red Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 (edited) see revised post Edited November 25, 2009 by red Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red Posted November 25, 2009 Author Share Posted November 25, 2009 (edited) Looks like we're stuck paying 35 quid every time we go a penny over the overdraft limit. Widely expected to go against banks but Supreme court rules in their favour. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8376906.stm No refunds for its customers. Just two fingers. I'm in the wrong business. :angry: Edited November 25, 2009 by red Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollk Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I thought the decision was about whether the OFT could rule on the matter...not about the charges being legal per se. this could go on...or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Looks like we're stuck paying 35 quid every time we go a penny over the overdraft limit. Widely expected to go against banks but high court rules in their favour. (no link yet, just heard on radio) No refunds for its customers. Just two fingers. I'm in the wrong business. :angry: Sorry, can't sympathise. I'm with the banks on this one. If you don't like your bank's terms&conditions you're free to go elsewhere. I don't want them having to shift the costs of dealing with problem customers onto me, nor do I want them encouraging profligacy with a "doesn't really matter" attitude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 (edited) Sorry, can't sympathise. I'm with the banks on this one. If you don't like your bank's terms&conditions you're free to go elsewhere. I don't want them having to shift the costs of dealing with problem customers onto me, nor do I want them encouraging profligacy with a "doesn't really matter" attitude. Me too. There's a lot of people who shouldn't have a bank account because they have no concept of how to manage one. EDIT: If people don't want to pay charges they feel are unfair then they should manage their money better. Edited November 25, 2009 by SarahBell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyoto Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I'm shocked! This sums up nearly everything that's wrong with this country in one event. Absolutely disgusting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Three Pint Princess 2 Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 No refunds for its customers. Just two fingers. I'm in the wrong business. The Lords only charge £10K for newsworthy bribes, the Judge must be £50K+ at least and the bankers aren't short on cash. The OFT will be setting up a competition review comission scrutiny board to look at ways of protecting customers in the future, might be worth seeing what the expenses will be like and if you can get on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thombleached Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Lucky I took my bank to court before the bandwagon jumpers did Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyoto Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Sorry, can't sympathise. I'm with the banks on this one. If you don't like your bank's terms&conditions you're free to go elsewhere. I don't want them having to shift the costs of dealing with problem customers onto me, nor do I want them encouraging profligacy with a "doesn't really matter" attitude. So the banks should charge an unfair / inflated amount just to subsidise you? Nobody would dispute that the banks should be able to charge for any costs they have incurred as a result of their mistake / fecklessness. But £35 for a penny or so overdrawn is just exploitative. Why can't they just learn how to DECLINE transactions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pindar Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Being an apologist for the banks. You know, the banks who lend irresponsibly then expect to get bailed out by the taxpayer, is a sorry predisposition. If the banks don't want you to go overdrawn, they should prevent you from going overdrawn. It's rather like coaxing a lemming off the edge of a cliff then presenting them with a bill afterwards. There can be no rational argument for the amount of money that they scam from their least liquid customers - it doesn't cost the bank anything to refuse to pay a direct debit or EFT transaction. It really is that simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest_FaFa!_* Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Not surprised - can the banks afford this? Presumably the costs could be colossal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
non frog Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 The banks are bloodsucking leeches that will stop at nothing to take your money and give it to rich folk like Goodwin. They are also incompetent and bankrupt so cannot afford this payout. More to the point the taxpayer owns them so now the taxpayers are bloodsucking leeches who will stop at nothing to take your money and give it to err.. the taxpayer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shindigger Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Sorry, can't sympathise. I'm with the banks on this one. If you don't like your bank's terms&conditions you're free to go elsewhere. I don't want them having to shift the costs of dealing with problem customers onto me, nor do I want them encouraging profligacy with a "doesn't really matter" attitude. They'll do it anyway. Theyll get their ******ing bit dont worry about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fudge Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 The banks will always win. Thats how the Capital system works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Being an apologist for the banks. You know, the banks who lend irresponsibly then expect to get bailed out by the taxpayer, is a sorry predisposition. If the banks don't want you to go overdrawn, they should prevent you from going overdrawn. It's rather like coaxing a lemming off the edge of a cliff then presenting them with a bill afterwards. There can be no rational argument for the amount of money that they scam from their least liquid customers - it doesn't cost the bank anything to refuse to pay a direct debit or EFT transaction. It really is that simple. Sorry, this argument has been going on for as long as I can remember. I got sight of the other side of this as far back as 1985, when I went to work in Germany and opened a bank account there. Having to pay per-transaction charges for simple things like ATM withdrawals demonstrates just how competitive the UK banks are (or were). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Can't see what's changed myself - this is in house messing about. The OFT and the banks are dancing. Once they've finished J. Public can still go to court anyway, Same as you can privately pursue someone yourself for anything else. Whale barrel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Being an apologist for the banks. You know, the banks who lend irresponsibly then expect to get bailed out by the taxpayer, is a sorry predisposition. If the banks don't want you to go overdrawn, they should prevent you from going overdrawn. It's rather like coaxing a lemming off the edge of a cliff then presenting them with a bill afterwards. There can be no rational argument for the amount of money that they scam from their least liquid customers - it doesn't cost the bank anything to refuse to pay a direct debit or EFT transaction. It really is that simple. indeed, they seem to have rule that suits themselves. I paid for a holiday on a little used card. Silly me, Id set the card to be repaid in full....and forgot about this....I had set up a SO to repay over 6 months before the MSE people chastise me. course, the next month I get a letter...no phone call on the day, a letter a week later....says they have bounced all my payments from Such and such a date,they have charged me x and were charging £25.00 per go for each bounce. im puzzled. I go in. they took the whole holiday payment and paid it as per the DD request. it took me way over my limit. I asked...Why did you pay the item that was clearly large and clearly not to your own bank, then bounce all the little stuff...which WOULDNT have taken me over. the unsatisfactory reply was that they HAD to honour requests from other banks. I showed her the subscription they had bounced...also a DD but only £13. the excuse was clearly nonsense. they had ALLOWED another bank to take funds from my account to break the conditions they had set in agreement with me. The worst they should have done was bounce the big payment. I made a fuss, got them to agree to the refund of all the bouncer charges, the fees for going over, the interest etc. I settled the account immediatley and got them to agree to NEVER do that again. they subsequently gave me an "emergency" limit, which they think is a good idea if I should Accidently go overdrawn. Now, if I wasnt in a position to sort the account out, where would I be today. I would STILL be paying monthly fees an charges. If I earned just enought to live on, then the charges would likely take me over budget....rendering my situation worse every month...possibly for years. and this may not be for an expensive holiday...it could be an employer paying a week late. or a bankers error. Personllay, if im not happy I go in an sort it. I admit my mistakes. I get them to admit theirs, which, in fairness, they usually do ( Halifax wouldnt in the case of my daughter, but in fairness to them they were a bit strapped and if my student daughters tiny income can be used to help them out a bit in a time of difficulty, im sure they will loof favourably on her when she needs a loan...PHAH!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyoto Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 What I don't understand is that the government are supposed to represent the people. How can they justify a tiny minority being able to have done and continue to rip off MILLIONS of people? I'm ******ing seething over this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BalancedBear Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 This was almost certainly going to happen, now that the banking system in the UK is effectively paid for by the taxpayers. The legal system is specifically instructed to minimise costs to the government when making decisions. If the banks had lost, the government would indirectly have had to pay for the result with tax payers money, as most banks concerned would be bust without continued government support anyway. Banks are complete thieves - A friend of mine wants to transfer over 10k from one HSBC account to another this week. He has to do it in several stages on several days, as their internet banking has a 10k limit per day. He rang them to find out if he could transfer more on one day in anyway, which they confirmed can only be done in a branch, but they would charge £25 to do it - this is not chaps, just an internal transfer between two HSBC accounts! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Storm Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 (edited) As someone who has always managed by money and never paid a penny in bank charges Im glad they won. The last thing I wanted was to be forced to pay to have a current account because otheres are too stupid to do the same, and think somehow being charged £35 is unfair on them. A+++ P.S. Shouldnt all those who got their charges back have to repay them now? I think so. Edited November 25, 2009 by Johnny Storm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abaxas Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Why cant we charge them? How about a £25 'do you have a mortgage' charge? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fudge Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Can I still get my wages paid in cash pay packet at the end of the month? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Storm Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 (edited) As someone who has always managed by money and never paid a penny in bank charges Im glad they won. The last thing I wanted was to be forced to pay to have a current account because otheres are too stupid to do the same, and think somehow being charged £35 is unfair on them. A+++ Shouldnt all those who got their charges back have to repay them now? I think so. Can I still get my wages paid in cash pay packet at the end of the month? You are quite free to withdraw all your cash each time you are paid. Dont set up any direct debits or standing order and then pay for everything in cash. Whats the problem? Edited November 25, 2009 by Johnny Storm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkydung Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 As someone who has always managed by money and never paid a penny in bank charges Im glad they won. The last thing I wanted was to be forced to pay to have a current account because otheres are too stupid to do the same, and think somehow being charged £35 is unfair on them. A+++ P.S. Shouldnt all those who got their charges back have to repay them now? I think so. +1 I've been with the same bank for 22 yrs and never paid a single penny of penalty or interest charges to them. If you don't have the money in your account then you should not be spending it without their authority. If you do it is theft and you should therefore expect heavy penalty charges. I am certain that for all of those last 22 years the penalty charge rates have been clearly printed on the back of all my statements so I would clearly know the consequences of going into the red. Had the banks lost today then I am certain that once again, I would, as someone who is sensible and prudent with my money, soon be bailing out those who aren't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.