Banks win case at High Court

"Supreme Court" rather. Strange thing.

Bit of a turn up.
The**in?

So if the poor get £5 overdrawn the banks can charge what ever they want
The Kray twins must be laughing all the way to the banks


p.s Sir Fred Fraud to make a come back

Before Lamby logs out and in again, yes Lamby: just read your contract.

sanity prevails.

another person on the news moaning with £4,000 of 'unfair' charges.

how many bounced cheques etc can that be?

Al Capone would be proud of our banks

Why does this only apply to Chavs please?

If I pose as a wealthy Russian and borrow £10 billion is it cheaper to do it that way?

A sick day in British history.

One doesn't suppose the ruling has anything to do with the amount of taxpayer money invested with the banks, oh no, surely not.

Göring, you are a smart fellow. Surely you can see what this ruling is saying, and it's nothing to do with the bank charges.

So how much the bankers who overdrawn billions got to pay back to the public
will Sir fred lose his pension, house ,savings,
or is it only the working public that got to pay the overdrawn charges

It's interesting, Muqbil and I haven't looked at the law lords (are they still called that now?) who sat on the case, but yes the goverment was all for it when the populist angle was to give Lampus a score to spend on pies until they're on the hook and suddenly it's ok to charge. Hmm..

Mister E 25 Nov 10:17

Why does this only apply to Chavs please?

Who said that?

"One doesn't suppose the ruling has anything to do with the amount of taxpayer money invested with the banks, oh no, surely not."

Nope, it merely required Messrs Phillips, Walker, Hale, Mance and Neuberger to read the Unfair Consumer Contracts Act and apply it. Quite why the lower courts chose to perversly ignore its plain English requirements, and attempt to reinvent Contract Law is beyond me [or indeed the noble Lords and Lady mentioned above].

No doubt there will be mass resignations at OFT for their utter waste of taxpayers money in this exercise.

Let us hope the banks apply their contractual rights to the full, and ensure any interest payable on fees due but not yet paid is levied.

Mr Goring,




Göring 25 Nov 10:00
If you're a chav and you were told it would cost you £20 to go overdrawn and you still went ahead and took the bank's money, guess what? Yes, you have to pay it.

A sufficient, not a necessary condition.

Didn't any of these customers, after being charged £30 for going overdrawn without permission. Stop and think ffs i'll make sure i don't do that again. Appears not.

Let's hope the courts use the same process to apply the consumer credit act to the next round of cases that will be hitting the headlines. The banks wouldn't be wanting their cake sliced both ways now would they?

Masons protecting masons so that they can carry on doing wrong,
nothing to do with honesty or fairness.

Göring 25 Nov 10:44
A sufficient, not a necessary condition.


LOL :-)

£30? Chance would be a fine thing. I went to america recently and put my bill money in the wrong account (same bank) by mistake. I got back from holiday and found that I had gone a score over. I didn't take the banks money; they gave money I didn't have (in that account, anyway) to someone. Over the next 13 days I racked up charges of £195.

I have now moved to RBS and if you use their debit cards and you don't have the cash guess what? They don't let you use it. Mental. Who would have thought that a bank could calculate the amaount in an account and see if it greater than the amount of the transaction?

Maybe if banks offered accounts where you had an option to have everything refused when the account is empty the charges would be fair. The problem is that there is no choice. They buy things for you then charge enormous fees for the "service". It should be criminal.

Good luck with RBS - the largest loss in UK corporate history - and don't withdraw any funds, as some of it is mine

As the dust has settled on this ruling, it becomes clear the fight is far from over.

The OFT have possibly used the wrong part of the UTCCR.

suits me as a stakehokder in RSB and lloyds (through being a taxpayer) and a probable takeholder sin the other banks through a pension investment.

if the oft won it would have bust a few more banks ,quite sure political pressure ensured the result was as required.

heard a story last night of how a guy went overdrawn by £6, got charged £40 and it snowballed as he couldn't pay it back

the bank is now coming after him for 10 k.

Great result for the moral majority.
If it had gone the other way, those of us ( the vast majority?) who manage our accounts within their limits, would end up paying a fee for current accounts, a fee for using a cashpoint etc etc.

Well done the House Of Lords ( now the Supreme Court) for battering the feckless.

If somebody runs up a debt of thousands then fine, but they charge ridiculous amounts for tiny transgressions. Its blatant profiteering, picking on the weaker individuals.

Examples have been given how a tenner can turn into a 200 quid bill

well pay the bloody tenner then!

Thought the Kray twins were dead
looks like they are alive in the supreme court

nasty lords

Often ppl dont realise they`re overdrawn for such apiddling amount , then they get a letter -
£30 - kerching !!, telling them of the extra £40 quid charges - kerchiong !!
Because thE bank has been so inconvenienced - yeah right -

overboard 25 Nov 18:12
Great result for the moral majority.
If it had gone the other way, those of us ( the vast majority?) who manage our accounts within their limits, would end up paying a fee for current accounts, a fee for using a cashpoint etc etc.

smug idiots like this really make my blood boil.

Yes, overboard, you are a real paragon of morality wanting the poor to pay for the services you enjoy.

Where is the morality in a bank paying a DD and charging £35+ when the charge for bouncing it is £8?

I have no involvement with any claims, I currently pay £12.50 per month for my current a/c for which I receive all sorts of benefits that seem like good value.

I can see all the nasty under currents in this ruling though.

Hurray for the Banks.

evski
It's not just the poor , it's the financially illiterate that cannot operate their bank accounts within their agreed limits.
Why should I susbsidise morons?
I already pay tax for that.

You put your money in the Bank they pay you interest = x
They lend your money out and charge x + 1

This model has worked for centuries and is highly pofitable.

You shouldnt have to pay £12.50 for their extra services.

They shouldnt charge/fine ppl such scandalous amounts.

Its pure pure greed. They have a cartel and this ruling enforces their position.

So next month your £12.50 charge becomes £50 and they all decide thats the rate.

Greed is good - Thatchers legacy - Many of us on here have probably never struggled, and dont have a clue. The good old banks eh .....I wouldnt pi$$ on one if it was on fire

If someone asked to borrow £50 off me I wouldn't charge them any interest.
If someone nicked £50 off me and then tells me they will pay me back later I would want to charge them loads of interest.

Remember these charges are for unauthorised overdrafts, people who do this are usually completely useless so why should people who put some effort into staying in the black (or tell their bank when they need to borrow a little) pay for these muppets.

Banks have made absolute fortunes over the years - look at the bonuses they award themslves - they get ultra greedy, lazy and dont do their josbs properly and come unstuck, then get baled out by the tax payer.

Now they will go back to pre bust days and make absolute fortunes, and pay themselves forunes.

Cant you ppl see that they are making fools of you by becoming their apologists. If charges were sensible none of this furore would have happened

Posters such as overboard doubtless consider sir Fred a fine upstanding capitalist fully deserving of his bonuses.

Overboard and Doob - you are both morally bankrupt with your "I'm all right Jack" opinions.

Just consider. The banks business model - clearing banks that is - derives income from 3 primary sources - lending money at interest, providing services to account holders and penalising account holders who mis-manage their own accounts.

Money lending demands that a fair interest rate is charged.

Service providing is often provided free to those who are in cretdit. Why this should be so is beyond me as it is reasonable for services to be charged at a fair rate.

Penalising account holders is a regressive charge in that it is only paid by those who are most likely to least be able to pay the charges .The only crime committed by ALL who are caught by these penalties is that they have miscalculated IN MANAGING THEIR OWN ACCOUNT - a service provided by the account holder FREE to the bank.Worse still, not only is the principle grossly unjust, the ACTUAL charges would put back street money lenders on higher moral ground than the banks.

The way forward is to charge a fair rate to all for services provided, to provide some kind of fair return for those who hold cash in their account and to scrap all forms of penalty.

If it,s so fair, right, and correct I guess a bank will start doing exactly that and be knocked over by all the new customers wanting to bank with it.........lol

surely nothing controversial about the idea of charging for managing an account - happens elsewhere. Up to 8m customers who have experienced penalties that OTT might well prefer to pay a fixed known amount. Your sarcasm is misplaced.

Misplaced? Well we can both wait for the banks to offer one, can,t we.

Be interesting to see what Tesco charge when they start a bank.

Sandown
But I am alright and bollux to the next man.
WHat the fgug has morality to do with what is essentially a breach of contract between bank and overdrawn punter.
This is what happens when you allow the unwashed to have access to the banking system. They were better off and happier when they got cash each week for their wages in a brown envelope. No overdrafts then.

beg to differ....have you never paid in an unsighned cheque by mistake....sent back to you ...you pay a tenner......biggest rip off must be a turnover charge .....on cheques..if you think your getting some sort of free srevice ...like no % interest ....lol.

Or the scam they pull on you when they take 3 days to clear a cheque and charge you £30 a go for each direct debit that didn't get paid as the cheque wasn't clear. Some of them even take 3 days to clear a cheque from an account holder at a different branch of the same bank!

Delighted with this ruling, people need to learn how to manage their personal finances, instead of blaming everyone else.

It's not about blame, it's about what is right and fair. The supreme court (wtf is that anyway?) has basically ruled that the banks can dip in to their customers' accounts at will and for any amount they want.

If the money isn't in the account they shouldn't pay it. If a customer agrees the fees are fair they should have the option to have bills paid and pay the charges.

If a company asks for payment and there is no money I don't see anything wrong with the banks saying no. How can anyone say it is fair for the banks to take money you don't have, then charge up to £265 (lloyds) a month for the privelege?

What this boils down to is naked self interest. Those that never go in the red think it outrageous that they should pay for services they use, those on the other side think it is an outrage they have to pay for the services used by those richer than them and without their consent.

Quite sad how the smug posters are totally missing the point here. The psuedo snobs are seeing this as some kind of class warfare!

There is a HUGE business opportunity for someone who knows how to treat customers properly i.e with respect. If Tesco and/or Virgin abolish penalties and introduce a low cost fee for account management I foresee a great success for them.

introduce a low cost fee for account management

What!
I don't pay any fees at all for being overdrawn l because I'm never overdrawn on my account.
In effect people who do go overdrawn are subsidising me.

I say let it continue, if the over drawers can't handle money that's their problem. Why should I pay for their carelessness?

It's common practcie to pay for professional services, isn't it? Do you expect to receive free advice from lawyers, accountants, consultants, architects? Of course you don't, you pay people for their time and managing your financial affairs is no different. At present, customers are expected to manage their own affairs and if they balls it up they pay totally disproportionate penalties for the privilge. If you are fortunate enough to have a cash surplus then why shouldn't you receive some kind of interest on it? Why should banks use the 3 day rule on clearing payments, a system going back to a when paper cheques ruled. This is not just about unfairnes, it is about putting the whole system on a sensible business model.

I say let it continue, if the over drawers can't handle money that's their problem. Why should I pay for their carelessness?
______________________________________________________
What a totally selfish and more importantly stupid attitude. Do you use the NHS, I wonder, because if you do then those who don't use it are subsiding you, aren't they? Have you ever made an insurance claim, becaue if you have you are being subsidised by those who haven't. If someone risked their life for you, would your attitude be that they are stupid and its not your problem if they die?

There re seemingly so many people on here that are beneath contempt that I will discontinue with this thread.

Most worrying, crippen is sounding like goring

lampus'll be next

A really illuminating thread.

At a time when it is revealed that 1,000+ banking execs are getting bonuses far larger than Sir Fred, Dr Crippen is applauding the banks and thier behavior.

well I never.

Dr Crippen 27 Nov 10:05


I say let it continue, if the over drawers can't handle money that's their problem. Why should I pay for their carelessness?

What a disgusting hypocrite you are. Don't you see any contradiction between your views here and your post.

An idealist you most certainly are not. Your only motivation is self interest. Shame on you.

crippen is undoubtedly a hypocrite, but in this case he's right

Sandown 27 Nov 09:54


[i]There is a HUGE business opportunity for someone who knows how to treat customers properly i.e with respect. If Tesco and/or Virgin abolish penalties and introduce a low cost fee for account management I foresee a great success for them.
[/i]


Surely they would only attract the bottom of the barrel though. The customers who have no money 2 days after pay day. The same ones that can't manage their finances! In fairness, the same customers who would be of no use to the banks if the banks could not charge them.

I'd go with a bank that did that. Because I try to squirrell my money I tend to leave my 0% overdraft of 2k as far in the red as possible, ocassionally I make a mistake. Last itme it was because I went on holiday and put the cash in the wrong account. Even though they had my money I got charged £195 for going £20 overdrawn.

Don't underestimate how many people are fecked off with the banks operating in this disgraceful way and how many people would like to make an ethical choce.

Overdraft charges: consumers back Supreme Court ruling
The majority of consumers are pleased that the banks won a surprise court victory in their battle over unauthorised overdraft charges, it has emerged.


Published: 11:12AM GMT 27 Nov 2009

The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the charges are not subject to regulation by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) under unfair contract rules.

The ruling means that millions of people who have paid the charges will not be entitled to refunds, but it also lifts the threat against free banking.

Industry commentators had warned that if the banks lost the lucrative income stream from the charges they would look for other ways to recoup it, such as through imposing a flat monthly fee on current account customers or charging for every transaction.

A survey of 3,500 people carried out by moneysupermarket.com, the price comparison website, following the court's decision found that 51pc of people thought the current charging system was fair, saying they objected to subsidising people who could not manage their money. A further 5pc said someone had to pay for free banking in Britain.

Broken my resolve already but this needs a reply.

BOTTOM OF THE BARREL! Who do you think you are, for G's sake.

Tesco have become one of the biggest company's in the country by catering for the needs of the masses who you seem to hold in contempt.

Just because people may not have much money doesn't make them a poor market. And just because people may not find it easy to manage their finances doesn't put them in a untouchable category either.

Bigot or snob, which are you?

A survey of 3,500 people carried out by moneysupermarket.com, the price comparison website, following the court's decision found that 51pc of people thought the current charging system was fair, saying they objected to subsidising people who could not manage their money. A further 5pc said someone had to pay for free banking in Britain.


So who is subsidising who?!

51pc of people thought the current charging system was fair
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presumably they haven't fallen foul of it yet! Given time they will change their minds. And anyway, 51% is hardly overwhelming endorsement, is it?

Banks aside, why is it that when I wish to place a deposit in my BETFAIR account so that I may place a bet, that the transaction takes about 5 seconds, but if I wish to have money sent to my BANK account, the transaction takes about 4 days, unless a weekend or bank holiday intervenes, then the transaction takes longer?

Banks aside, why is it that when I wish to place a deposit in my BETFAIR account so that I may place a bet, that the transaction takes about 5 seconds, but if I wish to have money sent to my BANK account, the transaction takes about 4 days, unless a weekend or bank holiday intervenes, then the transaction takes longer?

Just because people may not have much money doesn't make them a poor market. And just because people may not find it easy to manage their finances doesn't put them in a untouchable category either.


In banking terms I think it does. What good is a customer with no money, who then goes overdrawn? You want banks to let these people off?

wise up people.

A few days ago the banks started throwing around threats about the withdrawl of free banking if they lost the case.

Before you know it many are clammering all over the dirty stinking financial institutions as though they are the saviours of the universe for winning this case as they thought it might cost them a buck.

It is cringe worthy and rather sickening to see you guys falling for all this cr&p.

Why is it cr&p though?

You enter into a contract with a bank and agree that if you break it there's a penalty. Before people used banks they just went without if they were skint.

What good is a customer with no money, who then goes overdrawn? You want banks to let these people off?


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

I said "not MUCH money" not NO money. There's a difference.

Of course some charge should be made but lets put this into context. If you go £30 overdrawn (could be 2p) you will get charged £30 or £25 plus the same amount for the month.Another item will double the amount. So, it is possible to be charged at a rate of several thousand % pa. Is that acceptable? Such ludicrous charging supported by people like yourself puts a huge dividing line between the haves and have-nots.

Muqbil


I fear that we are wasting our time conversing with people like this. Makes Marie Anoinette's "Let them eat cake" comment appear caring when compared with this lot.

Are "this lot" the ones that dont spend what they haven't got?

Whatever happened to prudence

Just done a little survey, Mrs has got a Spanish bank acc. which she pays for. Asked her if she,d prefer an English one, guess the answer.......... B-)

Whatever happened to prudence
_____________________________________________________

Indeed. Not a term i would expect anyone to use when talking about banks' behaviour over the past few years. The consequences of their recklessness will be with us for decades and yet you come down so harshly on the retail customers who will hardly put the banking system at risk yet the banks are making £3 billion pa from them. And doing so without any irony when arguing their case.

You couldn't make it up!

guess the answer.......... B-)
--------------------------------------------------

On a sample of one, case proven. i must be wrong then.

There are some real blockheads on here regarding money, judging by the comments I drew with my earlier post. Although you would expect them on a gambling site.

Its quite simple, banks reward those who stay in the black and within the terms of their agreements with free banking, and then levy charges on those who spend money that they have no right to.
Whats wrong with that?

Sandown calls me selfish, but he expects me to help pay his fines for spending someone elses money.
And in reply to his silly comment about the NHS hes confusing ill fortune with ill judgement.

Muqbil is all over the place as usual, I dont know what bank charges have got to do with how bankers are paid.
He also seems to think that because Im happy with the way they make their charges on current accounts, Im happy with everything else that they do, he must be dreaming.

Evsky is another one who accuses me of self-interest, and seems to expect me to help him make his way through life by sharing his bank charges with him.
All Ive got to say to these financially immature types is this:
Why dont you try being more responsible with your money? Nobody makes you go into the red.

Why dont you try being more responsible with your money? Nobody makes you go into the red.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly my feelings regarding banks

Except of course that is OUR money not theirs.

Charges are fine its the blatant profiteering thats wrong.

£35 for a letter - who dreamed that up ??

Blackburn, "whatever happened to prudence"?
He's still running this bloody country.

Who force the banks into the red

Big Bonuses

Pounf 27 Nov 16:13
Charges are fine its the blatant profiteering thats wrong.

£35 for a letter - who dreamed that up ??

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

has to have been someone who was a solicitor.