Tomorrows Bank Charges announcement

Appeal on a technical matter or more time required would be my guess.

not sure they would be allowed to get away with that

think this is the 3rd appeal and putback until now

Is it all charges or what might the consumer be able to claim back?

Justice

Lord Phillips finds in banks favour ... surprise surprise

dont connect the dots its too antisemetic

1.01 been gubbed here.....


stewards enquiry?

If the Banks had lost this case then a number would be in significant difficulties finding the capital to pay back customers, especially as the expected outcome by the Banks was a full refund of charges. I expect the govt are actually relieved by this decision....

this decision merely says the OFT have to find another way to approach the fairness of overdraft charges

dont think they will have many problems imo

and as for justice, not sure how you figure that?

why should i have to pay to use and ATM just because muppets can't stay in the black.

gooseman - u shouldnt. but then why should banks charge u for using the machines anyway? are the banks saying that, without the charges customers pay, they would not be able to offer a profitable banking service?

because that doesnt quite work for me. the 6 hi st banks and 1 building soc were due to pay, if they lost, 2.3bn quid, for 6 yrs worth of charges. thats the figure quoted.

2.3 bn split between 7 organisations = roughly 300mn. over 6 yrs, thats 50mn a yr, per organisation. thats how much they would lose in charges - 50 mn pa.

barclays, last yr, made over 6bn on its own.

if i have got this wrong, then please let me know as these are just my rough calculations.

50mn quid is still 50mn quid. they are essentially charging for a short term, unsecured loan. it might be £10 or it might be £1000, either way it is in their rights and interest to charge this. in fact, it is their right to charge whatever the fck they want for any service....it's just otehrs won't so they will lose the biz. as we all know banks ain't charities.

they are f ucking charities given how much the public has bailed em out!

Expecting a massive backlash in the press tomo. j

Maybe the tax payers who bailed them out should charge interest on our loan to them. 40% seems about right to me.

Expecting a massive backlash in the press tomo.


"Consumers don't get money back they aren't owed" or

"Banks charge for lending" or

"People can't keep their finances in order"

Yep-I can almost hear the rollers churning 'em out now.

goose - heres a question for u. yr an account holder with a major high st bank. u have a balance of £1 in credit. u have no overdraft limit.

if u go to the hole in the wall, put in yr card and try and draw out, it will give u nothing. no available balance.

fair enough. thats correct.

if i then go back home, sit in front of my computer and log into tinternet, why can i make 4 seperate transaction and spend 40 quid in total? these transaction would have been authorised and approved by the bank.

i would be charged for these transactions - 39 quid a time and even incurred an unauthorised overdraft fee, of 29 pounds. why would the bank let them go through?

(this actually happened to me - except i hadnt gone to the cash machine and checked the bal of my account. ms wolsey used the wrong card to pay for something - our error, not the banks. but spending the sum total of around 40 quid, cost us 185 pound in charges).

Wosley- you make a good point. The FAIREST thing to happen in that situation would be for a warning notice from your bank/card company that pops up telling you you can make the transaction but it will cost £x amount.

i'm actually being deliberately provocative on this one. i cna see both sides of the argument but if you know your bank charges for overdraft privileges (remember this is not your money you are spending, it's the banks) then change banks, or organise an overdraft facility that you are happy with. or keep a backstop of cash as a float. i don't really have a problem with banks charging for going O/D-if say 20% of their customers did it they would have a lot of unsecured debt on their books.

banks are a business at the end of the day.....

i'm sure you could pick a select few cases where the banks have behaved particularly poorly but this would fall within reasonable tolerances for sucha large sample.

do you agree with my warning sign idea? to be used at cash machines too.

If I knew they'd charge me a £25 fine for taking a tenner out , i'd have borowed it off a mate I assure you!

i have an internal warning sign personally. but in theory it is a good idea i guess. to be honest it just smacks more of the "can someone look after me please". time to take a bit of responsibility methinks.

goose - but they could have stopped those transactions by not authorising them, couldnt they? they wouldnt have allowed a cashpoint withdrawal, so why allow internet spending? we used the card in error - our mistake. i had no money in that account, because it was just another bank account.

im not advocating for 1 minute that the banks should charge nothing - thats not fair on the banks and means that there is no incentive for the customer to stop spending.

but 39 quid a transaction? thats not fair or reasonable. the majority of banking staff get paid around 8 quid an hour. - so is it gonna take nearly 5 hours for a member of halifax staff to return the payment/put a charge on my account?

u have to agree that the charges are unreasonable?

i do but clearly people aren't learning are they. they still do it. you got hit once and i bet you won't do it again....

wolsey - what you have to do is instruct your bank in writing to put a "nil limit" on your account. this means that any transaction wil bounce if your account is short by just 1p. The banks consider your credit worthness and allow most of us a few quid over, suits them for the charges.

Take note that this will also bounce DD's and SO's. I have 2 accounts for this purpose, one pays all my bills via DD and SO, and I only need to make a monthly payment to cover the lot, and the other account has a nil limit and I use that for debit card transactions. If I get to no funds then I simply ring and transfer funds in. I cannot be charged, and cannot go overdrawn, and I only need to check my bank once or twice per month. Some banks look at you as ough you have 2 heads when you ask for 2 current accounts. explain why and they should be ok with it.

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

As if we have free banking anyway

gooseman, you seem an intelligent bloke. do you think we have free banking now?

Goose
I actually agree with you regards the majority, however teh way teh banks charge is unfair and needs looking at. The cost of the charges in some cases is out of proportion with the crime!

Banks are charging peopel on low incomes £30 per day for going overdrawn , and £25 for every transaction the return. They levy teh charge immediately. No invoice, nothing. This can cause needy peopel to be unbale to buy food or pay their energy bills. This is unacceptable. If the customer is going to be charged they should decide how and when tehy are going to pay it. They should also have time to discuss the situation with their bank, who could then in turn help teh customer through a tough time. We as taxpayers own the banks, not just the wealthy , the unemployed , the poor , the elderley, our children etc , etc. I believe RBS recently changed their charging structure, so customers would only get charged £10 for going overdrawn

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

As if we have free banking anyway

gooseman, you seem an intelligent bloke. do you think we have free banking now?

I bet you don't. Even if you did they clearly won't pay you will they. If you're not happy, move banks. Simple.

No, of course we don't have free banking. But I stay within my means and don't have to pay silly charges.

Chisel-said like a true socialist-a bank does not have to help anybody. It is a profit-making entity and is not obligated to hand out money to those living beyond their means.

As for owning the banks, no you don't. You own some of two; some banks didn't need to go cap in hand to the Treasury.

Not quite true, Gooseman. They would all have gone down without the support they got.

there would have been civil unrest had they all gone. in black and white facts do the treasury have a stake in HSBC or Barclays?

No, but none of the banks would have survived without all the liquidity given by the BoE. RBS and Lloyds were just in worse shape than the others.

I agree with the scale of charges for puny amounts overdrawn. If this is legal then there are two standout points for me.

1 - The energy companies are regularly over estimating bills and are therefore using my money as an unsecured loan, can I charge them similarly?

2 - The banks all seem to have repositioned themselves recently with charges therefore they must have been advised that something was not watertight.

PS - if you have recently had a charge and you write to your bank expressing that the charges are unreasonable for the error concerned, and that you understand it was there choice, (and not yours), to put anything other than a nil limit on your account then they will more than likely drop the charge. My sister received an £8 per day charge for going £12 overdrawn. I wrote her a similar letter, and advised that the account use would be suspended until the charge was removed. After 3 and a bit weeks the charge was somewhat silly, and they phoned her offering to settle for £40, she stood firm and said if any and all of the charge was fair they could go to court otherwise they could pi ss off. They agreed.

She now has a nil limit and a letter stating that her account is unable to go into the red.