ronbobby;

The charges needs to represent an 'actual loss' not be a form of profit, or to povide a way of making banking free for others.

Your statement; 'so the vast amount of people who keep there finances in order will end up paying for the few who break the rules'.

Let me tell you that 'the few' are 'thousands, probably hundreds of thousands'.

Could also be interpreted as ''The minority who are worst off provide free banking for those who can afford to pay'.

Neither of which are acceptable.

It is widely recognised saying that 'nothing in this world is for free, other than death or taxation'

In the current climate it will be a 'brave bank' that starts charging its customers. Any bank that does might see themselves follow Northern Rock.

ronbobby:

Maybe the charges were clear maybe not. But they were supposed to be for a "service" which turned out to be little more than a computer generated letter. The issue is not so much about the principle of charges but whether the amount charged was reflective of the service provided. Clearly not.

To apply your own argument about the vast amount of people paying for the few who break the rules. What exactly is the cost of that behaviour? Peanuts to the banks in interest terms, especially now. Anyway the Government is bankrolling incompetent banking.

i note your points "neverborrowmoney" however i still cannot agree, the charges are clear, if the final outcome decides against the banks then the next step will be banks will start chargeing "every" customer for "standing orders" "direct debits" and (just you watch) every type of "bank account". so the vast amount of people who keep there finances in order will end up paying for the few who break the rules.

Kevin Mountford, head of banking at moneysupermarket.com, said: "This saga looks set to rumble on and while the House of Lords might be feeling sympathetic to banks, it is the man in the street who suffers again.

In reply to this paragraph are the people who have been hit or should I say hammered by bank charges also not a 'man in the street?'

To ronbobby.

I dont think anyone who has suffered charges could reasonably object to a charge. But the charge should represent the cost of re-imbusement for the costs to which someone has been troubled by this failure to pay.

This should not be confined to Banks. It should apply to all. It is obscene to profit so from peoples failure to pay.

I have had thousands of pounds taken from me in Bank charges. But it isnt the first charge that hurts you its the knock on effect of the two charges the next month and four plus after and so on. You cannot get out of the cycle.

I now will not take out any form of borrowing (even if I could), not even a credit card.

I have since had over £30,000 returned to me for charges on a business account.

I have learnt my lesson.

I still would like to see everyone who has had Bank charges refunded with compounded interest.

The banks made this mess- they paid dividends and higher rates of interest to their customers on the returns they speculated on receiving whilst gambling with their customers money.

The banks should pay up now. They could just add it into the rest of their 'toxic debts'.

Good afternoon ronbobby,

Yep in principle I agree HOWEVER I think that whilst some people may see this as an opportunity to get money reclaimed as a result of their own bad financial planning, others thinks that whilst charges are appropriate if explained in plain English at the outset and if you default after doing all you can do not to - perhaps due to circumstances out of their control etc- the actual individual amount charged on a default etc is too high. Just a thought!

Regards,

Paul

the whole saga of bank charges really angers me, firstly i totaly agree bank charges are excessive "but" if one takes on a mortgage, buys a car, uses a credit card, in fact take on any form of commitment there are penalties to pay if you default on the contract, simple, you have to pay. when opening a bank account the charges are "clearly" explained and you accept them when you sign on the dotted line. you have two choices (1) don't open an account (2) abide by the rules. i am sorry but to me this is an open and shut case.

Consumers are another step closer to having bank charges refunded after the High Court threw out an appeal by the banks. The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) now has the green light to decide whether or not charges levied by banks and building societies are fair. If it rules that they aren't, current account providers could be forced to repay billions of pounds...

Click here to read Clare Francis's article 'Are bank charge refunds finally on the way?'

What do you think will happen next? Are you confident the OFT will rule in favour of the consumer? Will this mean an end to free banking?