• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

The Banks Win...:(

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #61
    Originally posted by east_of_the_sun View Post
    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.
    I didn't realise that it was illegal to charge lots for not doing much work. I might need to rethink my business model, before they catch up with me!
    Best Forum Advisor 2014
    Work in the public sector? You can read my FAQ here
    Click here to get 15% off your first year's IPSE membership

    Comment


      #62
      Originally posted by TheFaQQer View Post
      I didn't realise that it was illegal to charge lots for not doing much work. I might need to rethink my business model, before they catch up with me!
      Me too and a few other CUKers I reckon!

      In this case it's because it effectively becomes a penalty charge which is illegal under English contract law

      Comment


        #63
        Originally posted by east_of_the_sun View Post
        In this case it's because it effectively becomes a penalty charge which is illegal under English contract law
        English Consumer Contract Law.

        You can have a penalty clause in a B2B contract.
        Last edited by Moscow Mule; 25 November 2009, 17:57.
        ‎"See, you think I give a tulip. Wrong. In fact, while you talk, I'm thinking; How can I give less of a tulip? That's why I look interested."

        Comment


          #64
          [QUOTE=east_of_the_sun;1011011]
          Originally posted by gingerjedi View Post
          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?
          £35 isnt unfair or unreasonable. The letter has a design cost never mind a production cost.

          Beside, if you take an unauthorised overdraft, you are breaking the T&C's you agreed to when opening the account or signing up to an authorised overdraft.

          Im just listening to the morons whinging on tv about this decision. Stop taking unauthorised OD's and you wont get charged!
          I couldn't give two fornicators! Yes, really!

          Comment


            #65
            Originally posted by east_of_the_sun View Post
            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.
            Well that suits me, I don't see why I should subsidise the feckless when I'm playing by the rules.

            The benefits of purchasing with credit cards are paid for by 'revolvers', are they being unfairly penalised by the people who pay off the balance in full each month?

            BTW I went £3,800 OD last month and was charged £56 interest for the privilege, my worry is that could be £112 if the banks lost the case.
            Science isn't about why, it's about why not. You ask: why is so much of our science dangerous? I say: why not marry safe science if you love it so much. In fact, why not invent a special safety door that won't hit you in the butt on the way out, because you are fired. - Cave Johnson

            Comment


              #66
              Judgement made under English Consumer Contract Law?

              In actual fact according to the judgement handed down, the issue depended "on the correct interpretation (in its European context) and application of Regulation 6(2) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 SI 1999/2083."

              However, we then see that: "The 1999 Regulations were made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 in order to transpose into national law Council Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts."

              The EU has spoken.



              Obey.




              http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/200...g-victory.html

              Comment


                #67
                Originally posted by gingerjedi View Post
                Well that suits me, I don't see why I should subsidise the feckless when I'm playing by the rules.
                How can you subside someone when you don't actually pay anything for the service in the first place.

                Banks lose money on people who 'play by the rules'.

                They recoup this by making disproportionate profits on overdrawn customers. So actually, they are the ones that are subsiding you.

                Comment


                  #68
                  Wah wah wah wah Im feckless and want free money wah wah wah wah

                  Comment


                    #69
                    Originally posted by shoes View Post
                    Wah wah wah wah Im flipless and want free money wah wah wah wah
                    Jane ?? is that you ?
                    (\__/)
                    (>'.'<)
                    ("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to Work

                    Comment


                      #70
                      Originally posted by Jeebo72 View Post
                      Good news. If you are going to go over agreed limits why should the bank pay. We've got a good free banking service here so hopefully we won't lose it now.
                      Well we paid when the banks went into credit.

                      Banking should be run by the government in a non profit way.

                      The high executives at the current banks should be executed.

                      We bail them out and they still rip us off.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X