Reply to: The Banks Win...:(

[Churchill]

Corking piece of judicial muppetry. Still, I suppose if you keep raising the issue up and up the judicial tree it will eventually reach the ones with their heads in the clouds.
Somebody was bound to disagree with common sense eventually, if not how can they possibly justify there being so many different levels of judiciary?
So the Office of Fair Trading are not the people best placed to decide what constitutes Fair Trading? Brilliant!! What are they there for then??
Some individuals handle their money slightly irresponsibly and the Banks can hammer them with punitive fines. The BANKS handle hundreds of billions of pounds of our money irresponsibly, and we get to bail them out.
Only in this country!

Which country are you talking about?

[shaunbhoy]

Corking piece of judicial muppetry. Still, I suppose if you keep raising the issue up and up the judicial tree it will eventually reach the ones with their heads in the clouds.
Somebody was bound to disagree with common sense eventually, if not how can they possibly justify there being so many different levels of judiciary?
So the Office of Fair Trading are not the people best placed to decide what constitutes Fair Trading? Brilliant!! What are they there for then??
Some individuals handle their money slightly irresponsibly and the Banks can hammer them with punitive fines. The BANKS handle hundreds of billions of pounds of our money irresponsibly, and we get to bail them out.
Only in this country!

[gingerjedi]

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.

You either didn't read or misunderstood my post.

I know the people who get charged/fined subsidise people in the black, the person I was arguing with says we should all pay the same bank fees regardless of the balance being in the red or the black.

[Diestl]

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.

[EternalOptimist]

Wah wah wah wah Im flipless and want free money wah wah wah wah

Jane ?? is that you ?

[shoes]

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

[centurian]

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.

[Flashman]

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

[gingerjedi]

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.

[BolshieBastard]

[QUOTE=east_of_the_sun;1011011]

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!

[Moscow Mule]

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.

[east_of_the_sun]

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

[TheFaQQer]

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!

[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

[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.