Home Politics & Debate
At The Mix, we want to make our services as helpful as we can. To do this, we’d love to ask you a few questions about you, your visit to The Mix and its impact. It should take only about 5-10 minutes to complete. Take this survey and get a chance at winning a £200 Amazon voucher​.
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Sign up here
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Banks win appeal on illegal bank charges case

MixBotMixBot Posts: 8,656 Automated Account
Against all predictions and common sense.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/blog/2009/nov/24/bank-charges-ruling

Unbefuckinglievable.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised really. The rich and powerful will find ways to look after their own.

Motherfuckers :mad:
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Cnuts
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Excellent news. I value free banking and free cash withdrawals.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Paid for by charging people £30 for something that only costs them [the banks] about £4?

    Before someone goes off on one about how people should manage their money, Ive been hit by bank charges and that was due to a direct debit taking money out of my account after the final payment for a hire purchase was allready made, and the company had assured me that the direct debit cancellation was sorted on their end.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    minimi38 wrote: »
    Excellent news. I value free banking and free cash withdrawals.
    And I value taxpayers' money enough not to want it to be used to bail out incompetent, greedy bastards.

    But it seems it's all one way traffic with the banking industry. They fuck us every which way, and then we gift them billions on top so they can continue fucking us. Great.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Once again the image of great, imprudent, thieving masses is a smoke screen to disguise the fact that most victims of bank charges are innocent bystanders in a great administrative cross fire (as with Mr. G's example).

    You get fined for someone else's mistake - no one (else) ever accountable.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    And I value taxpayers' money enough not to want it to be used to bail out incompetent, greedy bastards.

    But it seems it's all one way traffic with the banking industry. They fuck us every which way, and then we gift them billions on top so they can continue fucking us. Great.



    They aren't fucking you with bank charges if you don't go overdrawn :D
    Once again the image of great, imprudent, thieving masses is a smoke screen to disguise the fact that most victims of bank charges are innocent bystanders in a great administrative cross fire (as with Mr. G's example).

    You get fined for someone else's mistake - no one (else) ever accountable.

    They've always waived admin errors for me. Even those morons Halifa were happy to.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Not quite sure why this has provoked such anger.

    You go over your arranged overdraft (if you have one), the bank is having to cover your spending with their money and thus you get charged for it. I don't see why this is so ridiculously unfair. This amount is unauthorised and the bank has to cover the risk that you don't pay the money back. The "premium" for it, i.e. the charge, is because, unlike a loan, most of the rigours of granting credit have been bypassed and also because the overdraft is available 24/7, what we refer to in the trade as an RCF (Revolving Credit Facility).

    Another aspect of it, is that all the lovely free banking we take for granted, withdrawls at cash machines, depositing money, cashing other banks' cheques at another bank all cost the bank money. They could quite legitimately charge for these services. However, they don't. Thus if a cheque goes boing boing, then they're paying money to process a worthless piece of paper.

    I think this comment pretty much sums it all up:

    "9.31am: My favourite tweet on bank charges so far is from Reviewtoakill: "Bank charges announcement soon. My irresponsible spending as a 19 year old may be refunded? Wow.""

    It's not the bank's fault that people can't budget correctly and constantly live beyond their means. That's kinda why we got to the current economic position we're currently in. I suppose it's easier to blame big companies who seduced you with all that sweet, sweet credit because you wanted a new 42" plasma telly rather than actually take responsibility for your fucking actions for once.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    AFAIK the case was brought because of the exorbitant amounts some banks are charging.

    I can understand a bank having a fixed charge for going over your limit. Charing the likes of 25 fucking quid a day for doing so can never, in a million years, be justified. It's daylight robbery by greedy, thieving cunts, put plainly.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    minimi38 wrote: »
    They aren't fucking you with bank charges if you don't go overdrawn :D


    you <
    > the point
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    AFAIK the case was brought because of the exorbitant amounts some banks are charging.

    I can understand a bank having a fixed charge for going over your limit. Charing the likes of 25 fucking quid a day for doing so can never, in a million years, be justified. It's daylight robbery by greedy, thieving cunts, put plainly.

    Perhaps there's a case for saying that the charges are too high but at what point does it become the 'right amount'?

    There are hundreds of factors to consider. However, the main one as far as the bank is concerned is risk. If your o/d is £100, then the bank has weighed up your incomings and outgoings, as well as things like your job, age, credit history and has decided that you are good for £100 of credit on your current account. Any amount outside of that is outside the bank's risk appetite, i.e. how much risk they're willing to tolerate (the major risk being that you don't pay the money back).

    There might be a case for charges being as a percentage of the amount you go overdrawn, e.g. 10% per day for every £1 over your limit. However, that would increase the admin involved a hell of a lot, and I'm sure it would actually work out more expensive as the extra cost involved would be passed back to the consumer.

    I guess it's all about where you draw the line. I don't think banks should be punished for incentivising people to not breach their overdraft limit by imposing charges if you do. It's there for a reason. The reason being, that's the amount of faith (=risk) that the bank is prepared to have in you.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    the bank has to cover the risk that you don't pay the money back.

    By making it even harder? Because that sounds logical.

    *is not bitter that Barclays slapped £100 of charges on her again today*

    Yes it's my fault, but when you whack charges on and I have to...you know....live, how am I going to be able to pay it back before they go OH LOOK ANOTHER £100 CHARGE!!!!!!!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Franki wrote: »
    By making it even harder? Because that sounds logical.

    *is not bitter that Barclays slapped £100 of charges on her again today*

    Yes it's my fault, but when you whack charges on and I have to...you know....live, how am I going to be able to pay it back before they go OH LOOK ANOTHER £100 CHARGE!!!!!!!

    Rich told me all about that the other night :)

    So what should they do if you go over your limit? Clearly they can't do nothing otherwise people would just keep on going and going until the bank finally has to send round the heavies to have a word with your kneecaps.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Rich told me all about that the other night :)

    So what should they do if you go over your limit? Clearly they can't do nothing otherwise people would just keep on going and going until the bank finally has to send round the heavies to have a word with your kneecaps.
    I didn't say they should do nothing, I'm not that daft. However, £22 every 5 days is a lot. Particularly when it is all whacked on in one massive lump sum and EUGH.

    Also, I am intrigued as to what he told you. I don't really tell him very much because if he doesn't know then he can't get pissy at me.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A particularly brilliant case is that in which the (extraordinarily high) fees the bank decides to charge you for having gone over your limit last month makes you over the limit again this month, automatically generating yet another penalty fee for next month.

    I've seen convicted fraudsters with more integrity and honesty in them than my bank.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Not quite sure why this has provoked such anger.

    You go over your arranged overdraft (if you have one), the bank is having to cover your spending with their money and thus you get charged for it.

    And what about banks like mine (Bank of Scotland)? The ones where, when a payment bounces, they don't cover the amount (leaving you to pay the amount manually anyway) but also hitting you with a £35 charge? Then, a week later, you open another letter from the bank only to find another £28 charge for being over your arranged overdraft... which you wouldn't have been if it wasn't for the £35 they just hit you with a week earlier.

    Or, people like my girlfriend who was the victim of credit card fraud. She phoned the bank to cancel her card as soon as she found out about it (evening), only to be told they thought the transactions were a little suspect so they had tried to call her mobile (once, from a witheld number and left no message). Because she didn't answer they didn't bother putting a hold on the card, and waited for her to contact them instead (more items were purchased in that time). She was told the number she called could only cancel her card, and she was given another number to phone between 9 - 5 and they would help her with reclaiming what was bought. After spending over an hour on the phone to this new number the next day (and being passed around various staff, being told the card was still active and hadn't been cancelled), she was no further forward. Luckily her last patient of the day cancelled and she was able to phone them again. However, since her contract was for weekend/evening calls and texts (no reason for daytime calls if you don't use them), her bill was larger than usual. This, along with the fraud items on her card, put her over her overdraft, which automatically issued a charge - a charge the bank refuses to refund. I suppose it's her own fault for opening a bank account though, right minimi38?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Can't possibly be the thieving fraudster's fault so yeah must be her fault.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I just love the fact now that my bank (HBOS) charges me £1 per day for going in my arranged overdraft, now for people using their overdraft a lot that's all well and good but if I ever go into mine it is for always less than a £1, I only have it for emergencies, luckily I'll never go into an unarranged overdraft as I never spend more than I have but crikey, a £1 a day if I spend 1p into my overdraft, thats fucking stupid.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A sad day for consumer justice. A ruling which makes banks more smug taking your money and a decision which erodes public trust in a greedy industry :(
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well hopefully it's not completely over:

    http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/reclaim/2009/11/bank-charges-qa-door-reopened-for-reclaimers

    Reading through it, he said the judge seemed to suggest they'd ahve ahd a better case getting a ruling in their favour taking the bank to court over a different clause in their terms and conditions. So who knows, the battle hasn't quite ended yet...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    minimi38 wrote: »
    Can't possibly be the thieving fraudster's fault so yeah must be her fault.

    So you see nothing wrong with the fact it took a lot of palaver for the card to be cancelled and it was stolen items which put her over her limit, that caused the charge and the bank won't refund or waive it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So what should they do if you go over your limit?
    Well first things first, you're generally not charged for going over your limit at all. The bank isn't out of pocket, and what they're actually charging for is to send out a letter telling you that you don't have enough money to pay a particular standing order. And then they want to charge you £30 for telling you that. So it's simply bullshit that in most of these cases, it's unauthorised borrowing that is happening, as some spokeswoman on the news was claiming earlier (fucking hilarious that a spokewoman for the banking industry would be giving anyone else lecture about responsible borrowing). If they actually paid your bill for you, then they might have a point. But personally, I don't want a bank to pay for something on my behalf.

    But the most pathetic thing about this case is that all a success would've been would be to allow the OFT to investigate whether the bank charges were in line with the law, which states that charges must be proportionate to the cost incurred by the bank. They might've still found in favour of the banks (though given how desperate the banks have been to cover up their costs, I'm pretty sure they know the whole thing is crooked). That law is clear, and the only point of contention was whether £30 was a reasonable amount based on the amount it cost the banks. But now we're hearing that they have won on the grounds that it was a pre-arranged fee for having a bank account? Well that wasn't the point of contention, so I don't see how that can be grounds for a victory. Since when did something being in the terms and conditions mean that it could override the law? And how can we know whether the charges are legal without allowing an investigation. The whole thing smacks of a massive coverup and a legal system that is only interested in the interests of big business.

    And finally, a fee for the service they provide? They should be fucking grateful for having the use of my money to play their little casino games in the first place. They make plenty from my money thank you very much, and keep most of it for themselves. But even if it was true, as someone who's never had a bank charge in his life (without claiming it back straight away of course), I think I'd prefer a system where everyone pays a pound a month for a bank account, rather than usually the poorest people subsidising bank services for the rest of us.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    By the time they get this sorted out, you will only be able to claim back so many years, which will cover the point from where many banks lowered the charges anyway.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well first things first, you're generally not charged for going over your limit at all. The bank isn't out of pocket, and what they're actually charging for is to send out a letter telling you that you don't have enough money to pay a particular standing order. And then they want to charge you £30 for telling you that. So it's simply bullshit that in most of these cases, it's unauthorised borrowing that is happening, as some spokeswoman on the news was claiming earlier (fucking hilarious that a spokewoman for the banking industry would be giving anyone else lecture about responsible borrowing). If they actually paid your bill for you, then they might have a point. But personally, I don't want a bank to pay for something on my behalf.

    But the most pathetic thing about this case is that all a success would've been would be to allow the OFT to investigate whether the bank charges were in line with the law, which states that charges must be proportionate to the cost incurred by the bank. They might've still found in favour of the banks (though given how desperate the banks have been to cover up their costs, I'm pretty sure they know the whole thing is crooked). That law is clear, and the only point of contention was whether £30 was a reasonable amount based on the amount it cost the banks. But now we're hearing that they have won on the grounds that it was a pre-arranged fee for having a bank account? Well that wasn't the point of contention, so I don't see how that can be grounds for a victory. Since when did something being in the terms and conditions mean that it could override the law? And how can we know whether the charges are legal without allowing an investigation. The whole thing smacks of a massive coverup and a legal system that is only interested in the interests of big business.

    And finally, a fee for the service they provide? They should be fucking grateful for having the use of my money to play their little casino games in the first place. They make plenty from my money thank you very much, and keep most of it for themselves. But even if it was true, as someone who's never had a bank charge in his life (without claiming it back straight away of course), I think I'd prefer a system where everyone pays a pound a month for a bank account, rather than usually the poorest people subsidising bank services for the rest of us.

    ^ This.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And finally, a fee for the service they provide? They should be fucking grateful for having the use of my money to play their little casino games in the first place. They make plenty from my money thank you very much, and keep most of it for themselves. But even if it was true, as someone who's never had a bank charge in his life (without claiming it back straight away of course), I think I'd prefer a system where everyone pays a pound a month for a bank account, rather than usually the poorest people subsidising bank services for the rest of us.

    If you have money in the account, they are grateful for it. This is why your general banking is free of charges... the money is only deducted when the bank has to make up the shortfall in someones finances, no?

    I've had 2 charges in the last 7+ years(likely 10 or more). One wasn't my fault, the bank offered to refund the charge when I visited my branch. I declined, and made the company who debited me twice cough up.

    The other was my fault. It was only ~£3, and I paid the £22 fee for using the unauthorised overdraft, and thought no more of it. My fault, my loss. That's what being an adult is about, right? Taking the good and the bad from the choices you make?

    I'm not saying I don't think a £22 fee for a £3 over-overdraft is excessive - I tend to think the fee should match the amount used, to a limit of £30 - but that's what I agreed to by using the account...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But the most pathetic thing about this case is that all a success would've been would be to allow the OFT to investigate whether the bank charges were in line with the law, which states that charges must be proportionate to the cost incurred by the bank. They might've still found in favour of the banks (though given how desperate the banks have been to cover up their costs, I'm pretty sure they know the whole thing is crooked). That law is clear, and the only point of contention was whether £30 was a reasonable amount based on the amount it cost the banks. But now we're hearing that they have won on the grounds that it was a pre-arranged fee for having a bank account? Well that wasn't the point of contention, so I don't see how that can be grounds for a victory. Since when did something being in the terms and conditions mean that it could override the law? And how can we know whether the charges are legal without allowing an investigation. The whole thing smacks of a massive coverup and a legal system that is only interested in the interests of big business.

    I would contend from years of study that no law is clear.

    Here is the introduction to yesterday's judgement:
    The members of the Court are well aware of the limited nature of the issue which we have to decide in this appeal. But many of the general public (who are understandably taking a close interest in the matter) are not so well aware of its limited scope. 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.

    You may find it instructive to read the full judgement.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They should be fucking grateful for having the use of my money

    Slightly off topic pondering:

    Who is having the use of whose money ?
    bring me a penny, that I may see it. 16 And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar's. 17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's

    When you are not allowing others the use of what you think is your money and it is in the palms of your hand take a close look (especially the paper variety) and ask yourself "whose is this image and subscription ?"
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Slightly off topic pondering:

    Who is having the use of whose money ?

    When you are not allowing others the use of what you think is your money and it is in the palms of your hand take a close look (especially the paper variety) and ask yourself "whose is this image and subscription ?"

    Why don't you actually state your point for once? Clearly and concisely, preferably.

    It's like you've learnt what words are, but aren't quite sure how they hang together to make sentences.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why don't you actually state your point for once? Clearly and concisely, preferably.

    It's like you've learnt what words are, but aren't quite sure how they hang together to make sentences.

    Here are some pictures to help you.

    http://letterfromengland.com/1/i/notes.jpg
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Here are some pictures to help you.

    http://letterfromengland.com/1/i/notes.jpg

    That was enlightening. You want me to render unto Darwin the things that are Darwin's? And what does it all have to do with price of fish?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Come back Klintock, all is forgiven! :crazyeyes
Sign In or Register to comment.