The Banks Win...:(

[BolshieBastard]

If the courts believe that all relavent evidence has been presented to the court and there are no new circumstances which may tip the case the other way then the appeal will generally be blocked.
Imagine if appeals couldn't be blocked by the courts, there would be no time for new cases!

Of course the decision to block the appeal can be petitioned against if any new evidence was to arise. So now it's up to the OFT to go back and gather fresh evidence to present to the courts to get an appeal.

The process is correctly known as 'refusing leave (permission) to appeal.'

As you suggest, this doesnt mean that no appeal is allowed. It means the person bringing the appeal has to produce new evidence not available at the original hearing or there has been a material change in circumstances.

If conditions such as these are met, the appeal is granted.

It effectively cuts down on neferious appeals of which we have far too many in our legal processes imo.

[east_of_the_sun]

[QUOTE=gingerjedi;1010987]How would it be fair to have it any other way? When you deposit they give you money and when you borrow you pay them, that's how banks work.

/QUOTE]

How is it fair the current way? I go £1 over my overdraft limit which costs the bank, say, 50p to send me a letter and they charge me £35 for it. You have a current account which costs the bank eg £30 to run every year and you pay nothing. Why shouldn't we both pay fees, as it costs the bank money to provide us both with services?

[gingerjedi]

How would it be fair to have it any other way? When you deposit they give you money and when you borrow you pay them, that's how banks work.

How is it fair the current way? I go £1 over my overdraft limit which costs the bank, say, 50p to send me a letter and they charge me £35 for it. You have a current account which costs the bank eg £30 to run every year and you pay nothing. Why shouldn't we both pay fees, as it costs the bank money to provide us both with services?

Don't go over your limit. I'm not earning a lot at the moment and I've been living off my overdraft for the past 18 months yet I've managed to avoid charges for the last 10 years. Take some responsibility for your actions FFS.

[lilelvis2000]

...[snip]...

manage your ******* money and dont expec me to subsidise you!

[snip]
I bet most of them have already spent what they thought they were going to get back from this litigation. Ha, serves them right.

Actually its the other way round, they are subsidising you. And if banking charges were to come round..everyone would pay so nobody would be subsidising anyone.

How could they spend it? rubbish talk...

[east_of_the_sun]

Don't go over your limit. I'm not earning a lot at the moment and I've been living off my overdraft for the past 18 months yet I've managed to avoid charges for the last 10 years. Take some responsibility for your actions FFS.

Yes, like the banks took responsibility for their actions when they came to the taxpayer with the begging bowl

The issue isn't whether people should be charged for using an unauthorised overdraft, the point is whether those charges are fair and they clearly aren't as they bear no relation to the actual work done by the bank. All those who complain that this will result in "normal" accounts being subject to annual fees seem to be suggesting that it's OK for banks to "fine" people for going overdrawn and use that money to subsidise the accounts of customers who don't?

This is just another moneyspinner for the banks IMO.

[lilelvis2000]

Yes, like the banks took responsibility for their actions when they came to the taxpayer with the begging bowl


This is just another moneyspinner for the banks IMO.

Fred the shred hasn't been too hard done by for cocking up RBS What's his annual pension, £400K? Yeah he really took responsibility didn't he? Meanwhile low paid Joe Common gets vilified when his account goes £1 over his limit..mainly due to the timing of his salary vs. bills. The banks are on their own planet -and have been ripping off consumers for decades.

[Dogs left conker]

I have to side with the banks. It was all in the terms and conditions if they bothered to read it. They are just jumping on the martin lewis bandwagon and hoping for a christmas payout.You think people would learn after doing it once never mind getting charged thousands.Daft as brushes the lot of 'em

[Incognito]

Really? I know that for the small stuff, it's automatic - but what happens if you complain in person to the bank - how much does your enquiry cost in manpower alone?

I agree £30 is too much, but it needs to be high enough that there is a penalty and 35p isn't a penalty.

You clearly know nothing about civil law or the arguments put forward by both sides about this case.

The banks state their charges are not designed to be punitive.

[Moscow Mule]

You clearly know nothing about civil law or the arguments put forward by both sides about this case.

The banks state their charges are not designed to be punitive.

Clearly. Seeing as I can manage my financial affairs without resorting to unauthorised overdrafts I don't know (or give a) tulip.

[EternalOptimist]

I have deliberated for seconds on this and there is only one clear conclusion. Anyone with a user name of Dogs Left Conker has got to be right so I'm with him