Reply to: Just In...OFT wins

[KathyWoolfe]

I have no problem with banks making a "fair" charge for their services, be it bank accounts, credit cards, overdrafts etc. What is being (or should be) debated here is what people consider "fair".

I consider a charge of £30+ for going over your overdrdraft by as little as 1p far too excessive and the banks etc should be prevented from just dreaming up a figure they're going to charge and applying it.

Why not link the charges to the base bank lending rate in the same way that loans are (should be), as what the over-limit amount is, is technically a loan?

[Jog On]

I think the fairness/blame culture applies the other way around with the fheckless the ones shouting unfair. You are advocating a system more akin to new Labour's socialism, i.e. those with money should be taxed to pay for those without. The ones being charged 100s were the persistant offenders, you choose to live beyond your means then you suffer the consequences, there have always been solutions for those willing to try. We will have to agree to disagree on this one I'm afraid.

I completely agree that those with money shouldn’t be taxed to pay for those without, I believe the banks should pay for this without passing costs on to the consumer, although we all know they won’t even though they can and still make a healthy profit.

I’m happy to agree to disagree as since those dark days ‘in the hole’ I have passed over to the other side of the fence.

I’ll still claim my charges back though – I’m working the 0% system to pay off all my bad debt ASAP and a nice windfall like that will speed things up somewhat

[Bagpuss]

Typical of the irresponsible lending culture that has resulted in the sub prime fiasco



It's their duty to shackle them into a downward spiral of unmanageable debt they can't get out of any time soon.





Sorry Baggy - they will end up making people like you pay for this so they can maintain their margins. It's not fair I know.

Why can't life just be fair??!!

I think the fairness/blame culture applies the other way around with the fheckless the ones shouting unfair. You are advocating a system more akin to new Labour's socialism, i.e. those with money should be taxed to pay for those without. The ones being charged 100s were the persistant offenders, you choose to live beyond your means then you suffer the consequences, there have always been solutions for those willing to try. We will have to agree to disagree on this one I'm afraid.

[Jog On]

Couldn't agree more, I have been charged by my bank once in 20 years of banking, and due to a good record a quick phone call resulted in it being cancelled. Those claiming 100s of pounds of charges are the same sort of people declaring themselves bancrupt after wasting £1000s on personal loans. Typical of today's society (as also demonstrated by the sub prime fiasco) those with a bit of sense and fortitude are now expected to pay for flipless morons.

Typical of the irresponsible lending culture that has resulted in the sub prime fiasco

Anyone claiming back £100s of charges is a financial moron, that's years of mismanaging your finances. Lots of people scraping by on low incomes don't get hit by these charges. The majority making the claims were irresponsible people who though "oh look free money from those evil banks".
It's not the duty of the banking system to help out those who live beyond their means. The charges don't reflect the cost,that's true, how else are they supposed to run a business, to lose money? This will be the end of free banking, a win win for the daft, they can overdraw and bounce to their hearts content the fees will be less than the charges were, hopefully?!?!?!?!?


End of rant

It's their duty to shackle them into a downward spiral of unmanageable debt they can't get out of any time soon.

I agree but I also think that the banks should not be allowed to make a profit from them either. If you get a charge it is because there are insufficient funds i.e. the person being hit with the charge has no money yet the banks subtracts their amount making them worse off. I have no problem at all with the banks making a charge to cover their costs but I don't agree that they should be able to boost their profits.

As for the loss of free banking - initially this may be the case, but as banks compete for your business they will eventually start to offer it again. Their profits are so big that they can easily afford to continue free banking - especially since the banking is 'free' because of the poor rates of interest they pay on most current accounts.

Sorry Baggy - they will end up making people like you pay for this so they can maintain their margins. It's not fair I know.

Why can't life just be fair??!!

[BoredBloke]

Do you believe others should pay for those who can't manage their finances?

I agree but I also think that the banks should not be allowed to make a profit from them either. If you get a charge it is because there are insufficient funds i.e. the person being hit with the charge has no money yet the banks subtracts their amount making them worse off. I have no problem at all with the banks making a charge to cover their costs but I don't agree that they should be able to boost their profits.

As for the loss of free banking - initially this may be the case, but as banks compete for your business they will eventually start to offer it again. Their profits are so big that they can easily afford to continue free banking - especially since the banking is 'free' because of the poor rates of interest they pay on most current accounts.

[tim123]

Just read it could be dragged out a good few years yet if they decide to appeal:

It's being fast tracked. It should be in in the HoL by the end of the year. It's theoretically possible that if they lose in the Lords, the Banks will appeal to Europe, but their chances of having it accepted there are very slim.

Tim

[Lucy]

Agreed.



Is that a fact?

slave, try to ignore him, he is in a particularly paranoid and accusatory mood for some reason

(kitty litter stuck to his arse I expect)

[oracleslave]

Anyone claiming back £100s of charges is a financial moron, that's years of mismanaging your finances. Lots of people scraping by on low incomes don't get hit by these charges.

Agreed.

The majority making the claims were irresponsible people who though "oh look free money from those evil banks".

Is that a fact?

[tim123]

How can charges be 'unfair' if they have been clearly, mutually agreed in a written contract (which is what an application form is)? .

Because mutually agreeing a clause in a B2C contract does not make it fair.

Consumers are presented with contracts on a take it or leave it basis. If you don't like the terms you have zero chance of renegotiating them. Just go into you local bank and see how far you get!

So, in order to protect consumers from being stung with terms that they would never in a million years have accepted if they had a choice, the law invents this concempt of an unfair term which can be cancelled retrospectively.

tim

[Bagpuss]

I don't. But I also don't believe that everyone that gets into difficulty has "wasted it on personal loans" as you stated and that purely sense and fortitude is a barrier to getting into financial difficulty.

Anyone claiming back £100s of charges is a financial moron, that's years of mismanaging your finances. Lots of people scraping by on low incomes don't get hit by these charges. The majority making the claims were irresponsible people who though "oh look free money from those evil banks".
It's not the duty of the banking system to help out those who live beyond their means. The charges don't reflect the cost,that's true, how else are they supposed to run a business, to lose money? This will be the end of free banking, a win win for the daft, they can overdraw and bounce to their hearts content the fees will be less than the charges were, hopefully?!?!?!?!?


End of rant

[oracleslave]

Do you believe others should pay for those who can't manage their finances?

I don't. But I also don't believe that everyone that gets into difficulty has "wasted it on personal loans" as you stated and that purely sense and fortitude is a barrier to getting into financial difficulty.

[lilelvis2000]

Do you believe others should pay for those who can't manage their finances?

They have been paying for you. whine whine whine.

I hardly expect the banks to charge for basic account anyway...Unless you don't maintain a minimum balance. This will encourage more saving I figure..well, it will encourage me to save, the wife doesn't give a tulip.

[Dow Jones]

End is not nigh

I don't see the end of 'free' banking, 1st one to try and do it will lose 000's of customers (see First Direct) and will backtrack in a matter of days. By all means charge the equivalent of 5-10 Euros/month that some large European banks do, but also lower the other charges to the same (£5-10) and let customers decide ('free' or 'pay-as-you-go'?)

[Bagpuss]

Boo f... hoo. You poor whining victim. Get a grip.

Do you believe others should pay for those who can't manage their finances?

[oracleslave]

Couldn't agree more, I have been charged by my bank once in 20 years of banking, and due to a good record a quick phone call resulted in it being cancelled. Those claiming 100s of pounds of charges are the same sort of people declaring themselves bancrupt after wasting £1000s on personal loans. Typical of today's society (as also demonstrated by the sub prime fiasco) those with a bit of sense and fortitude are now expected to pay for flipless morons.

Boo f... hoo. You poor whining victim. Get a grip.