i do not want to speak to non-english people was racist, according to the bank - which is why he didnt want to speak to me).

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

sib - Alright, there are a lot of people who got into debt irresponsibly, but the major banks are not well placed to give us lectures on that right now.

one of the posts of the yr, imo.

"our systems don't allow us to take the individual customer out of our automated debt collection scheme"

sib, was that accepted by the court as a reasonable defence? Who exactly is ultimately responsible for the bank's systems? I work in banking software and if our software isn't regulation-compliant then the investment banks just refuse to buy it or buy on condition that they will not go live (which is the point at which we start realising the revenue) until we have resolved the problem. In short, that strikes me as a very suspect defence.

Given that we the taxpayer actually own most of these banks this really does take the píss!

I agree, Lix. It takes the píss that banks were threatening to charge taxpayers for for using cashpoints if they lost this case.

It wasn't Pool on this occassion, and there is a recent British Gas case where it was explicitely said not to be a defence. But the courts gave them time, on a promise to sort it out, to take Mrs. Bloggs out of their system. Whether they did or not I don't know. But if you or I were up there, and we had mde those calls, we would certainly have been fined and possibly imprisoned. There would have been no sympathy whatsoever.

And bear in mind, Mrs Bloggs was one person who took it all the way. Behind her are the silent thousands who suffer these practises day in day out.

Pool, you don't know of Rule Financial do you?

Is that "Give 'em an inch....." ?

Glad to hear that "our systems are sh1te" isn't a valid defence :)

In general the financials get plenty of notice of changes in regulation/laws affecting them to give them plenty of time to adapt their systems and procedures. It would have been shocking and disgraceful if the court had accepted that as a defence in a harrassment case. It's pretty shocking the bank were given more time, as I'm sure they already knew their systems weren't compliant with the relevant laws.

that christmas, when i was charged 185 quid, halifax rang me on sunday morning, 24th dec at 815 am. and the asain lady, ringing from the leicester call centre, said, when i asked if she would be working on christmas day said ' if i could, i would. i dont celebrate christmas, so why should i not be able to ring u lot up?'

when she said 'u lot', i took it that she meant customers......

^ more irrelevance

No sib, I don't. Just googling them now :)

Looks to me like they're primarily a bespoke operation - we write and sell software as product, which the banks can then configure for different behaviour as they see fit.

EGG, I know my discussion with sib is irrelevant to the charges debate, it was just that I was interested in what happened in that case :)

I see, I think I understand.

Not so much irrelevant as pure fantasy, EGG!

EGG, it is irrelevant purely looked at. But you have two lawyers on here agreeing it would have affected the Court's thinking.

I was referring to wolsey's irrelevance, Pool. Please carry on with yours. :)

Which bit was fantasy, I'm lost now. I have fantasies though, and they are very much irrelevant to this discussion. Interesting though.

Wolsey End's little story.

egg - not really. it just shows that the banks think they are above the law and can get away with anything - whether its unfair charges, telephone harrassment or holding the govt to ransom and getting them to bail the banks out when they have made errors in their lending/borrowing.

the case today was about bank charges being unreasonable and unfair. they are effectively fines and penalties, not charges.

lets break this down into simpler terms.

do u honestly think its fair and reasonable for a customer to be charged 39 quid as a levy for a transcation which the bank has authorised as ok? remember that the bank have authorised this transaction. they ahve said 'yeah its ok - we'll pay it'. u dont think thats profiteering?

In fairness to Wolsey, leaving aside the Asian bit, the banks hit the phones very hard on the run up to Christmas, including Christmas Eve. The telophonists get commission and get skint around Christmas, just like the rest of us.

Today's ruling says they are within the law with respect to the matter under discussion.

orioles - u think im lying? trust me, sunday 815 on christmas eve morning. i have no need to lie. thats why i went in on the following saturday, the 30th, to the branch, to sort it out and thats when the bloke was in there with his girlfriend, and he had been charged because the cheque hadnt cleared in time because of the christmas clearing cycle.

please dont call me a liar again.

Its the amounts they charge that are ridiculous, in days gone by they`d send you a letter to tell you youre overdrawn and charge you 30 quid for the letter.
This can lead to a spiral of debt - as its generally the less well off who get hammered.

If they cant make money out of the millions deposited they shold be ashamed they try and fleece and steal generally off the poor.

** the lot of `em. Govt should put its foot down and make the charges realistic

If the ruling had gone the other way I would have been owed about £200 by my bank. How much of it would I have deserved? Nothing.

In all seriousness, I have no problem with the charges providing that they are clear, transparent and easily understood.

Whenever conditions change, customers should be informed with the usual leaflet type thing, plus a covering letter along the lines of...

Dear Sir/Madam,

Our terms and conditions are about to change. It is extremely important that you understand the changes listed in the accompanying leaflet, or you may have to pay charges you do not expect. If you do not understand any of the changes or have any questions, you can ring us free on 08003333333 and an operator will help you.

Yours Sincerely, I.P.Freely

The letter should be in the largest font possible, with none of the extraneous cr@p you normally see on bank letters. The FSA could easily conduct regular audits to ensure that all calls were properly answered within say 10 mins.

The benefit of such a requirement is that customers would be under no illusion as to the importance of t&cs, and banks would have an incentive to make them as clear and transparent as possible, or face the cost of hiring more call centre staff.

Dont mind charges, its the amount thats a scandal. They operate a cartel, and extort money.

They haven't had a penny out of me for years.

That's because I have taken control of my finances.

Cartel? You have the choice.

^
the choice not to hav an account maybe

Egg - there is no need to be so sanctimonious and therefore patronising to people. Some people are just not in your situation currently but would love to be. Most people do not like being robbed and I'm sure you are one of those.

I`m not saying they shouldnt charge - its the amount thats the issue.

EGG you are lucky that you are organised, and probably earn enough to cover everything. A car breaking down can put even the most prudent lower income family in the $hit

As for choice - thats a joke.

I wasn't suggesting that they hadn't rung you at such an inconvenient time, WE. I was suggesting the woman in question wasn't rude to you.

As you appear to have a problem being civil to 'non-english people', it seems awfully convenient that an Asain (sic) operator is prepared to declare their rejection of Christianity and refer to customers as 'you lot'.

I'm calling you something horrid as I type.

Take a guess ;)

misogynist (NAP)

I agree with Egg. Ive read this and I still cannot side with 'us' who have debt.

What I am saying is you know the rules.

You know how much it will cost you if you go overdrawn UNAUTHORISED.

If the ruling had gone the other way it would just make people gung ho about their finances and not take responsibility.

the banks wanted people to get into debt and incur charges because it boosts their profits and they are secure in the knowledge that when they feck up and lose billions these very same people will be paying to help them get out of their predicament. Fools are guided by the rules society tells them to abide by and defend organisations who blatantly rob people and heap misery on people and know whatever happens they'll be fine.
I have no debt whatsoever apart from four years left on a mortgage but during the property boom was sick to death of being constantly bombarded with pre approved loan offers for 10k and not being able to have a pi ss at a sevice station without being hassled and harassed by credit card companies offering the 'best' credit card, you couldn't even relax at a race meeting without some fecker coming to ask you to sign up for a credit card! A lot of these people probably had no intention of getting stuck under a mountain of debt, and whilst i understand people have to be responsible for their actions, but had it 'sold' to them by touts for the banks and credit card companies. Surely these establishments have to take a large proportion of the blame for overall debt and to make matters worse they now wont lend to small businesses who are capable of paying the money back unless they are prepared to borrow at an extortionate rate!

I would love to have enough for people o pester me. I would just say 'No thanks'. thats far less hassle than trying to find 400 quid when your car goes wrong (using example above) and not having had the nouse to save some money for measures that require quick availablity of funds

^ All well and good but again irrelevant to the court case.

^ to buzzer

About 2 years ago I had £250000 of credit limit on over 20 cards.

Did I use it? No.

(This is irrelevant as well)

Can you lend me a grand?

No, you'd be sensible and keep the payments up. No money in that.

debt was essentially forced upon people, the weak/desperate ones succumbed, banks knew a large proportion wouldn't manage with more debt and would therefore fall into their bonus bucket of incurring over the top charges. Charging fees that bore no relevance to the work they were doing and the banks knew full well that the poor, who they were tempting with this debt, would be paying more and more to them in inflated charges when the banks shouldn't have been offering this money to these people. They created a cycle for people and were robbing them in more ways than one by offering money then, through an outdated banking system i.e cheque clearing, charging a rip off fee for going over their lmit for a couple of £ for a few hours! It has a huge relevance to the case

Everybody on here has money to gamble - its easy for us to say they should have the nous to save for the car going wrong - some ppl dont have the luxury to do that

Hold up, Im being as honest as I can. I am in debt through various reasons, mainly catching up with soem years of foolhardiness, but I still cant see the side that most want tp take. I earn (t) enough to live a respectable existance but wanted more. Had I not, I would be absolutely fine now. Most are like that, they dont look at their past for reasons why they are in the current state. banks, as most good businesses, exploit the oppertunity that is out there.

Ask Costa Coffe why it costs over 2 quid for a cup of hot water and a sprinking of spacedust? Cos you lot will buy it. Put it up to 3 quid, they still do. thats the way it is, dont buy it, they dont make, they dont exist.

Why is credit given? Why not pay for it all when you have saved up? Why not be happy with the car you have, you dont need a new one? Why do businesses offer 30 day or longer credit to other companies? What a stupid idea, probably invented by the banks.

and when the banks were in danger of that............the taxpayer/debtors were forced to bail them out

But only because we made them exist. Everyone withdraw their money tomorrow and stick it under yer bed. They wont. Most havent got any and the ones that have want more so they ask bankers to make them more. Oh well, I have ten years of pain left then they can all go and feck off.

If the banks had lost the case, they would have got money in other ways - such as charging people for using cashpoints.

If they take money from people who make errors, and don't charge people like me for using cashpoints, then that's fine by me.

The banks have quite rightly won this.

The only support i would give for those incapable of managing their money is that i would wish to see a return to the right to be paid in cash- then they can be protected from their own inabilities re banks.

That's a relief. Maybe my phone will start ringing less often now.

WHY DONT SOME OF YOU OPEN A BASIC BANK ACCOUNT WITH THE POST OFFICE. NO WORRIES THERE OF GOING IN THE RED.

To the people who agree to the court ruling - do you think the amounts charged are justified or just blatant profiteering

Profiteering. Same as Tescos will do once they own everything. You wont get yer 2-for-1 then my friend. What stuns me is that people talk as though they are a charity designed to help you, when they are a monmey making business as valid as Manchester United selling 50 quid shirts that cost 2 quid to make in the far East. I hate banks but whats the problem?

Profiteering, but the people paying are operating outside their agreed limits.

They deserve all they get.

Why should I pay for other people's inability to live within their means?

Everything's Gone Green 25 Nov 18:54
Profiteering, but the people paying are operating outside their agreed limits.

They deserve all they get.

Why should I pay for other people's inability to live within their means?

You haven't

but if you're a taxpayer, you have certainly paid to keep the banks alive and those greedy fat cats giving themselves more bonuses

I wonder how much the NHS can improve on 62 billion pounds?

^ Irrelevant

why irrelevant?

my answer was you haven't paid for other people's inability to live within their means?

If the ruling went the other way then I would have to pay to subsidise these people.

Thatchers legacy lives on

too late to worry about that, you're already paying the banks because they failed to run their business in a fit and proper manner and ran up massive multi billion pound losses! Why oh why do people defend the banks to the hilt, the vast majority have been conditioned by the powers that be and bow down to these massive organisations. The banks attempted to screw customers, usually the poorer ones, failed totally at running a sustainable profitable business then had to run to the tax payer, on more than one occassion, yet still people blame the customer for going £3 overdrawn for a day or so! Unbelievable stuff gets posted on here.

Everything's Gone Green 25 Nov 19:00
If the ruling went the other way then I would have to pay to subsidise these people.

Please explain how?

Have you read the thread?

What about the news?

completely agree buzzer

if someone goes overdrawn, they get hit with a £35 fine, when it really cost the bank only £1 or so

one bank made a 6 bil profit last year and 2 bil came from fines?

so if they didn't charge £35 for each "crime" they'd still have 4 billion profit? I really don't get it??

So who's the mug then?

Don't abuse your banking facilities and you won't pay charges.

Live within your means.

EGG - Its the amount they charge thats the issue, dont you see

And if the charges were much less then people wouldn't care about going overdrawn without authorisation and staying overdrawn.

I don't get banks charges, nor do I have an overdraft and nor do I have a credit card

but banks are extremely greedy, and I don't like the fact they won this case

EGG, You're talking shoite mate.

If the banks don't charge ridiculous fines, YOU don't have to pay anything. It is not about living within means. YOU are not subsidising poor people in any way. YOU Do not have to pay anything for people who borrow from banks.

obviously being overdrawn long enough is gonna get back at the customers in the end

you can only have so much a big overdraft

banks would be making the money in interest anyway

the mugs are the tax payers who've bailed out these failed businesses for billions of pounds, the mugs are the small businesses who are suffering because the banks couldn't see the woods for the trees whilst this bubble was growing and growing only to pop in their greedy fat faces but luckily for them Mister £8 an hour, who they've been robbing blind for years, rode to their rescue.And the propoganda machine makes sure the majority sit happy with these decisions because the poor little banks would have to charge all the nice people to withdraw their money if they lost this case and it would have all been the fault of these nasty, nasty people who've hit a rough patch and exceeded their limit by 50p.

Oh, and as I said.....
What about when banks charge for NOT giving an overdraft, or for bouncing a £3 cheque (for example)? No-one has borrowed anything then, and the banks make money for absolutely nothing.

which makes EGG a mug

Buzzer.

Excellent post.

dirty rotten thieving b@stards... all banks.

They are a cartel. If this charging business wasn't an agreement between ALL the banks, one of them could break ranks tomorrow, and get the business of 30million people instantly.

SF

The banks have stated that if the courts / OFT ruled that they could not charge at these levels then they would have to start charging customers who run their accounts within authorised limits for cash withdrawals etc.

That's my point about me subsidising other people.

Everything's Gone Green 25 Nov 19:17
SF

The banks have stated that if the courts / OFT ruled that they could not charge at these levels then they would have to start charging customers who run their accounts within authorised limits for cash withdrawals etc.

THEY subsidise your free banking account!.........numpty

Well said Buzz

Well done to the Supreme Court.

Why should I have to start paying for banking when the numptys who dont keep in their limits subsidise me today.

Keep on overdrawing and saving me money please!

Congratulations punterfleece you have resorted to personal abuse within a few posts of joining a discussion which has been going for 9 hours.

I've made my points many times over without resorting to petty name calling.

I'll make an exception now though, just for you.

Twát.

Banks shouldnt charge you for your accounts, they have your money and give you x interest whilst lending it to others at x +1.

Thats the core of banking, and the greed of these ba$tards to charge what they do for sweet FA is scandalous

These are charges for unauthorised activity NOT standard charges.

EGG

you keep saying you subsidise other people but you don't and never will

it's those people who go overdrawn and get fined are the ones that subsidise you

what part don't you get?

but obviously nothing is gonna change your mind, and I realise am sat on here typing, when I should be eating my tea

so back later, probably not for this thread though

but I don't think this argument will get anywhere

so you called me a tw@t, you got your own back

The courts can say what they like, they're only repeating what the barristers tell them.
Do they mean, in order for banks to contine to rob people blind, without the windfall of extortion they use at the moment, they'll need to extort it elsewhere?
I think they do.

They make billions of £ by 'fining' people.
You open a business, and try telling customers if they're late paying their account you will charge them for it.
You'd last 5 minutes.

You open a business, and try telling customers if they're late paying their account you will charge them for it.

like a mobile telco? or hmrc?

You open a business and people abuse it.

You charge them for this abuse so that your customers who do operate within the rules don't have to subsidise them.

Seems fair.

I just cant believe that ppl are trying to justify what the banks charge...its just mindboggling

It is mindboggling but they know it would be impossible to spout this kind of sh1t in a pub
without ending up on the floor with a bunch of boots landing on your face.

Forums are an outlet for confrontational mindboggling bollx and tbf that's what makes them so entertaining.

from now on

when i get a letter saying my interest rate has automatically gone down without my approval i am going to write my bank a letter and charge them £38 for the inconvenience

i love the morons that actually believe that we have free banking now. Anyone understand what the banks do with your money? its not sat in fort knox. its probably invested in a few bricks in detroit.

Never had a legitimate charge in my life and im angry at this decision. They really are robbing bstards at every turn

the day that the supermarkets come to the market is a great day imo

STUDYFORM 25 Nov 19:27
The courts can say what they like, they're only repeating what the barristers tell them

Goodness! I wish the court had made that clear to me all those years ago :)